Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • EPA to repeal Biden-era pollution limits

    Topline:

    The Trump administration announced plans to repeal limits on greenhouse gas emissions and other airborne pollutants from the nation's fossil fuel-fired power plants.

    What it means: The proposal is part of the Environmental Protection Agency's plan, under the Trump administration, to roll back more than two dozen rules and policies. The proposal is likely to face legal challenges, but if it is finalized in its current form, that would eliminate limits on the second-largest source of climate pollution in the U.S., behind transportation.

    The rationale: The EPA argues pollution from U.S. power plants are a small part of global emissions and they're declining. The agency also claims that eliminating climate pollution from power plants would have little effect on people's health.

    The backlash: The EPA announcement brought swift criticism from environmental groups. "These regressive proposals are bad for public health and bad for climate, all to prop up some of the highest polluting power plants in the nation," Shaun Goho, legal director at Clean Air Task Force wrote in a statement.

    Read on ... to learn what would change and what would happen next.

    The Trump administration announced plans to repeal limits on greenhouse gas emissions and other airborne pollutants from the nation's fossil fuel-fired power plants.

    The proposal is part of the Environmental Protection Agency's plan, under the Trump administration, to roll back more than two dozen rules and policies. The proposal is likely to face legal challenges, but if it is finalized in its current form, that would eliminate limits on the second-largest source of climate pollution in the U.S., behind transportation.

    The EPA argues pollution from U.S. power plants are a small part of global emissions and they're declining. The agency also claims that eliminating climate pollution from power plants would have little effect on people's health.

    The proposed rule reads, "The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution."

    In announcing the proposal, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that the Trump administration aims to protect the environment while boosting the economy.

    "Rest assured President Trump is the biggest supporter of clean, beautiful coal," Zeldin said from a wood-paneled room at the agency. "EPA is helping pave the way for American energy dominance because energy development underpins economic development, which in turn strengthens national security."

    The EPA announcement brought swift criticism from environmental groups.

    "These regressive proposals are bad for public health and bad for climate, all to prop up some of the highest polluting power plants in the nation," Shaun Goho, legal director at Clean Air Task Force wrote in a statement.

    This proposal would eliminate rules the EPA finalized during the Biden administration that required existing coal and new natural gas-fired power plants to significantly reduce their carbon dioxide pollution, starting in the 2030s. Carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of global warming.

    The EPA labeled carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses a danger to public health and welfare in 2009. But legal challenges from fossil fuel interests and their allies delayed the finalization of rules to rein in greenhouse gas pollution. Now, the Trump administration also wants to eliminate that 2009 endangerment finding, which could make it easier to roll back other climate regulations.

    What Trump's EPA is doing

    The Trump administration wants to redirect the federal government away from former President Joe Biden's climate agenda and toward an even deeper embrace of fossil fuels.

    "We will drill, baby, drill," Trump said to cheers from supporters at his January inauguration speech. He has started the yearlong process to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which countries agreed to limit climate pollution and avoid the worst effects of global warming. Trump declared a national energy emergency and placed a moratorium on new wind energy projects on federal land and in federal waters.

    Now, the Trump administration argues U.S. power plants are responsible for only about 3% of the global greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. It says that number is declining — it was 5.5% in 2005. So, the administration argues, reducing it further would provide little benefit to public health.

    That ignores that the U.S. is responsible for nearly a quarter of the climate pollution in the atmosphere today, which is more than any other nation, historically. When former President Barack Obama announced rules to cut emissions from power plants in 2015, the goal was to encourage other countries to do the same.

    But the U.S. coal industry opposed the limits on power plant climate pollution from the start. The industry has pushed back against decades of declining demand. In 1990 52% of the country's electricity was generated by burning coal and by 2023 that was down to 15%.

    "We applaud the Trump administration's work to counter the Biden administration's direct assault on coal power," Rich Nolan, National Mining Association president and CEO, wrote in a statement.

    The industry has argued that coal-fired power is needed to meet increasing electricity demand, including for the expansion of data centers for the growing artificial intelligence (AI) industry.

