The Brief

Standing in his front yard in Wilmington, Jose Ulloa can’t get a sentence out without coughing. Heavy-duty trucks, headed to and from the Port of Los Angeles, pass in front of his home all day, their engines roaring and their exhaust spewing into the air.

Ulloa, who was diagnosed with asthma a few years ago, suffers frequent breathing problems and was hospitalized after one attack. The truck traffic is likely a trigger, since health officials say diesel exhaust is known to cause asthma attacks and other respiratory problems, including lung cancer.

The parade of big rigs in his neighborhood started four years ago, after a series of traffic pattern changes altered their route.

Imelda, his wife, sweeps the yard and cleans the home nonstop, but black dust still collects on every surface of their home within hours.

“If you blow your nose, black dust will come out,” she said. “It’s a terrible life living here.”

In Oakland, Mashhoor Alammari, who runs a small fleet of drayage trucks that haul cargo to and from the port, wants to do his part to help clean the air of dangerous diesel exhaust.

His company, The Crew Transportation, Inc., bought two new zero-emission big rigs at a cost of more than $900,000. But the trucks, powered by hydrogen fuel cells, are expensive to operate and there are few if any fueling stations along their routes. The new trucks have been sitting in the parking lot most of the time since he bought them.

“I don’t want to put myself into a financial hole,” he said.

The experiences of the Wilmington family and the Oakland truck company illustrate the frustrations and obstacles that Californians face as state officials pursue an aggressive and controversial mandate to clean the air by phasing out diesel-powered big rigs and other trucks.

California’s mandate, approved by the Air Resources Board last year, is the first in the world to ban new diesel trucks and require a switch to zero-emission vehicles, which are powered by electricity or hydrogen.

Companies face varying deadlines for ending their use of diesel, which for decades has been an efficient powerhouse fueling the economy and transport of goods. Starting in 2036, no new fossil-fueled medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks can be sold in California, and by 2042, large companies must convert their trucks to zero-emission models.

The trucking industry says the regulation is unreasonable and will wreak havoc on the economy, making it difficult to make long-haul shipments. The California Trucking Association and a collective of 17 states, including Nebraska, Alabama and New Mexico, have sued the state, alleging the rule oversteps state power.

Diesel trucks carrying cargo to and from the Port of Los Angeles pass by a warehouse in the Wilmington area. Diesel exhaust is a main source of smog and soot in the region. Photo by Carlin Stiehl for CalMatters

(

Carlin Stiehl

/

CalMatters

)

From big rigs to garbage trucks and delivery vans, the rules will dramatically change the 1.8 million commercial trucks driven on California’s roads over the next two decades. Sales already are accelerating even though no deadlines have kicked in yet. Last year, one out of every six trucks sold in the state — more than 18,000 — were zero emissions.

California’s mandate is in flux because the state still needs a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before it can start enforcing them. President-elect Donald Trump has criticized California’s electric car mandates and in the past tried to revoke the state’s authority to set its own vehicle standards.

One deadline already has passed: All new drayage trucks, which are used to haul containers from ports, were supposed to be zero emissions by last October. But that deadline is not yet being enforced.

Truck companies like Alammari’s that took a risk to be early adopters of clean trucks are now in limbo, swallowing high operating costs and competing with cheaper diesel-only companies in an already struggling industry.

In the meantime, California’s most vulnerable residents who live near roads with heavy diesel truck traffic may have to wait longer for a solution.

The dangers of diesel

Diesel trucks are among the state’s biggest sources of microscopic particles of soot, which can damage lungs and trigger asthma attacks and heart attacks. They also play an outsized role in California’s smog: While they make up just 6% of all vehicles on California’s roads, they are responsible for 72% of nitrogen oxides, a key ingredient of smog, emitted by on-road vehicles, according to the air board.

In addition, health officials declared diesel exhaust, which contains dozens of toxic gases, a human carcinogen several decades ago because of studies linking it to lung cancer.

First: Khari Burton of IMC Logistics demonstrates how to charge a zero-emissions big rig. Last: A hydrogen-powered truck at IMC headquarters in Compton.

(

Carlin Stiehl for CalMatters

/

CalMatters

)

In the Los Angeles basin, diesel exhaust is responsible for more than two-thirds of the cancer risk posed by air pollution, according to a risk analysis by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

The biggest dangers from diesels are in communities near high-traffic corridors. People near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles and parts of the Inland Empire are at risk of 350 to 500 cancer cases per million people because of diesel fumes, according to the analysis. That risk has dropped substantially in recent years as trucks get cleaner.

