Last Member Drive of 2025!

Your year-end tax-deductible gift powers our local newsroom. Help raise $1 million in essential funding for LAist by December 31.
$683,005 of $1,000,000 goal
A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • How the industry changed in 2025

    Topline:

    The electric vehicle industry has taken a pummeling this year. The Trump administration, as expected, reversed a whole suite of federal policies that promoted or encouraged EVs. But sales spiked in August and September.

    Changes to EV policies: California's ability to require the sale of EVs: gone. Federal rules about emissions and fuel economy — being rewritten. Federal penalties for car companies that sell too many gas guzzlers: zeroed out. The $7,500 federal tax credit? Kaput. Meanwhile, automakers delayed or canceled a host of unprofitable EV plans.

    Sales boost: But during the last weeks that the federal tax credit was available, buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring opportunity. EVs hit an all-time high of 11.6% of the new vehicle market in September. Then sales crashed by 50% in October. And while automakers are slowing their EV plans down significantly, they're not giving up on them, either. The global market for cars that run on gas or diesel is shrinking, while the market for battery-powered cars is expanding — and China is dominating it.

    Read on ... for more on the U.S. and global EV markets.

    The electric vehicle industry has taken a pummeling this year. The Trump administration, as expected, reversed a whole suite of federal policies that promoted or encouraged EVs.

    California's ability to require the sale of EVs: gone. Federal rules about emissions and fuel economy — being rewritten. Federal penalties for car companies that sell too many gas guzzlers: zeroed out. The $7,500 federal tax credit? Kaput.

    Meanwhile, automakers delayed or canceled a host of unprofitable EV plans.

    The all-electric Ram 1500 REV was canceled before a single one was built. The all-electric Ford Lightning was discontinued despite some glowing reviews. (Both pickups will be replaced with extended-range electric vehicles, which come with both a big battery and a backup gas tank.)

    The buzzy Volkswagen Buzz is still available in other countries, but no longer in the U.S. The GM Brightdrop van is no more. The list goes on.

    As for sales? "It's a roller-coaster ride," says Stephanie Valdez Streaty, who monitors EVs for the data and services company Cox Automotive.

    Sales spiked in August and September, during the last weeks that the federal tax credit was available, as buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring opportunity. Cox estimated EVs hit an all-time high of 11.6% of the new vehicle market in September. Then sales crashed by 50% in October.

    But here's a twist.

    "Among U.S. shoppers who are in [the] market for new vehicles, the interest in electric vehicles actually ticked up a bit after the tax credit went away," says Brent Gruber, who runs the EV practice at consumer insights company J.D. Power.

    It's the EV story you might not have heard this year: Despite the political and product planning whiplash, consumer appetite for EVs has been on a very smooth ride.

    Overall, about 25% of new car shoppers are very interested in buying an EV, according to J.D. Power surveys. And with minor fluctuations, "it's held pretty consistent," Gruber says, despite what he calls the "turbulence" of this year.

    "There's still a tremendous amount of interest," he says. "And from an EV owner perspective, we continue to see high levels of satisfaction once people do get into those products." In fact, EV owners are 94% likely to repurchase another EV for their next vehicle, he says.

    BJ Birtwell runs the Electrify Expo, a traveling festival dedicated to EVs. He says EVs have suffered from being politicized, with a lot of right-of-center Americans rejecting them out of hand.

    "There's still a cloud of skepticism around EVs across some parts of the country," he says. But put a skeptic behind the wheel of a new EV, he says, "and I'll tell you what I see: Smiles for miles." Test drives reveal the cars are fun to drive, he says, and a little research can show that charging at home is easier and cheaper than they thought.

    An American slowdown 

    Still, while Americans remain interested in EVs, it's undeniable that battery-powered vehicles are taking off more slowly than industry execs expected a few years ago. That's not just because of the policy reversal; it's also because of market realities. For example, while charging might be easy at home, it's a hassle for apartment dwellers who don't have that option. Meanwhile, vehicle prices — a challenge for the entire auto market — are even higher for EVs. Lower fuel and maintenance costs can't always overcome that up-front sticker shock, even for people who are hypothetically interested in buying.

    This slowdown will have global consequences for the environment and for human beings: It locks in higher carbon emissions and air pollution for years to come.

    The legacy automakers, of course, have lost billions of dollars on the EV designs they've canceled or postponed. But the delay hurts more than just the big-name auto brands. A whole network of suppliers sell parts to the automakers, and they also bear the burden when plans change.

    Ken O'Trakoun of RPM Partners works with auto suppliers in distress. "The whiplash," he says, "between demand going up and demand receding, it has impacted a number of suppliers." They made investments in factories to supply automakers for vehicles that either aren't being made, or are being made at much lower volumes. "It's pretty disruptive."

    The "ripple effect" from those suppliers "creates impacts on jobs," Valdez-Streaty notes.

    Automakers, too, have laid off or reassigned employees away from battery plants and EV production lines as part of their adjusted timelines.