    West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, welcomed the proposal, calling it "a major victory for West Virginia, our energy producers, and every American who depends on reliable, affordable electricity."

    As that coal-producing state's former attorney general, Morrisey led the effort to overturn climate pollution regulations on power plants over the past decade.

    In April Trump signed executive orders to boost the struggling coal industry and power data centers by allowing older coal plants to keep operating, exempting them from federal pollution limits for two years and increasing coal mining on public lands. During his first term Trump tried, and failed, to save individual coal plants as operators switched to more profitable gas-fired power plants.

    "The EPA is hoisting the white flag of surrender on the power plant pollution that's poisoning the air we breathe and harming our climate," Manish Bapna, president and CEO of Natural Resources Defense Council wrote in a statement.

    The Biden administration's power plant rules aimed to get the country closer to the primary goal in the Paris climate accord — to zero out greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 in order to rein in worsening catastrophes driven by climate change, such as more intense heatwaves, floods and fires. The proposed Trump rules would move the U.S. further away from that goal.

    The EPA also proposed to weaken a Biden-era rule that required power plants to limit other pollutants, such as mercury — a neurotoxin that limits brain and nervous system development, especially in infants and children. Coal power plants are the country's largest source of mercury pollution.

    "As Trump and his EPA continue to shovel dirty old coal down our throats, they're now adding more toxic heavy metals like mercury, lead and arsenic to the mix," Ryan Maher, environmental health attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity wrote in an emailed statement. "If these reckless rollbacks are allowed to stand they'll only fan the flames of extreme heat and wildfires, and they'll trigger more child deaths, more cancers, more lung diseases and more heart attacks."

    Power plant pollution rules delayed for more than a decade

    The legal basis for rules to limit climate pollution from power plants started with the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision. It concluded that the EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. That led to the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding that designated greenhouse gas pollution as a threat to human health.

    In 2014 the Obama administration proposed a "Clean Power Plan" aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32%, from 2005 levels, by 2030. That plan faced legal challenges and never went into effect. Still the country met that goal well before 2030, as coal-fired power plants were replaced by natural gas plants that emit less climate pollution and renewable energy.

    In 2019 Trump replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with his Affordable Clean Energy rule, which allowed plants to emit more climate pollution.

    Then Biden came into office in 2021 with the most ambitious plan to address climate change of any major party candidate in U.S. history. The administration set a goal of eliminating climate pollution from the power sector by 2035. Scientists say that's what's needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst effects of climate change. So far, the world's continued fossil fuel use puts it on track to exceed 1.5 Celsius — 2024 was the hottest year ever recorded.

    In 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in again and restricted the EPA's options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources.

    So instead, the EPA created regulations governing individual power plants. The agency and environmental groups believed that would allow the rules to survive scrutiny from a court dominated by conservative justices.

    Instead, the Trump administration is eliminating the regulation altogether. Once the rule is finalized — possibly at the end of this year — it's likely that will also be challenged in court.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Why these tenants are filing a case on their own
    A two-story house in Altadena is seen standing after a fire, but it is covered in soot and trees in the front yard have fallen.
    The Renick's Altadena home was left standing after the Eaton Fire, but it sustained major smoke damage.

    Topline:

    A couple who paid nearly $15,000 in monthly rent while displaced by the Eaton Fire are now taking their landlords to court, alleging they violated state and local bans on price gouging in the wake of a disaster.

    The context: The lawsuit filed Thursday arrives during the same week Los Angeles County is set to end its post-fire rent gouging protections. Over the last 16 months, prosecutors have filed a handful of criminal rent gouging charges. But the couple’s lawyer, Josh Nuni with the People's Law Project, said he’s not aware of any other civil cases filed by private citizens following the Jan. 2025 fires.

    The reaction: Tenant advocates have expressed disappointment over the lack of price gouging prosecution in the wake of the Palisades and Eaton fires. They said tenants are now taking action on their own because governments failed.

    Read on… for more details on the allegations outlined in the lawsuit.

    A couple who paid nearly $15,000 in monthly rent while displaced by the Eaton Fire are now taking their landlords to court, alleging they violated bans on price gouging in the wake of a disaster.