Diesel exhaust raises cancer risk in the L.A. basin

In some areas of the LA basin, especially around freeways, diesel exhaust poses a risk of causing 300 cancer cases per million people exposed. The exhaust, which contains many toxic gases and fine particles, is known to cause lung cancer.

California’s clean truck rule is expected through 2050 to save $26.5 billion in statewide health costs and save fleet owners $48 billion through reduced fuel and maintenance costs, according to the air board.

“The health benefits from eliminating the pollution (from diesel trucks) far exceed any cost the industry will bear,” said Adrian Martinez, an attorney for environmental group Earthjustice. “Trucking lobbyists and other folks are super loud and they’re going to focus on the difficulties of the transition. But millions of Californians affected by pollution from the freight industry is not acceptable.”

Lots of obstacles for emissions-free trucking

But a lack of fast, reliable charging stations and the vehicles’ limited ranges makes it difficult, even impossible, for trucks to transport goods long distances.

Electric heavy-duty trucks have ranges up to 250 miles, while hydrogen-powered ones can drive about 500 miles on a full tank. They can use the same public fast chargers as cars, but that’s impractical because they take up too much space and charging can take up to six hours. For hydrogen, only 22 fueling stations for large trucks are operating or in development statewide, according to the California Energy Commission.

Battery-powered trucks also are heavy, which means they can carry less cargo. As a result, companies have to charge more, which shippers aren’t usually willing to pay.

The industry also points to the substantial investment that is needed to expand the electric grid’s capacity to eventually charge thousands of battery-powered trucks.

“No one’s opposed” to cleaner air, said Matt Schrap head of the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage truck companies. “It is about practical application and implementation of these rules. We have nowhere near enough infrastructure.”

The air board’s mandate “is the epitome of ready, fire, aim,” he said.

Air board officials stress that truck companies have time and flexible options to comply, and the state is working to help them understand and comply with the complex rules.

“People are worried, I get it. But (the deadline) is not tomorrow,” said Bruce Tuter, who oversees compliance and outreach at the air board. “Charging times, charging speeds, all of that needs to start building up where it gets quicker to charge a truck and where it’s more accessible to charge when you’re traveling long distances.”

Alammari, the truck company owner from Oakland, said he bought his two hydrogen trucks because he had interest from a shipping company that wanted to work with zero-emission vehicles. The profits Alammari would have made working with that company would have justified the added costs of operating a hydrogen fuel cell truck, he said.

At the last minute, however, the company chose to work with someone else. Without any customers willing to pay more to ship with his hydrogen trucks, he can’t use them. He’s doing his best to transition his entire fleet to zero-emission vehicles. He had even ordered three more.

But even with help from state grants, Alammari said it’s not enough to help him operate the zero-emission vehicles or buy more of them. He pays substantially more for insuring them, and it costs twice as much to fully fuel them with hydrogen compared to a diesel, he said.

Without companies willing to ship goods with zero-emission vehicles, early adopters of the technology, like his company, The Crew Transportation, Inc., are at a disadvantage until the mandate makes everyone comply.

“If I don’t get customers to use these trucks, The Crew Transportation is not going to move forward to get the three remaining hydrogen trucks we ordered,” he said.

Air board officials created the most stringent deadlines for drayage trucks partly because they travel near the most vulnerable communities — the low-income communities of color around the ports. They also tend to make shorter trips compared to other heavy-duty trucks, and ports are equipped with some fueling and charging stations, air board officials said.

Some companies that operate drayage trucks near disadvantaged communities may qualify for state grants of up to $336,000 toward the cost of a new hydrogen or electric truck. Under the regulation, they are able to keep their diesel trucks until they reach 800,000 miles or 18 years, whichever is earlier.

But, based on how many miles are already on his trucks, Alammari expects them to be unusable by 2028 under the mandate. As he sees it, the future of the company he’s worked so hard to build is at risk.

In the Los Angeles area, Sandra Espinioza, a truck driver for IMC Logistics, drives seven miles between Lomita and Torrance several times a day before powering up at the WattEV charging station in Long Beach. It’s a short and easy work route that makes it easy for a battery-powered truck.

“They’re really quiet, and a really smooth drive,” she said. “You don’t smell the fumes. When it’s (charged) 100%, you’re gonna be able to go through your day.”