    A clear global trend 

    But while automakers are slowing their EV plans down significantly, they're not giving up on them, either.

    Partly that's because of the enduring consumer interest; as long as there's a market, the automakers want to serve it. And partly that's because the automakers are all global companies. They want to be able to sell to the rest of the world, too.

    "On a global scale, internal combustion engine cars already peaked back, like, eight or nine years ago," says Huiling Zhou, U.S. EV analyst for the research group BloombergNEF.

    About one in four cars sold worldwide this year was electric, Zhou says — driven by China's remarkably fast embrace of those vehicles. And China, increasingly, is exporting cars around the world.

    That means that the global market for cars that run on gas or diesel is shrinking, while the market for battery-powered cars is expanding — and China is dominating it.

    If automakers want to compete around the world, they simply can't afford to get off the EV roller coaster.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Steps to mitigate disturbing chatbot interactions

    Topline:

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    Why it matters: Generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    Be aware of the risks: A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    Read on... for more tips from experts.

    It wasn't until a couple of years ago that Keri Rodrigues began to worry about how her kids might be using chatbots. She learned her youngest son was interacting with the chatbot in his Bible app — he was asking it some deep moral questions, about sin for instance.

    That's the kind of conversation that she had hoped her son would have with her and not a computer. "Not everything in life is black and white," she says. "There are grays. And it's my job as his mom to help him navigate that and walk through it, right?"

    Rodrigues has also been hearing from parents across the country who are concerned about AI chatbots' influence on their children. She is the president of the National Parents Union, which advocates for children and families. Many parents, she says, are watching chatbots claim to be their kids' best friends, encouraging children to tell them everything.

    Psychologists and online safety advocates say parents are right to be worried. Extended chatbot interactions may affect kids' social development and mental health, they say. And the technology is changing so fast that few safeguards are in place.

    The impacts can be serious. According to their parents' testimonies at a recent Senate hearing, two teens died by suicide after prolonged interactions with chatbots that encouraged their suicide plans.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

    But generative AI chatbots are a growing part of life for American teens. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adolescents are using chatbots, with 3 in 10 saying they use them daily.

    "It's a very new technology," says Dr. Jason Nagata, a pediatrician and researcher of adolescent digital media use at the University of California San Francisco. "It's ever-changing and there's not really best practices for youth yet. So, I think there are more opportunities now for risks because we're still kind of guinea pigs in the whole process."


    And teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, he adds, because adolescence is a time of rapid brain development, which is shaped by experiences. "It is a period when teens are more vulnerable to lots of different exposures, whether it's peers or computers."

    But parents can minimize those risks, say pediatricians and psychologists. Here are some ways to help teens navigate the technology safely.

    1. Be aware of the risks

    A new report from the online safety company, Aura, shows that 42% of adolescents using AI chatbots use them for companionship. Aura gathered data from the daily device use of 3,000 teens as well as surveys of families.

    That includes some disturbing conversations involving violence and sex, says psychologist Scott Kollins, chief medical officer at Aura, who leads the company's research on teen interactions with generative AI.

    "It is role play that is [an] interaction about harming somebody else, physically hurting them, torturing them," he says.

    He says it's normal for kids to be curious about sex, but learning about sexual interactions from a chatbot instead of a trusted adult is problematic.

    And chatbots are designed to agree with users, says pediatrician Nagata. So if your child starts a query about sex or violence, "the default of the AI is to engage with it and to reinforce it."

    He says spending a lot of time with chatbots — having extended conversations — also prevents teenagers from learning important social skills, like empathy, reading body language and negotiating differences.

    "When you're only or exclusively interacting with computers who are agreeing with you, then you don't get to develop those skills," he says.

    And there are mental health risks. According to a recent study by researchers at the nonprofit research organization RAND, Harvard and Brown universities, 1 in 8 adolescents and young adults use chatbots for mental health advice.

    But there have been numerous reports of individuals experiencing delusions, or what's being referred to as AI psychosis, after prolonged interactions with chatbots. This, as well as the concern over risks of suicide, has led psychologists to warn that AI chatbots pose serious risks to the mental health and safety of teens as well as vulnerable adults.

    "We see that when people interact with [chatbots] over long periods of time, that things start to degrade, that the chatbots do things that they're not intended to do," says psychologist Ursula Whiteside, CEO of a mental health nonprofit called Now Matters Now. For example, she says, chatbots "give advice about lethal means, things that it's not supposed to do but does happen over time with repeated queries."

    2. Stay engaged with kids' online lives 

    Keep an open dialogue going with your child, says Nagata.

    "Parents don't need to be AI experts," he says. "They just need to be curious about their children's lives and ask them about what kind of technology they're using and why."

    And have those conversations early and often, says psychologist Kollins of Aura.

    "We need to have frequent and candid but nonjudgmental conversations with our kids about what this content looks like," says Kollins, who's also a father to two teenagers. "And we're going to have to continue to do that."