    The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, during the same week the county is set to end its post-fire rent gouging protections.

    Over the last 16 months, state prosecutors have filed a handful of criminal rent-gouging charges. But the couple’s lawyer, Josh Nuni with the People's Law Project, said to his knowledge this is the first civil rent gouging case filed by private citizens following the January 2025 fires.

    “They want to get back the money that was taken from them, and they also want to make sure to send a message to others that this shouldn't be done to other families when they're in times of crisis,” Nuni said.

    How the alleged rent gouging began

    Candy Renick’s home in Altadena was left standing after the Eaton Fire, but it was severely smoke damaged. Until it could be professionally cleaned, it would remain uninhabitable.

    Renick said when she started looking for temporary housing, she quickly realized thousands of other families were competing for the same listings.

    “I started feeling pretty desperate, like I needed to move on something fast,” Renick said.

    Less than two weeks after the fires, Renick and her daughter spotted a new Zillow listing for a three-bedroom home in Glassell Park. She said the landlords were asking for $12,990 per month on a one-year lease.

    When Renick and her husband asked for a shorter, six-month lease, the owners agreed to a higher monthly rent of $14,938.50, she said.

    “I was telling friends what we were paying and everybody was like, ‘Are you kidding? That is crazy,’” Renick recalled. “But we had to do it… We were just kind of desperate to get settled so that we could move on with our lives and move on with fixing our house.”

    A woman with light skin tone stands in front of a two-story home in Altadena, California.
    Candy Renick stands outside her family's home in Altadena.
    (
    David Wagner/LAist
    )

    How rent gouging laws worked 

    Once the Palisades and Eaton fires erupted on Jan. 7, 2025, state and local governments quickly passed emergency declarations that triggered price-gouging bans. These laws made it illegal for landlords to increase rents by more than 10% from pre-fire levels.

    For properties that were not listed for rent before the fires, a different limit applied: Landlords offering furnished properties could not charge more than 165% of the area’s fair market rent, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    For the ZIP code where the Glassell Park property is located, the legal monthly limit for a furnished three-bedroom unit was $5,032.50. The Renicks paid nearly triple that amount.

    A warning letter and a short text exchange

    Shortly after moving in, the Renicks got a letter from the L.A. City Attorney’s Office, according to the lawsuit. It alerted the tenants and the landlord that the listing may have violated post-fire rent gouging bans.

    The letter said if the landlords were violating the law, they should “immediately lower the rental rate” and “refund the tenant the overcharged amount plus 10 percent interest.”

    According to the lawsuit, the Renicks texted a screenshot of this letter to their landlord, Catalina Chow, and she responded: “We did not increase rent due to the state of emergency.”

    Her text went on to say, “I hope this does not apply to me. Thanks for sending anyway!”

    When LAist called Chow to ask about the lawsuit, she picked up but said she was on another call and ended the conversation. LAist was later unable to reach her or Terrence Chow, another defendant named in the complaint.

    LAist also contacted the City Attorney’s Office to ask why it did not pursue the case beyond the warning letter. No one from the office responded.

    Why tenants are taking cases into their own hands

    Tenant advocates have expressed disappointment over what they see as a lack of price gouging prosecution in the wake of the Palisades and Eaton fires.

    By the one-year anniversary of the fires, a group called The Rent Brigade had found more than 18,000 listings that appeared to have broken the law. The group found that few criminal charges were ever filed, and laws that allowed private citizens to file their own cases and gave county departments the ability to fine landlords directly went largely unused.

    Chelsea Kirk, a founding organizer of The Rent Brigade, said tenants like the Renicks are taking action on their own because governments failed.

    “Tenants should never have been put in the position of having to enforce disaster protections themselves,” Kirk said. “After thousands of reports and virtually no meaningful action from the city attorney or county and state agencies, people have realized they can’t rely on government enforcement to protect them from exploitation.”

    What the plaintiffs say they want

    The Renicks returned to their Altadena home in November after it was professionally remediated. The complaint alleges they paid $95,758 more than what should have been legally allowed during their stay at the home in Glassell Park. The lawsuit asks the court to award damages, civil penalties and attorney’s fees.