Most of the state’s truck fleets are considered “high priority” — federal fleets, such as the post office, and companies with at least one vehicle in California and $50 million or more in gross annual revenue or 50 or more vehicles.

These large operators have two ways to comply. Most are choosing a phase-in option. Under that option, smaller vehicles, such as UPS or Amazon delivery vans and box trucks, must be 100% zero emissions by 2035. But long-distance, heavy-duty trucks get more time to comply: 10% must be zero emissions by 2030 and 100% by 2042.

Jim Gillis, president of Compton-based IMC Logistics’ Pacific region, said the air board’s deadlines are so aggressive that it poses challenges to even large companies like his. His company has 319 diesel trucks, 50 hydrogen fuel cell trucks and six electric trucks in California. Installing a handful of charging stations at its headquarters was an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Gillis said trucking companies essentially are conducting research and development with these zero- emission technologies. The new trucks have frequent recalls and can make hauls more expensive. Battery powered trucks have to be used for shorter trips because of their limited range.

Gillis said the federal government’s delay in approving a waiver for California’s truck rule doesn’t help his company, since it already bought the clean trucks and has to compete with other companies. But he said IMC is large enough that it can absorb the costs without much consequence.

Electric and hydrogen trucks are the future, Gillis said, adding that large companies like his have a responsibility to show the way.

“We have to do it now,” Gillis said. “The more we try to delay this, it’s just going to be more painful down the road. Every mile that I put on a hydrogen truck today is going to benefit somebody down the road.”

"A literal case of life and death" in communities

As fleet owners struggle with the transition to clean fuels, families near freeways and ports throughout California suffer the consequences of inhaling toxic fumes.

Ulloa looks out of his bedroom window toward Drumm Avenue in Wilmington and sees diesel trucks hauling cargo from the Port of Los Angeles lined up on his street. To feel any relief, he confines himself in this room.

When he’s at work in Costa Mesa, his asthma symptoms don’t bother him. But he said his coughing starts as soon as he’s home. Last year, during Thanksgiving dinner, he was hospitalized for three days before his asthma could be stabilized.

“As soon as I get home from work the smell of diesel fumes and the dirt makes me cough,” Jose said. “I have to lock myself in my room with my air purifier and humidifier on. As soon as I go outside, I start coughing.”

Jose Ulloa, who has asthma, inhales from a vaporizer at his home in Wilmington near the Port of Los Angeles. Diesel fumes from trucks passing through his neighborhood aggravate his symptoms. Dec. 2, 2024. Photo by Carlin Stiehl for CalMatters

(

Carlin Stiehl

/

CalMatters

)

The family has lived there for almost 30 years, long before the trucks serving the port started coming through their neighborhood. Antonio Ulloa, Jose and Imelda’s son, remembers being a child and playing with other kids in the street. They’d play tag, skateboard and shoot basketballs into a hoop set up on the street, without any fear.

Now, at 31, Antonio sees no kids outside. Families keep their children indoors and shut all the windows to keep the pollution and noise out.

When Antonio’s nephew visits the family home, just a few hours playing in the front yard will give him nosebleeds. “It’s depressing,” he said.

Wilmington has long been known as one of the areas most affected by the air pollution. Community members report allergies, nosebleeds and the need for supplemental oxygen. About 12% of children in Wilmington have been diagnosed with asthma as of 2023, according to data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

People living near the ports of LA and Long Beach breathe the highest concentrations of diesel exhaust in the Los Angeles basin, which raises their risk of lung cancer. Out of every million people chronically exposed to diesel fumes in West Long Beach, more than 350 people could contract cancer, according to South Coast Air Quality Management District analysis.

“It’s a literal case of life and death for a lot of our community members and our loved ones,” said Paola Vargas, a Carson resident and organizer with nonprofit East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice.

“Every day matters. Every day we don’t have those (truck emissions) rules and they aren’t passed is a day wasted and a day of harmful impacts for us.”

First: Diesel trucks pass in front of homes on Drumm Avenue in Wilmington. Last: A sign under Jose Ulloa’s window in Wilmington protests the truck traffic.

(

Carlin Stiehl

/

for CalMatters

)

UC Irvine researchers reported last year that even considering new vehicle technology and the state mandate, heavy-duty drayage trucks will still cause an estimated 2,142 asthma attacks and 106 premature deaths and $1.31 billion in health costs in 2035. That is a dramatic improvement, though, as trucks have gotten cleaner under air board rules: In 2012, they caused an estimated 15,468 asthma attacks, 483 premature deaths and $5.59 billion in health costs.