    He often asks his teens about what platforms they are on. When he hears about new chatbots through his own research at Aura, he also asks his kids if they have heard of those or used them.

    "Don't blame the child for expressing or taking advantage of something that's out there to satisfy their natural curiosity and exploration," he says.

    And make sure to keep the conversations open-ended, says Nagata: "I do think that that allows for your teenager or child to open up about problems that they've encountered."

    3. Develop digital literacy 

    It's also important to talk to kids about the benefits and pitfalls of generative AI. And if parents don't understand all the risks and benefits, parents and kids can research that together, suggests psychologist Jacqueline Nesi at Brown University, who was involved in the American Psychological Association's recent health advisory on AI and adolescent health.

    "A certain amount of digital literacy and literacy does need to happen at home," she says.

    It's important for parents and teens to understand that while chatbots can help with research, they also make errors, says Nagata. And it is important for users to be skeptical and fact-check.

    "Part of this education process for children is to help them to understand that this is not the final say," explains Nagata. "You yourself can process this information and try to assess, what's real or not. And if you're not sure, then try to verify with other people or other sources."

    4. Parental controls only work if kids set up their own accounts

    If a child is using AI chatbots, it may be better for them to set up their own account on the platforms, says Nesi, instead of using chatbots anonymously.

    "Many of the more popular platforms now have parental controls in place," she says. "But in order for those parental controls to be in effect, a child does need to have their own account."

    But be aware, there are dozens of different AI chatbots that kids could be using. "We identified 88 different AI platforms that kids were interacting with," says Kollins.

    This underscores the importance of having an open dialogue with your child to stay aware of what they're using.

    5. Set time limits

    Nagata also advises setting boundaries around when kids use digital technology, especially at nighttime.

    "One potential aspect of generative AI that can also lead to mental health and physical health impacts are [when] kids are chatting all night long and it's really disrupting their sleep," says Nagata. "Because they're very personalized conversations, they're very engaging. Kids are more likely to continue to engage and have more and more use."

    And if a child is veering toward overuse and misuse of generative AI, Nagata recommends that parents set time limits or limit certain kinds of content on chatbots.

    6. Seek help for more vulnerable teens 

    Kids who are already struggling with their mental health or social skills are more likely to be vulnerable to the risks of chatbots, says Nesi.

    "So if they're already lonely, if they're already isolated, then I think there's a bigger risk that maybe a chatbot could then exacerbate those issues," she says.

    And it's also important to keep an eye on potential warning signs of poor mental health, she notes.

    Those warning signs involve sudden and persistent changes in mood, isolation or changes in how engaged they are at school.

    "Parents should be as much as possible trying to pay attention to the whole picture of the child," says Nesi. "How are they doing in school? How are they doing with friends? How are they doing at home if they are starting to withdraw?"

    If a teen is withdrawing from friends and family and restricting their social interactions to just the chatbot, that too is a warning sign, she says. "Are they going to the chatbot instead of a friend or instead of a therapist or instead of responsible adults about serious issues?

    Also look for signs of dependence or addiction to a chatbot, she adds. "Are they having difficulty controlling how much they are using a chatbot? Like, is it starting to feel like it's controlling them? They kind of can't stop," she says.

    And if they see those signs, parents should reach out to a professional for help, says Nesi.

    "Speaking to a child's pediatrician is always a good first step," she says. "But in most cases, getting a mental health professional involved is probably going to make sense."

    7. The government has a role to play

    But, she acknowledges that the job of keeping children and teens safe from this technology shouldn't just fall upon parents.

    "There's a responsibility, you know, from lawmakers, from the companies themselves to make these products safe for teens."

    Lawmakers in Congress recently introduced bipartisan legislation to ban tech companies from offering companion apps for minors and to hold companies accountable for making available to minors companion apps that produce or solicit sexual content.

    If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or be in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Sponsored message
  • 10 bills that sparked hours of debate this year
    A top view looking down of three people talking among each other next to a wooden staircase with carpet. Each floor shows two different tile patterns.
    People chat together at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Sept. 12, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters

    Topline:

    California lawmakers spend just a few minutes discussing in public the hundreds of bills they introduce. But these 10 measures had hours of intense debate in 2025.

    Why it matters: A handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.

    The backstory: Those long hours are not the norm, compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.

    Read on ... for details about the 10 bills generating debate.

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

    Most bills in the California Legislature are barely talked about in public before lawmakers take action, often after secret negotiations with lobbyists.

    But a handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.

    That’s compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.

    These were the 10 most debated bills of the 2025 regular legislative session, according to Digital Democracy.

    (Note: Advocacy groups listed below may have changed their positions as the bills were amended.)

    Divide over antisemitism bill

    Bill: Assembly Bill 715

    Lead author: Democratic assemblymembers Dawn Addis of San Luis Obispo and Rick Zbur of Los Angeles.