    Candy Renick said money was not the primary reason she and her husband decided to file the case. Any overpaid rent they manage to recover will largely go back to their insurance company, she said.

    Instead, Renick said, she hopes the lawsuit sends a public message.

    “People should not tolerate being overcharged for rent again, especially when they're in a very difficult situation,” she said. “And landlords need to know they can't take advantage of people in a crisis.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Trump executive order stands for now

    Topline:

    A federal judge has declined to temporarily block President Trump's executive order that calls for restricting voting by mail.

    The ruling: Released Thursday by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee based in Washington, D.C., the ruling leaves in place — at least for now — an executive order on voting that tests the limits of the president's power under the Constitution. A separate, 2025 executive order on voting was halted by courts.
    The backstory: The latest executive order, issued March 31, calls for the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state, and to send those lists to state election officials. It also calls for the U.S. Postal Service — a federal agency that's independent of a president's administration — to come up with lists of eligible voters and to only deliver mail-in ballots to people on those lists.
    What's next: The new court ruling on Trump's order comes out of the three lawsuits filed in federal court in D.C. A decision on a similar request to block provisions of the order may come out of the two Massachusetts-based lawsuits as soon as early June.

    A federal judge has declined to temporarily block President Trump's executive order that calls for restricting voting by mail.

    The ruling released Thursday by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee based in Washington, D.C., leaves in place — at least for now — an executive order on voting that tests the limits of the president's power under the Constitution. A separate, 2025 executive order on voting was halted by courts.

    The latest executive order, issued March 31, calls for the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state, and to send those lists to state election officials. It also calls for the U.S. Postal Service — a federal agency that's independent of a president's administration — to come up with lists of eligible voters and to only deliver mail-in ballots to people on those lists.

    "The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws. Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted," Nichols wrote about the decision not to block the order.

    Nichols' ruling comes as another federal judge is preparing to issue a ruling in the coming weeks for a similar set of lawsuits based in Boston.

    Since Trump signed the order, it's been unclear whether and how it would actually affect mail-in voting, which has been taking place for state primaries in this year's midterm election. In early May, the administration said in a court filing that federal agencies were still deliberating how to carry out the order. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche later told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is working with other agencies to "make sure" the order's goals are implemented.

    Democrats, voting rights groups and almost two dozen states, plus Washington, D.C., have filed five lawsuits challenging the order.

    They argue that Article I of the Constitution gives state legislatures and Congress — not the president — the power to set rules for federal elections. Their lawsuits also contend that Trump's order directs USPS to make rules about election mail that would overstep the mailing agency's authority.

    Trump, who himself voted by mail in Florida in March, has said he issued the order to stop illegal voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which reviews and research have found to be incredibly rare. While there are voters across the partisan divide who rely on mail-in voting, more registered Democrats than Republicans say they voted by mail in the last national election in 2024.

    The new court ruling on Trump's order comes out of the three lawsuits filed in federal court in D.C. A decision on a similar request to block provisions of the order may come out of the two Massachusetts-based lawsuits as soon as early June.

    Edited by Benjamin Swasey
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • New rules around interfering in state elections
    A ballot box with text on its side that reads "Official ballot box" sits on a table next to dozens of "I voted" stickers.
    A ballot box at a vote center at the Mission Valley Library in San Diego on Nov. 5, 2024.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said the new law was just the first in a “mosaic” of legislation to address the “legitimate anxiety” that voters have about the safety and security of California’s elections.

    Why now: Law enforcement officers will be banned from interfering with California elections under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday, just in time for the June 2 primary election.

    What's the new law? The law, which takes effect immediately, criminalizes the act of taking cast ballots from the custody of a local election official, as gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco did earlier this year when he seized more than 600,000 ballots from his own county’s registrar of voters. Although Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.

    The backstory: State lawmakers originally introduced the measure, Senate Bill 73, to guard against potential federal interference with California’s elections, given the Trump administration’s animosity toward the state and the president’s desire to keep Congress in GOP hands.