Most of the asthma cases and deaths will be in disadvantaged communities along highway routes between the ports and Inland Empire warehouses, according to the study. The researchers concluded that it is worth paying truck companies more than a billion dollars to replace diesels expected to be on the road in 2035 because of the health effects.

“The problem is not going to solve itself,” said Jean-Daniel Saphores, chair of UC Irvine’s department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and an author of the study. “These trucks are still doing a lot of harm and they’re disproportionately harming disadvantaged groups, even with all the regulation.”

The harm to disadvantaged communities extends to the Inland Empire, where an abundance of land is spurring warehouse development that draws more truck traffic.

San Bernardino County’s nearly 2,500 warehouses, for instance, generate 362,000 truck trips a day, according to data by Warehouse CITY, a tool created in collaboration with Pitzer College and research agency Radical Research. In Los Angeles County, 16,600 warehouses generate 267,000 daily truck trips.

MaCarmen Gonzalez, a San Bernardino resident, said she noticed that many young children in her community carry inhalers. After learning about the impacts of diesel pollution, she became an activist for clean air, including the state’s zero-emissions truck rule.

“You can’t see (the exhaust), but it’s killing you,” she said.

Parents struggle to find places for their children to play outdoors in neighborhoods near the Port of LA. On a recent sunny afternoon, Brittany Guevarra played with her three-year-old son at the Wilmington Waterfront Park playground.

In the background, on Harry Bridges Boulevard, a long line of diesel trucks passed by. The strong smell of diesel exhaust occasionally wafted through the park as children played to the rumble of traffic.

Guevarra used to live in San Pedro, but the cost of housing was too high. She was drawn to Wilmington by cheaper rent. At the time, the trucks and port pollution didn’t cross her mind. Now, it’s inescapable.

“Afterward I thought about it and I was like, ‘dang,’” Guevarra said. “I do worry. That’s why I keep (my son) inside. I know it’s bad.”

As the seemingly endless stream of trucks kept coming, Guevarra walked her son home after playing in the park. She doesn’t think she’ll ever return.

President Trump is set to address the nation on the Iran war at 9 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday night, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying he would be providing "an important update," without providing further details.

On Tuesday, Trump said he expected the conflict to be over in two to three weeks, adding, "we'll be leaving very soon," and promising gas prices would then "come tumbling down."

Trump shrugged off what would happen to the blockaded Strait of Hormuz – which has cut off one fifth of the world's oil supply – saying, "we're not going to have anything to do with it." He said that it wouldn't affect the U.S. and would be something for other countries to deal with.

"They'll be able to fend for themselves," he said, having previously told European allies who have refused to enter the war to "go get your own oil!"

The assertion to wrap up the war quickly comes just days after Trump threatened to up the ante if there was no deal and Tehran didn't reopen the strait. He said he could seize Iran's oil and blow up all of their Electric Generating Plants and desalinization plants. He also said he was considering an invasion of Iran's key oil export terminal, Kharg Island.

But on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed his boss's latest comments on the war being over in a matter of weeks, saying the main goal of preventing Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon had been achieved.

Rubio has expressed frustration in recent days over news reports accusing the administration of lacking clear objectives in Iran.

He said the objectives were: the destruction of Iran's air force, the destruction of its navy, the "severe diminishing" of its capability to launch missiles, and the destruction of its factories.

Regime change, previously touted by the administration as a goal, was not mentioned. Earlier this week Trump said he considered regime change had been achieved, despite the fact that it remains a hardline theocracy led by the son of the previous ayatollah.

Here are more updates on day 33 of the Iran war:

Fighting overnight | World leaders | Iran | American journalist kidnapped| Hegseth visits troops | Aid hold up | Peace plan

Regional Fighting overnight

The Israel Defense Forces said they hit 230 targets in Tehran while also widening an invasion into Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iran is striking back at Gulf neighbors, especially military bases used by the U.S. this week. One of those attacks injured as many as 20 U.S. service members in Saudi Arabia.

Since the war began over a month ago, 13 U.S. service members have been killed. Iran says more than 1,700 people have been killed in Iran.

People take cover in a bomb shelter as air raid sirens warn of incoming Iranian missile strikes in Bnei Brak, Israel, Wednesday, April 1, 2026.