    Time discussed: 15 hours

    Approximate number of speakers: 486

    Why it was a talker: California’s Jewish lawmakers made countering antisemitism in schools their top priority this year, but opposing the bill was a coalition of education groups, unions, civil rights advocates and Muslim community organizations who feared censorship of pro-Palestinian voices and infringement on academic freedom. The groups turned out in droves to testify.

    Number of groups in support: At least 68, including the Jewish Community Action, the Los Angeles County Business Federation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 92, including the California Federation of Teachers, the California Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the California School Boards Association.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Local governments balk at transit-oriented housing

    Bill: Senate Bill 79

    Lead author: Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco

    Time discussed: 6 hours, 40 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 198

    Why it was a talker: Local governments balked at a new state mandate allowing developers to build midrise apartment buildings within walking distance of many major train, light-rail, subway and high-frequency rapid bus stations — even if local zoning restrictions would otherwise ban such dense development.

    Number of groups in support: At least 49, including pro home-building groups and the California Apartment Association.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 76, including, at one point, the building trades unions, the California Association of Realtors and dozens of municipalities.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Charter schools oppose new restrictions

    Bill: Assembly Bill 84

    Lead authors: Democratic assemblymembers Robert Garcia of Rancho Cucamonga and Al Muratsuchi of Torrance.

    Time discussed: 6 hours, 32 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 491

    Why it was a talker: This was the latest legislative effort by California’s powerful teachers unions and their allies to add restrictions and oversight to charter schools. Homeschool families and charter schools opposed the measure, introduced in response to high-profile charter school fraud scandals, saying it would strip millions of dollars in state funding from their programs. The bill added auditing requirements and new fees as well as a proposed new Office of Inspector General inside the Department of Education.

    Number of groups in support: At least six, almost all influential unions.

    Number of groups opposed: More than 200, many of them charter schools or home school groups.

    Status: Failed in the Senate.

    Uproar over teen sexual solicitation

    Bill: Assembly Bill 379

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen of Elk Grove

    Time discussed: 5 hours, 28 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 149

    Why it was a talker: This bill, originally written by Democratic Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, a former state prosecutor, sought to increase penalties for soliciting teen sex. But the legislation sparked difficult discussions between progressive and moderate members of the Democratic caucus about how hard to crack down on those accused of soliciting sex from minors, based on whether the victims were younger or older teenagers.

    Number of groups in support: At least 48, including law enforcement unions and some Native American tribes.  

    Number of groups opposed: At least 25, including ACLU and various advocates for progressive criminal justice reforms.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Lots to say about ICE agent masks

    Masked border patrol agents walk down a sidewalk, some holding rifles.
    U.S. Border Patrol agents march to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Newsom was holding a redistricting press conference in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025.
    (
    Carlin Stiehl
    /
    Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
    )

    Bill: Senate Bill 627 

    Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Jessie Arreguín of Berkeley and three other senators

    Time discussed: 5 hours

    Approximate number of speakers: 100

    Why it was a talker: Members of California’s Democratic legislative supermajority aren’t shy about speaking their minds on President Donald Trump and his controversial immigration policies, so it’s no surprise that there was a lot of discussion over California’s first-in-the nation measure to prohibit federal immigration officers and local police from wearing masks in California.

    Number of groups in support: At least 45, including non-police unions, public defenders, the ACLU and immigrant rights groups.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 16, almost all of them police unions.

    Status: Signed into law

    Democrats pitch gerrymander to counter Texas

    Bill: Assembly Bill 604

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Davis and Sen. Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 58 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 76

    Why it was a talker: There were plenty of heated discussions after California Democrats put forward their own gerrymandering plan after Trump pressured Texas to change its congressional maps to make new Republican districts.

    Number of groups in support: At least 54, including labor unions and progressive groups.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 19, including California Common Cause, Govern for California and conservative groups.

    Status: Signed into law, approved by voters

    California Governor Gavin Newsom, a man with light skin tone wearing a white buttoned down shirt, speaks into a microphone in front of a large American flag designed background with text that reads "Yes on 50."
    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally in support of a “Yes” vote on Proposition 50, a congressional redistricting measure in the Nov. 4th special election, at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles on Nov. 1, 2025.
    (
    David Swanson
    /
    Reuters
    )

    Energy bill gets lengthy debate

    Bill: Senate Bill 254

    Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park and two other lawmakers

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 55 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 119

    Why it was a talker: This energy bill created a new public financing system for electric transmission projects and extended a controversial program that shields utilities from some wildfire liability costs, but critics warned it could ultimately drive consumer bills higher. It was part of a package of energy and climate measures the Legislature passed this year.

    Number of groups in support: At least 55, including trades unions, the California Democratic Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups and the California Municipal Utilities Association.

    Number of groups opposed: At least seven, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Fees for veterans’ benefits draws testimony

    Bill: Senate Bill 694

    Lead author: Democratic Sens. Bob Archuleta of Norwalk and Sabrina Cervantes of Riverside

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 39 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 99

    Why it was a talker: For years, veterans advocates have wanted a state law preventing companies from charging exorbitant fees to help veterans file federal disability benefits claims, something they can do for free through the government and certain veterans’ organizations. But the Legislature has repeatedly balked, as companies claim they provide an important service to help veterans get the benefits they need.