    Read on... for more on the new law.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    Law enforcement officers will be banned from interfering with California elections under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday, just in time for the June 2 primary election.

    The law, which takes effect immediately, criminalizes the act of taking cast ballots from the custody of a local election official, as gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco did earlier this year when he seized more than 600,000 ballots from his own county’s registrar of voters. Although Bianco claimed he was checking for proof of fraudulent voting, there was no evidence to suggest any ballots were cast improperly.

    “We have to step up, and we have to draw the line. We have to clarify the rules of engagement,” Newsom told reporters before signing the legislation. “It’s a warning to the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

    State lawmakers originally introduced the measure, Senate Bill 73, to guard against potential federal interference with California’s elections, given the Trump administration’s animosity toward the state and the president’s desire to keep Congress in GOP hands.

    But Bianco’s decision to seize ballots turned a hypothetical threat into a real one, spurring legislators to seize the moment and rush the bill through so it could take effect before Election Day.

    The new law makes it illegal for a county registrar to surrender ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement agents such as Bianco or his deputies. Riverside County Registrar Art Tinoco would have violated the law by allowing the sheriff’s department to take the ballots, despite the search warrant they presented.

    “Voters should never wonder whether ballots were improperly handled,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, one of the bill’s Democratic coauthors and a former Santa Cruz County registrar. “And law enforcement powers should never be misused in ways that jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process.”

    The law also reiterates that the attorney general, secretary of state or local county elections officials can sue any person, business or entity that takes “a package containing ballots” from an election official’s custody.

    Election and voting advocates praised the Legislature for responding quickly to what they say was an “unprecedented” act of local law enforcement seizing ballots from an elections office.

    “That never happened anywhere in the country before,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. She added that the Legislature’s decision to push for this law shows voters “they are aware that something unprecedented has taken place.”

    Legislators included safeguards in the law that allow the attorney general and secretary of state in some circumstances to override the authority of a county election official — such as if a registrar permitted armed personnel to stage near polling places.

    Those override privileges are pointed, preemptive maneuvers likely spurred by the threat of a rogue county election official such as Shasta County’s embattled registrar of voters, Clint Curtis. The self-proclaimed “elections integrity advocate” lived in Florida and had no experience administering elections before the county board of supervisors appointed him registrar in 2024.

    Lawmakers are seeking to ensure state officials are “able to override a local effort to undermine the state's rules,” Alexander said. “This is not the first time the state is being responsive to events happening in Shasta County.”

    Curtis has aligned himself with 2020 election deniers, publicly expressed skepticism about voting machines and significantly reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county. He faces several accusations of workplace violence and harassment, including threats to drag staffers out of his office by their hair. Curtis has denied all accusations.

    The new law also prohibits any individual from allowing any law enforcement agent to “access, disrupt, modify or take possession of” any voting technology without a court order.
    Another provision prohibits election observers from challenging voter signatures. Last fall, the U.S. Justice Department, at the request of the California GOP, announced it would send election observers to California for the special election on Proposition 50, which sparked fears that President Donald Trump was meddling in an effort to change the outcome.

    Ballot seizure is just one way outside actors could interfere with California’s elections, Alexander said. Another is the state’s lengthy ballot counting process, which has fueled conspiracy theories and baseless claims that the results should not be trusted.

    Advocates are pushing Newsom to include about $55 million in the state budget for county election offices to buy new equipment and hire more staff to speed up counting.

    Newsom told reporters Wednesday that funding negotiations are “very, very positive” and “we’re going to land on a number very, very shortly.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • Trump's proposal is controversial and costly

    Topline:

    President Donald Trump has called for a temporary waiver of the federal gas tax, which costs drivers 18.4 cents per gallon.

    Why now: It's one of several attempts to relieve pain at the pump as voters grow increasingly frustrated with gasoline prices, which have hit four-year highs thanks to the oil trade disruption triggered by the war with Iran.
    What's next: A national gas tax holiday would require an act of Congress. Lawmakers have floated the idea, with several bills introduced before Trump called for a temporary pause on the tax. Even with the president's backing, it's not clear whether his proposal will make it to the floor for a vote.