(

Oded Balilty

/

AP

)

Also overnight Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels claimed missile attacks on Israel, which the Israeli military intercepted. The Houthis have vowed an "escalation" in attacks.

Israel's emergency services reported Iranian missiles fired at central Israel had injured 14 people, including children.

At Kuwait's international airport, Iranian drones hit fuel depots, causing a huge fire, a day after a Kuwaiti oil tanker off Dubai was hit.

In Qatar on Wednesday, a missile launched by Iran hit an oil tanker leased to QatarEnergies, which said no one was injured and reported no environmental impact.

UK, Australia leaders speak

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed the nation on Wednesday about how the rising cost of living caused by the conflict will affect British citizens and what his government is doing to try to mitigate that.

He repeated a previous vow that the U.K. will only take "defensive" action against Iranian attacks in the Middle East and would not get drawn into the war. He also announced his foreign secretary would organize an international summit on the Strait of Hormuz aimed at restoring freedom of navigation.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also gave a national address on the war on Wednesday.

Earlier this week Albanese announced his government would halve the fuel tax for three months to give Australians some respite from the rising costs.

He urged Australians to use public transport and not to hoard fuel. He also warned that "the reality is, the economic shocks caused by this war will be with us for months."

'Hospitality' is over, says Iran

Ebrahim Azizi, the head of Iranian Parliament's National Security Committee, said on X in a message to Trump that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen "but not for you."

People sift through rubble in the aftermath of a drone attack on a residential building in which one civilian was killed on March 31, 2026 in eastern Tehran, Iran.

(

Majid Saeedi

/

Getty Images Europe

)

Referring to the period since Iran's 1979 revolution, he added: "47 years of hospitality are over forever."

Iran this week approved a bill to charge vessels for crossing the vital economic waterway.

"Trump has finally achieved his dream of 'regime change' — but in the region's maritime regime!" Azizi said.

It's not just vessels that are now trapped near the Strait of Hormuz.

An estimated twenty thousand seafarers are onboard — in an active warzone — and the U.N. is trying to extricate them.

Most seafarers are from the Philippines, Bangladesh and India and some vessels are reportedly running low on food and water.

The U.N.'s International Maritime Organization is negotiating with all sides to try to evacuate them.

American journalist kidnapped in Iraq

American freelance reporter Shelly Kittleson was kidnapped in Baghdad Tuesday, according to Al-Monitor, a Middle Eastern news site for which she has written.

Iraqi security forces said they intercepted a vehicle that crashed and arrested one of the suspected kidnappers, but are still searching for the kidnapped journalist and other suspects.

U.S. officials say they're working to get her released.

"The State Department previously fulfilled our duty to warn this individual of threats against them and we will continue to coordinate with the FBI to ensure their release as quickly as possible," Dylan Johnson, the assistant secretary of state for global public affairs, said on social media.

He said Americans, including media workers, have been advised not to travel to Iraq and should leave the country. The statement did not condemn the kidnapping or express concern.

Johnson said Iraqi authorities apprehended a suspect associated with Iran-backed Iraqi militia Kataib Hezbollah, believed to be involved in the kidnapping.

Press freedom organizations expressed deep concern. The Committee to Protect Journalists called on "Iraqi authorities to do everything in their power to locate Shelley Kittleson, ensure her immediate and safe release, and hold those responsible to account."

Based in Rome, Kittleson has reported on Iraq, as well as Syria and Afghanistan, for years, according to Al-Monitor.

Reporters Without Borders said she is "very familiar with Iraq, where she stays for extended periods."

"RSF stands alongside her loved ones and colleagues during this painful wait," the organization said.

Al-Monitor said in a statement it is "deeply alarmed" by her kidnapping. "We stand by her vital reporting from the region and call for her swift return to continue her important work," it said.

U.S. defense secretary visits troops

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an undisclosed trip to the Middle East to visit troops on military bases over the weekend. He did not divulge the location for the troops' safety.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Tuesday, March 31, 2026.

(

Manuel Balce Ceneta

/

AP

)

"I spoke to Air Force and Navy pilots on the flight line who every day both deliver bombs deep into Iran, but also shoot down drones defending their base. Many had just returned from the skies of Iran and Tehran," he told reporters in a briefing Tuesday.

He said he "witnessed an urgency to finish the job" and tried to draw a comparison with America's earlier drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said the U.S. is improving bunkers and layered air defenses as a priority to protect troops and aircraft.