    Number of groups in support: At least 25, including the California State Association of Counties and the American Legion.

    Number of groups opposed: At least nine, including Veterans Guardian, one of the companies that files claims.

    Status: The bill did not pass the Senate, although lawmakers announced they had a deal on the legislation and would vote on it in January.

    Should AT&T opt out of landlines?

    Bill: Assembly Bill 470

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor of Inglewood

    Time discussed: 4 hours, 13 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 209

    Why it was a talker: AT&T has spent millions in lobbying as it tried unsuccessfully to bow out of its legal requirement to provide copper landlines in much of the state. Rural communities and others pushed back, leading to some of the lengthiest discussions in the Legislature this year.

    Number of groups in support: At least 145, including AT&T, some tribes and other groups aligned with the telecommunications company.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 96, including rural counties, some unions and AARP.

    Status: Failed in the Senate

    Banning junk food at schools causes a stir

    Bill: Assembly Bill 1264

    Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel of Encino

    Time discussed: 3 hours, 49 minutes

    Approximate number of speakers: 103

    Why it was a talker: There were lots of strong opinions over this bill to ban schools from serving harmful “ultraprocessed foods” to students.

    Number of groups in support: At least 59, including nurses and school unions, the California Medical Association and some school districts.

    Number of groups opposed: At least 46, including agricultural associations, the American Beverage Association and other business trade groups.

    Status: Signed into law.

    Digital Democracy’s Foaad Khosmood, Forbes professor of computer engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Digital Democracy’s Thomas Gerrity contributed to this story.

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

  • Climate change accelerates affordability crisis
    People are pictured from behind, standing in line at a food truck that has a pink donut painted on its side. In the foreground of the photo is a green and white truck with the words "humanitarian food aid" painted on its door.
    Community members wait in line for free food next to World Central Kitchen's new Rapid Response Mobile Kitchen truck stationed outside the Eaton Fire burn zone March 14 in Altadena.

    Topline:

    While California’s emissions have declined, they have kept rising globally, and the climate has worsened. Now, in an effort to build back momentum, advocates are bringing attention to current-day harms driven by climate change. Among those affected by rising temperatures is Amanda Nevarez, who was left homeless by the Eaton Fire in Altadena.

    Global warming and displacement: The Eaton fire had several causes, including an unusual lack of rain, a condition blamed on climate change. Using weather data collected since 1950, scientists ran simulations showing the conditions that dried out the foothills were 35% more likely because of global warming. The fire accelerated the decade-long displacement of tenants like Nevarez from Altadena due to rising housing costs.

    Affordability and the climate crisis: “You can’t solve the affordability crisis without solving the climate crisis,” said Noel Perry, the founder of Next10, which co-produced a report with UC Berkeley that identified the costs of global warming in everything from homelessness and rent to energy bills and groceries. Rising temperatures, the clearest impact of climate change, are driving up home energy costs. Los Angeles DWP Chief Financial Officer Ann Santilli told NBC Los Angeles that bills “are very much driven by the weather.” Among the state’s most energy burdened communities is Arleta in the San Fernando Valley. Residents of Arleta spend 6% of their monthly income on power and gas, impacting woman-led households the most, according to research by the Gender Equity Policy Institute.

    When California adopted a law to regulate greenhouse gases 23 years ago — the first state in the nation to do so — it focused on the future dangers of global warming. But while California’s emissions have declined, they have kept rising globally, and the climate has worsened. Now, in an effort to build back momentum, advocates are bringing attention to current-day harms driven by climate change.

    Among those affected by rising temperatures is Amanda Nevarez, who was left homeless by the Eaton Fire, one of two wildfires in Los Angeles County that together destroyed more than 16,000 homes and buildings and killed 31 people last January.

    Nevarez now sleeps in a trailer just big enough for a bed, parked at a garage in South Los Angeles, where her friend transforms old cars into electric vehicles. The fire accelerated the decade-long displacement of tenants like her from Altadena due to rising housing costs.

    The blaze had several causes, including an unusual lack of rain, a condition blamed on climate change. Using weather data collected since 1950, scientists ran simulations showing the conditions that dried out the foothills were 35% more likely because of global warming.

    Nevarez’s life in the tight-knit community was upended after smoke left her rented home uninhabitable. The movie director has relocated more than a dozen times, burned through two cars and had to give up nearly all her possessions. Available work in the film industry has been nearly nonexistent, while local rents remain stubbornly high.

    “I’ve always had to adapt,” Nevarez said, recounting challenges like the Hollywood writers’ strike in 2023. Reduced government assistance for food made her life harder. “It’s just a chain reaction of things piling up.”

    Her experience shows how climate change is worsening California’s suffocating living costs, a reality frequently glossed over in politics today.