    Why it's controversial: Advocates argue they provide quick relief and with critics denounce them as costly and even counterproductive. And keep in mind that state taxes are usually much higher than the federal tax. The amount varies by state — from 9 cents a gallon in Alaska to 70.9 cents in California. On average, states tack on an extra 33.3 cents per gallon.

    President Donald Trump has called for a temporary waiver of the federal gas tax, which costs drivers 18.4 cents per gallon.

    It's one of several attempts to relieve pain at the pump as voters grow increasingly frustrated with gasoline prices, which have hit four-year highs thanks to the oil trade disruption triggered by the war with Iran.

    A national gas tax holiday would require an act of Congress. Lawmakers have floated the idea, with several bills introduced before Trump called for a temporary pause on the tax.

    But even with the president's backing, it's not clear whether his proposal will make it to the floor for a vote. Gas tax holidays are controversial, with advocates arguing they provide quick relief and with critics denouncing them as costly and even counterproductive.

    Here's what you need to know.

    How much would a federal gas tax holiday save? 

    At most, waiving the tax would save drivers 18.4 cents per gallon, or $2.76 on a 15-gallon fill-up. The national average price for a gallon of gasoline is now $4.46, up from around $3 prewar, so the relief would make up for only a fraction of that price spike.

    Loading...

    But there are two reasons that drivers might save even less. First, some of the tax savings might instead go toward refineries and gas stations. That's especially true for a shorter holiday, says Kent Smetters, the faculty director at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which researches the cost of public policies.

    "What we generally think is that over long periods of time, most of the tax cut would go to consumers," he says. "But over shorter periods of time, suppliers — even though it's fairly competitive to sell gas — they still have some market power." And that market power means they could hike their prices a little bit, eating into those tax savings and keeping some of the benefit for themselves.

    Penn Wharton estimates that about 13.2 cents a gallon in savings would actually reach consumers; Adam Hoffer, the director of excise tax policy at the Tax Foundation think tank, estimates it's about 16 cents.

    And second, waiving the gas tax can increase demand for gasoline; that's the natural result of lower prices. That could worsen the supply-demand imbalance that's driving prices up.

    A pause on the federal gas tax alone probably isn't large enough to send demand soaring. But Patrick De Haan, an analyst with the app GasBuddy, told NPR this spring that if states widely suspend their own gas taxes, that could push demand — and prices — back up.

    That's because state taxes are usually much higher than the federal tax. The amount varies by state — from 9 cents a gallon in Alaska to 70.9 cents in California. On average, states tack on an extra 33.3 cents per gallon.

    A handful of states have already cut or paused their gas taxes. Kentucky lopped 10 cents off in May. Georgia completely froze its gas tax in March for two months and has extended its freeze as the conflict with Iran continues.

    The price of a gas tax pause

    While waiving gas taxes may save drivers a bit at the pump, it means less money for keeping roads safe.

    Revenue from the federal gas tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used to pay for interstate construction and repair, as well as to invest in mass transit. Revenue from state gas taxes is often used for local road repairs.

    The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that when Georgia paused its tax for two months, this cost the state about $361 million.

    "Now we're talking real money," Smetters said.

    That's less funding available to the state for repairs. "Anytime you take away a source of funding for highway construction and maintenance, then you're running the risk of the roads getting worse and not better," said Rob Bhatt, an insurance analyst at LendingTree, which recently issued a report about the condition of U.S. roads.

    Drivers feel the pain of poorly maintained roads in very familiar ways: in potholes and dips. Patrick Marshall, a music teacher in New Orleans, wasn't watching close enough one morning and hit a dip that nearly broke a wheel off his 1989 GMC Sierra. The incident cost Marshall $2,500 and resulted in a 10-block walk to work.

    "It's a tough hit to take when it's an unexpected expense," Marshall said.

    (Well, not that unexpected — at least not in a city infamous for rough roads. When Marshall leads his students on brass and drum lines through New Orleans' streets, they know to shout warnings of "Pothole!" loud enough to eclipse the trumpets and French horns.)

    All those pothole-related damages add up: AAA estimated that damage from potholes cost drivers some $26.5 billion in repairs in 2021.