This comes after more than a dozen U.S. service members were injured, several severely, and U.S. aircraft were damaged in Iranian strikes on a base in Saudi Arabia last Friday. The Pentagon says 13 U.S. service members have been killed and 300 wounded in what it calls Operation Epic Fury.

He repeated the administration's assertion that the U.S. is negotiating with Iran, despite Iranian officials' denial that talks are happening.

Aid hold up

The World Food Program says tens of thousands of tons of food aid are stuck in ports as a consequence of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

The WFP says there is a whole disruption in the global supply chain with carriers not able to use the Strait of Hormuz and choosing not to use the Suez Canal through Egypt out of concerns of attacks there, too.

The agency says this is adding a month to shipping time and costing more because of spikes in fuel prices from the war. It noted that as people around the world pay more for fuel, more families will struggle to put food on the table.

Some 45 million additional people will fall into acute hunger around the world if current conditions continue through June- reaching 363 million globally, the WFP said.

Pakistan, China release statement

Pakistan's and China's foreign ministers issued a joint statement on Tuesday calling for talks to the war on Iran as part of a broader peace plan. The statement called for a halt to fire, an end to attacks on civilian infrastructure, and reopening of the State of Hormuz.

For days Pakistani officials had said they hope to help mediate talks to end a war that has seized up the global economy, pushed up the price of fossil fuels, and key commodities like fertilizer — and that has killed thousands of people, mostly Iranians and Lebanese.

The joint statement with China came after high-ranking Pakistani officials led a flurry of meetings with regional powers. China is Iran's biggest customer for oil — and it's seen as sympathetic to the country.

Jane Arraf in Amman, Jordan, Diaa Hadid in Mumbai, Quil Lawrence in New York, Giles Snyder, Michele Kelemen in Washington, Emily Feng in Van, Turkey, Aya Batrawy in Dubai, and Kate Bartlett in Johannesburg contributed to reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Stay up to date with our Politics newsletter, sent weekly.

The Supreme Court chamber will be packed on Wednesday, as the justices hear arguments in a case that almost certainly will result in a historic ruling. At issue is President Trump's challenge to a constitutional provision that has long been interpreted to guarantee American citizenship to every child born in the United States.

Listen to arguments and live NPR special coverage beginning at 10 a.m. ET:

Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. So, on Day 1 of his second term, he issued an executive order barring automatic citizenship for any baby born in the U.S. whose parents entered the country illegally or who were here legally, but on a temporary, or even a long-term visa.

"We are the only country in the world that does this with birthright," Trump said as he signed the executive order. "And it's absolutely ridiculous."

That actually is not true. There are nearly 33 countries, mainly in North and South America, that have birthright citizenship — including, among others, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

Can't see the video above? Watch it here.

D-Day for Trump's attack on birthright citizenship

But Trump has long been determined to rid this country of its longstanding protection for birthright citizenship. Wednesday is D-Day in that effort, and to understand the issues, it's worth taking a stroll through American history.

While citizenship was not defined at the nation's founding, the colonists were largely pro-immigrant, according to University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, author of American Birthright: How the Citizenship Clause made America American, due out in September.

The founders "wanted to populate this mostly empty continent," she observes, adding that, in fact, one of the complaints against the British king in the Declaration of Independence was that the British "were discouraging immigration."

Indeed, she notes, after the Revolutionary War, even those who had been loyal to the king but wanted to stay in America were granted U.S. citizenship.

Trump's view of the 14th Amendment

Birthright citizenship didn't make it into the Constitution, though, until after the Civil War, when the nation enacted the 14th Amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision — a ruling that in 1857 declared that Black people, enslaved or free, could not be citizens of the United States.

To undo that decision, the post-Civil War Congress passed a constitutional amendment that defines citizenship in broad terms. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

President Trump, however, maintains that the constitutional amendment was intended to be more limited than it has been in practice. "This was meant for the slaves … for the children of slaves," Trump said last January. "I'm in favor of that. But it wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States." 

But as the University of Virginia's Frost notes, the framers of the 14th Amendment had more than one explicit purpose. They wanted a clear, bright line definition of citizenship; they wanted the former slaves and their children to be citizens, and they wanted to include immigrants, many of whom were the targets of great hostility.