    A woman wearing a black cardigan and black shirt underneath, black eyeglasses and a purple and black tie-dyed headband. Behind her are rusted bicycles and various furniture.
    Amanda Nevarez.
    (
    Aaron Cantú
    /
    Capital & Main
    )

    Democrats, who hold a supermajority in California, no longer trumpet policies to fight climate change, an analysis by the Washington Post found. While research shows most Americans are concerned about climate change, a December poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found only 4% of surveyed likely voters said the environment and climate change were the “most important problem” facing the U.S. Elected state officials and those seeking office are emphasizing pocketbook concerns.

    Yet there’s a different way to view the issue than as a choice between tackling high prices or fighting climate change.

    “You can’t solve the affordability crisis without solving the climate crisis,” said Noel Perry, the founder of Next10, which co-produced a report with UC Berkeley that identified the costs of global warming in everything from homelessness and rent to energy bills and groceries. He and other climate campaigners are trying to recalibrate their messaging to that political reality.

    It’s true that California’s policies to discourage fossil fuel use add to costs. Power bills and gasoline are more expensive here than elsewhere in the country, which the state compounds by taxing to pay for grid upgrades in order to wean itself off oil and gas. Oil refineries and power utilities pass those costs on to consumers, widening income inequality, the state has said.

    But climate pain is now a fact for many, added to the long list of other crises people face — inflation, mass deportations, housing prices and a frayed government safety net.

    Heat, Drought and Floods

    Rising temperatures, the clearest impact of climate change, are driving up home energy costs.

    California faced its hottest summer on record last year, when Los Angeles broiled in summertime heat exceeding 110°F. Each additional day above 95°F increased the chance that the power to low-income households would be disconnected, as energy bills inch up an additional $20 to $30 a month, according to a 2022 UCLA study. Los Angeles DWP Chief Financial Officer Ann Santilli told NBC Los Angeles that bills “are very much driven by the weather.”

    Among the state’s most energy burdened communities is a heavily Latino enclave in the San Fernando Valley, an area often exposed to the hottest temperatures in Los Angeles County. Residents of Arleta spend 6% of their monthly income on power and gas, impacting woman-led households the most, according to research by the Gender Equity Policy Institute.

    Sitting among roughly 150 people gathered on a dusty church lot waiting to enter a food pantry in Arleta, a woman named Maria, who gave only her first name as she rushed inside, lamented high living costs and a lack of jobs. “There are rich people who live well, but the poor are now in a very bad state,” she said. A former assembly line worker for an aerospace company, she said she and her adult children now pool together their meager incomes.

    Inside the small wood-paneled building, visitors shuffled past a mound of bread piled on a table and trays with potatoes and fruit stacked high. A lanky youth offered a warm smile and wildly varied surplus foods, from lasanga noodles to pickle mayonnaise, while early arrivals scored half cartons of eggs placed carefully in their bags. Lately, more people have started showing up at the pantry, a volunteer said.

    Poverty surged when the U.S. did not renew pandemic relief efforts such as unemployment and rent assistance. Driven by high living costs, California has a higher share of residents living in poverty than any state except Louisiana. At the same time, a typical $100 grocery bill in 2019 now costs $130 in the state, partially a result of crop disruptions caused by drought and heat in Florida, California and elsewhere.

    The squeeze is tighter for workers lacking permanent legal status, who aren’t eligible for federal public benefits programs and risk being detained when they leave home for work. “I think they’re going to evict us because we can’t afford the rent anymore,” said pantry visitor Guadalupe Salazar, a home health care aide whose husband stopped working as a gardener for fear of being swept up in the federal immigration raids.

    Other research shows people hit hard by drought and floods. One study found that during a severe drought in 2015, the poorest residents of Glendale in Los Angeles County, with households earning less than $10,000 a year, spent 6.5% of their income for water, compared to 1.5% for households earning the median income of $52,451.

    Further north, in the San Joaquin Valley farmworker town of Planada, where many residents lack permanent legal status, heavy flooding in 2023 left almost a quarter of the residents behind on bills and rent.

    After the Flames

    Los Angeles fires ranked as the world’s costliest disaster zone in the first six months of 2025 — far worse than Myanmar, where there was a big earthquake, or Brazil, where there was a severe drought. But since 2017 wildfires have frequently caused tens of billions of dollars in property damage, lost wages and health care costs each year.

    The fires also drive up power bills. Ratepayers of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric saw a rise of between $12.97 and $24.42 for a “Wildfire Fund” surcharge. The fund is raising $21 billion to pay out claims to victims of fires sparked by power lines. A new law increases it by an additional $18 billion through 2045, half from ratepayers and the rest from shareholders. Home insurance premiums, too, are shooting up due to rising fire damage.

    For now, paying rent and power bills aren’t things that Nevarez needs to worry about. Instead she worries about mold — cleaning it and breathing it from the walls of her trailer. Most of it is now gone, but a damp smell lingers. She runs an air purifier at night.