    Overall, this month's LendingTree report, which was based on federal data from 2024, found that 8.9% of the nation's road miles are in poor condition. Rhode Island scored the worst, with 31.5% of road miles rated as poor, with California and Massachusetts coming in second and third at 27.0% and 24.5%, respectively.

    Minnesota stood out as the most improved between 2019 and 2024 — the state reduced the share of road miles rated as poor by more than 60%. But nationally, the report didn't find much improvement at all over that five-year span.

    And even drivers in Rhode Island, the report's lowest-rated state, say potholes are bad everywhere. "I hit a pothole in New York City about a month ago, though that literally took life out of me," said Rhode Island resident Carleen Quattrucci.

    The bigger problem: The gas tax is broken 

    Here's even more bad news: The federal gas tax hasn't collected enough money to fully fund highway construction and repairs for years. And that fundamental problem is only getting worse.

    It wasn't always like this. The gas tax was based on the premise that the people who use highways the most should pay the most for their upkeep. And the more miles a driver puts on their car, the more gasoline or diesel they purchase, so the more tax they pay — no toll booth required.

    From the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, that worked well, says the Tax Foundation's Hoffer.

    "The revenue from gas tax collections was sufficient to cover all federal highway road construction and maintenance expenses," he says. "So the drivers were paying for the roads to be maintained and more roads to be built, when they drove on the roads. It was a terrific system."

    But the last time the gas tax was raised was in 1993. It was 18.4 cents a gallon then; it's 18.4 cents a gallon now.

    Yet since 1993, the cost of road repairs and construction has risen — and the price of gasoline has tripled.

    "It's a weird tax," says Smetters, because it's not pegged to the price of gasoline, so it doesn't rise with inflation.

    Meanwhile, new vehicles have gotten more fuel efficient, and per capita miles driven per year peaked 20 years ago. That means the government collects less and less with the gas tax.

    Now, the tax falls short of the highway fund's needs every year. For 2026, the shortfall is estimated to be $17 billion. Congress has to keep making up the gap with general taxpayer funds.

    Raising the federal tax wouldn't fix the problem for long 

    Hypothetically, the national tax could be increased. After all, many states' gas taxes are set to raise automatically.

    One problem: "Nobody likes gas taxes. Politicians don't like them. Drivers don't like them. Voters don't like them," Hoffer says. "So increasing these taxes is a real political challenge." That's even though higher gas taxes do have benefits. For example, by discouraging driving, they cut down on carbon emissions, which improves air quality and human health. And a well-designed gas tax is a fairer way of paying for highways than drawing from the general tax pool, Hoffer says.

    But there's another problem: Gas taxes make less sense as more drivers choose electric vehicles. EVs use roads and highways, so they add to the wear and tear on infrastructure. But they don't burn gasoline. So as EVs make up a growing share of vehicles, even a significantly higher gas tax would be doomed. It would bring in less money over time, because fewer drivers would pay it.

    Many states have imposed EV registration fees to address this problem; the federal government is also considering adding one. However, because EVs still make up a very small share of vehicles, this doesn't come close to addressing the gas tax shortfall. Also, in many cases the fee for EVs is — or would be — much higher than the typical driver pays in gas taxes, creating an unfair system. Other potential solutions are being debated too. A lobbying group representing major automakers is pushing for a fee that all car owners would pay based on vehicle weight, so trucks would pay more than sedans. Heavier vehicles are harder on roads.

    Some states are experimenting with road-user fees, which drivers pay based on how many miles they drive. In some cases, the programs use odometer readings; in others, they rely on devices or phone apps to measure miles driven. While economists say they're a fairer way to collect revenue — because, like with a gas tax traditionally, the people who use roads the most contribute the most toward their upkeep — those plans can raise privacy concerns, depending on the technology used to track miles driven.

    Smetters, of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, also points to congestion fees and toll lanes as alternative funding mechanisms.

    None of these ideas has yet caught on as a replacement for the federal fuel tax. But one thing is clear: At some point down the road, this tax is going to run out of gas.
    Copyright 2026 NPR