"I like to remind my students that between 1845 and 1855, approximately 2 million people from Ireland fled to the United States," Frost observes. They were fleeing from famine and harsh British rule. And while "there certainly was some prejudice and discrimination and xenophobia," she says, "their children soon would automatically become American citizens" when born on U.S. soil after enactment of the 14th Amendment.

Trump's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is avowedly far more restricted. What's more, it has not been embraced by the courts or the legal norms of the country for 160 years.

The counterargument

"The president's executive order is attempting a radical rewriting of that 14th Amendment guarantee to all of us," says Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Indeed, even as both Republican and Democratic administrations have sought in modern times to deport large numbers of individuals who have entered the country illegally, the notion of birthright citizenship has remained so entrenched that during World War II when Japanese citizens were held as enemy aliens in U.S. detention camps, their newborn children were automatically granted American citizenship because they were born on U.S. soil. And Congress later codified that understanding in the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices are likely to focus on some of the key court decisions that have protected birthright citizenship during the past century and a half. Perhaps most important among these is the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrants who ran a small business in the city. Back then, immigrants like Wong's parents were largely free to enter the U.S. without any documentation, but his parents eventually returned to China. And after their son visited them in 1895, officers at the port in San Francisco refused to allow him back into the United States, contending that he was not a qualified citizen.

Wong challenged the denial and, in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. By a 6-2 vote, the justices interpreted the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean that all children born in the U.S. were automatically granted citizenship. The court noted that only three exceptions were specified in the amendment: The children of diplomats were not deemed to be U.S. citizens because their allegiance was to another country; the children of occupying armies were similarly excepted, as were the children of Native American tribes. Of these three exceptions, the only one that still applies is to the children of diplomats, as there are no invading armies, and Native Americans were granted automatic citizenship in 1924.

The Trump administration, however, argues that Wong Kim Ark's situation was very different from many of the children who become automatic American citizens today, because Wong's parents, though undocumented, were here legally, by virtue of having a permanent residence in the U.S. And the Trump administration points to language in the 1898 Supreme Court opinion that assumes the parents had legal status in the country because they had a permanent residence in San Francisco.

The Trump administration makes an even broader argument. "An individual who is naturally born in the United States is only considered a citizen if their parents have allegiance to the nation," says Daniel Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, the organization founded by the architect of Trump's immigration policies, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff. "It is a misdemeanor to come into the United States without authorization. That is a crime," he says. "That is strong evidence that you don't kind of meet the traditional notion of allegiance."

"We do not punish children for the sins of their parents"

Countering that argument, the ACLU's Wang will tell the Supreme Court that the men who wrote the 14th Amendment deliberately chose to confer automatic citizenship on the child, not the parent.

"And the idea — that actually goes back to the founding — is that in America we do not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but instead we wipe the slate clean. When you're born in this country, we're all Americans, all the same," Wang says.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is supporting the president's position, along with 11 other GOP senators, and 16 House members, who signed on to the America First brief.

"As a policy matter, birthright citizenship is stupid," Cruz says, "because it incentivizes illegal immigration. It makes absolutely no sense that someone breaks the law and they get rewarded with a very, very, precious gift, which is American citizenship."

Can an executive order trump a constitutional amendment?

The ACLU's Wang counters that Trump is trying, by executive order, to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, a measure that was approved overwhelmingly by the Congress in 1866 and, after a great public debate, ratified by more than three-quarters of the states. She argues that the consequences of such a dramatic change by executive fiat would have untold consequences.

"What will immediately happen is that every month, tens of thousands of U.S.-born babies will be stripped of their citizenship. They may be stateless because their parents' country of nationality may not consider them to be citizens. And so you'll see a permanent underclass of people who have no nationality, who are living in the United States, who can't pass on their nationality to their children born in the U.S.

In a separate brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stresses the problems that would be created by generation after generation of children who are stateless, with no country to call home, and no citizenship to pass on to their children.

"The children … would be the ones to bear the brunt of this," says Bishop Daniel Flores, vice president of the bishops conference. "I have people asking this now in my diocese. 'Bishop, am I going to get into trouble if I give food to somebody that I'm not sure of their documentation? … Can we help these people? Because we think we need to, because they're people and they were born here."

The Trump administration counters that birthright citizenship raises two other problems: a generic potential threat to national security and the problem of so-called "birth tourism."

In fact, even birthright defenders concede that a cottage industry has long existed in which women pay money to come to the U.S. and have their children here. But the numbers are consistently very small. Even the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors limited immigration, estimates only 20,000 to 26,000 birth tourism children are born in the U.S. each year, compared to the overall birth count of 3.6 million babies born each year.