    To use the bathroom, she has to enter the garage, stepping past a yellow Ferrari spilling its wiry guts. The owner of Left Coast EV, Rev. Gregory “Gadget” Abbott, is preparing to install a salvaged battery pack and motor in place of the powertrain engine. The two friends met at the annual Burning Man festival. They enjoy each other’s company, sometimes cooking communal dinners with roommates using vegetables from a rooftop garden.

    A man and woman stand chatting in a workshop filled with various industrial items
    Nevarez, right, chats with Rev. Gregory “Gadget” Abbott at Left Coast EV.
    (
    Aaron Cantú
    /
    Capital & Main
    )

    “I’m trying my hardest to lay out tracks in front of me to go forward,” said Nevarez, who said she feels like she’s fallen through the cracks. But with help from Abbott, she can work on film projects without the daily grind of just trying to survive. “If it wasn’t for him, I don’t know where I’d be today.”

    Amid converging affordability crises, some advocates are looking to energy and insurance companies to foot a big chunk of the climate bill.

    Climate groups want to compel oil and gas companies, whose products heat the planet, to deliver reparations, including cash payments for those who’ve suffered from climate change. Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that fights for consumer rights, sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom urging the state to pull wildfire compensation dollars from utility shareholders instead of ratepayers and force insurers to expand fire coverage.

    But it’s an uphill climb. Legislation known as the Climate Superfund Act, a potential first step for making polluters pay for climate damage, stalled in Sacramento last summer before being shelved. While politicians, including some Democrats, take a step back, global temperatures continue to rise, upending lives in ways that continue to multiply.

    Copyright 2025 Capital & Main

  • US investment in minerals grew in 2025
    A man with white hair holds up his right hand as he speaks into a nicrophone
    President Donald Trump speaks during a Mexican Border Defense Medal presentation in the Oval Office of the White House.

    Topline:

    President Donald Trump spent most of 2025 hacking away at large parts of the federal government. One tiny corner of regulation, however, has actually grown under Trump: the critical minerals list.

    What are critical minerals?: The concept dates back to the first half of the 20th century, especially World War II, when Congress passed legislation aimed at stockpiling materials vital to the United States’ well being. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey quietly expanded the list from 50 to 60 items, adding copper, silver, uranium, and even metallurgical coal to the list. President Donald Trump established the critical minerals list in 2018, with the defining criteria being that any mineral included be “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and have a supply chain that is “vulnerable to disruption.” A mineral’s presence on the list can convey a slew of benefits to anyone trying to extract or produce that mineral in the U.S., including faster permitting for extraction, tax incentives, or federal funding.

    The backstory: In March, Trump signed an executive order meant to jumpstart critical mineral production. That was just the first step in a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to strengthen U.S. control over existing supply chains for copper, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and dozens of other critical minerals and to galvanize new mines. The Trump administration has sought to accomplish these goals by both reducing the regulatory barriers to production and by investing in the companies poised to do it.

    Critical minerals and the military: It must also be stressed that the Trump administration’s rapid push to shore up the U.S.’s control over critical minerals isn’t about transitioning the country away from fossil fuels. Instead, the whole effort seems to mostly be geared toward military uses. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” allocated $7.5 billion for critical minerals, $2 billion of which will go directly to the national defense stockpile. Another $5 billion was allocated for the department of defense to invest in critical mineral supply chains.

    President Donald Trump spent most of 2025 hacking away at large parts of the federal government. His administration fired, bought out, or otherwise ousted hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Entire agencies were gutted. By so many metrics, this year in politics has been defined more by what has been cut away than by what’s been added on.

    One tiny corner of regulation, however, has actually grown under Trump: the critical minerals list. Most people likely hadn’t heard of “critical minerals” until early this year when the president repeatedly inserted the phrase into his statements, turning the once obscure policy realm into a household phrase. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey quietly expanded the list from 50 to 60 items, adding copper, silver, uranium, and even metallurgical coal to the list. On Monday, South Korean metal processor Korea Zinc announced that the federal government is investing in a new $7.4 billion zinc refinery in Tennessee, in which the Department of Defense will hold a stake.

    But what even is a critical mineral?

    The concept dates back to the first half of the 20th century, especially World War II, when Congress passed legislation aimed at stockpiling materials vital to the United States’ well being. President Trump established the critical minerals list in 2018, with the defining criteria being that any mineral included be “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and have a supply chain that is “vulnerable to disruption.” A mineral’s presence on the list can convey a slew of benefits to anyone trying to extract or produce that mineral in the U.S., including faster permitting for extraction, tax incentives, or federal funding.

    As Grist explored in its recent mining issue, critical minerals are shaping everything from geopolitics to water supplies, oceans, and recycling systems. If there is to be a true clean energy transition, these elements are key to it. Metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel form the backbone of the batteries that power electric vehicles. Silicon is the primary component of solar cells, and rare earth magnets help wind turbines function. Not to mention computers, microchips, and the multitude of other things that depend on critical minerals.

    Currently, the vast majority of critical minerals used in the United States come from China — some 80 percent. In his first term, Trump tried to increase domestic production of these minerals. “The United States must not remain reliant on foreign competitors like Russia and China for the critical minerals needed to keep our economy strong and our country safe,” he said in 2017. Securing a domestic supply was also a cornerstone of former president Joe Biden’s landmark climate bills, the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Now, as Trump has taken office again, he’s made critical minerals an ever more central part of his policy platform. We’re here to demystify why this has been a blockbuster year for critical minerals in the United States — and where the industry may go in the future.

    A highly unusual strategy

    In March, Trump issued an executive order meant to jumpstart critical mineral production. “It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent,” he said. The executive order was just the first step in a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to strengthen U.S. control over existing supply chains for copper, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and dozens of other critical minerals and to galvanize new mines, regardless of concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. The Trump administration has sought to accomplish these goals by both reducing the regulatory barriers to production and by investing in the companies poised to do it.

    Since then, Trump has signed agreements with multiple countries to increase investments in critical minerals and strengthen supply chains. Most recently, the U.S. made a deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which holds more than 70 percent of the world’s cobalt. He has pushed federal agencies to make it easier for mining companies to apply for federal funding, and is inviting companies to apply to pursue seabed mining in the deep waters around American Samoa, near Guam and the Northern Marianas, around the Cook Islands, and in international waters south of Hawaiʻi — prompting global outrage and opposition from Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Chamorro/CHamoru peoples. At the same time, Trump’s volatile tariff policies have made it harder for American companies to source minerals, and cuts to federal funding have harmed mining workforce training programs and research into critical minerals.

    While the Biden administration provided grants and loans to various mining companies, Trump is deploying a highly unusual strategy of buying stakes in private companies, tying the financial interests of the U.S. government with the interests and success of these commercial mining operations. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has spent more than a billion dollars in public money to buy minority stakes in private companies like MP Materials, ReElement Technologies, and Vulcan Elements. In Alaska, that strategy has involved investing more than $35 million in Trilogy Metals to buy a 10 percent stake in the company, which is a major backer of a copper and cobalt mining project in Alaska.

    In September, the Trump administration finalized another deal with the Canadian company Lithium Americas behind Thacker Pass in Nevada, which is expected to be the largest lithium mine in the U.S. The Biden administration approved a $2.23 billion loan to Lithium Americas in October 2024; the Trump administration then restructured the loan and obtained a 5 percent stake in the project and another 5 percent stake in Lithium Americas itself. (A top Interior Department official has since been reported to have benefited financially from the project.) That’s despite allegations that the mine violates the rights of neighboring tribal nations and is proceeding without their consent, which Lithium Americas has denied.

    The outlook for critical minerals

    Historically, the federal government has only taken equity stakes in struggling companies, such as through the Troubled Asset Relief Program that sought to stabilize the auto industry and U.S. banks during the 2008 financial crisis. “What we’re talking about here is something very different, which is an industry that has not yet launched,” said Beia Spiller, who leads critical minerals work at the nonprofit research group Resources for the Future.

    “Whether that’s going to work, I think is unlikely,” Spiller continued. “The best way to get an industry up and running is to have policies that raise the tide for everyone, not just choosing winners.”

    In reference to Lithium Americas, Spiller said, “If you actually look at the cost fundamentals, it’s not a very competitive company.” Lithium Americas mines metal from clay, an old process that requires a lot of land, open pit mines, and heavy machinery — whereas some newer operations use direct lithium extraction, which is more cost effective in the long term. “So we just took an equity stake in a company that is going to face headwinds in terms of costs — now the American public faces that downside.”

    It must also be stressed that the Trump administration’s rapid push to shore up the U.S.’s control over critical minerals isn’t about transitioning the country away from fossil fuels. Instead, the whole effort seems to mostly be geared toward military uses. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” allocated $7.5 billion for critical minerals, $2 billion of which will go directly to the national defense stockpile. Another $5 billion was allocated for the department of defense to invest in critical mineral supply chains.

    In October, a former official at the defense department told the Financial Times that the agency is “incredibly focused on the stockpile.”

    “They’re definitely looking for more, and they’re doing it in a deliberate and expansive way, and looking for new sources of different ores needed for defense products,” the unnamed official said.

    Last week the administration announced that it plans to take equity stakes in more mining companies next year. It’s possible, Spiller said, these investments could extend to outfits that are piloting deep-sea mining. That carries a new set of risks, as many banks refuse to insure deep-sea mining operations, it’s unclear whether seabed mining operations will be able to even get off the ground before the end of Trump’s term, and the legal repercussions associated with undermining the Law of the Sea could fracture the stability among global powers — and make global climate action that much harder.

    Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the name of MP Materials.

    This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/energy/the-year-the-us-doubled-down-on-critical-minerals/.

    Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org