Daniel Epstein of America First Legal contends that numbers are not important. "I view just one illegal act as illegal, and birth tourism is illegal and it's against the law, and the law matters."

Population experts say that if automatic birthright citizenship were to be voided, the consequences would be profound — and counterintuitive. The Population Research Institute at Penn State, for instance, estimates that a repeal of birthright citizenship would result in 2.7 million more people living here illegally by 2045, people who previously would have been entitled to birthright citizenship, but now have no such citizenship for themselves or to pass on to their children or the generations thereafter.

Also likely to come up at today's Supreme Court argument are practical questions, like those raised by Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year in a related case. How would a hospital know that the parents of a child are illegally in the country? What would hospitals do with a newborn? What would states do? The answer from Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, was "Federal officials will have to figure that out."

Copyright 2026 NPR

With the exception of a stray morning shower here and there, Southern California is in for a dry and sunny afternoon.

The afternoon sun will warm up the area a few degrees today. For the coasts, we're looking at highs around 67 degrees and up to the low 70s for the inland coast.

The valleys will see similar temperatures with highs from 68 to 74 degrees. The Inland Empire, meanwhile, will be cooler with highs around 63 degrees.

In Coachella Valley, temps will reach 81 to 86 degrees.

A wind advisory still is in effect for the San Bernardino, Riverside County mountains, including Coachella Valley, until 11 p.m. Thursday. The Antelope Valley will see some gusty winds later this afternoon as well.

It’s been a tough year for non-alcoholic (NA) bars. Since we wrote our last NA bar round up, during 2024's Dry January, at least three NA-only bars have shut down in Los Angeles or gone online retail-only. The fanfare that came with New Bar’s openings in Venice and West Hollywood are long gone and the '90s-themed events at Stay Zero Proof in Chinatown have said buh-bye.

Yet more people than ever are avoiding alcohol. So what’s going on?

Victim of success

In some ways, perhaps, the bars that closed, like the two L.A. outposts of San Francisco’s New Bar, were victims of their own success. “I think that the non-alcoholic space has evolved,” Bar Nuda pop-up owner Pablo Murillo said. 


”So when New Bar came out, they were pretty much the only ones doing what they were doing. There's so many more options now, with big-box retailers that are offering great non-alcoholic options and possibly at a lower price point.”

The interior of The New Bar on Lincoln Boulevard in Venice: It's a store, but also much more.

(

Nihal Shaikh

/

The New Bar

)

That can have an impact even if you offer a top-notch experience. Stay Zero Proof was the brainchild of Stacey Mann, a film set designer-turned-interior designer who opened the cozy bar in Chinatown in 2024. It closed last year.

“We built an amazing space with such a great vibe and a terrific staff and, in my opinion, the best NA cocktails around. They were exceptional. They were designed and developed by Derek Brown out of D.C., who really led the movement quite a long time ago,” Mann said. “And that wasn't enough to get people in the doors spending money.”

Mann, who is 39 years sober, said she was surprised at how few sober customers came in the door compared to her “sober curious” clientele. “It did not bring in the sober crowd. ... It's the cost, [and] it's the idea that a lot of sober people aren't really thinking about sitting in bars.”

Not just Dry January

These bar owners all say that Dry January is quickly becoming a thing of the past — their customers are drinking less alcohol but hanging out more all year-round.

Obreanna McReynolds and Dean Peterson, co-owners of Burden of Proof

(

Taylor Kealy/Taylor Kealy

)

“I think it kind of spreads throughout the whole year, just a kind of lifestyle versus like a 30-day [challenge]," said Dean Peterson, who runs Burden of Proof, an NA bar in Pasadena.

That shift also has spurred bars that do serve alcohol to up their NA game. Owner of Abbot Kinney speakeasy Force of Nature (which serves both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages) Leena Culhane said her January was just as busy as her December.

Community

It's not just being alcohol-free. The NA bars that are still in business are adapting to meet other customer needs too.

At Kavahana, the Golden Nectar drink is made with kava nectar, turmeric, fresh lemon, ginger, and sparkling water.

(

Courtesy Kavahana

)

“We always wanted to have a place in L.A. that we could actually just go and chill out and relax at and play games, board games, watch an open mic, watch a comedy show, do yoga,” said Kavahana co-founder Neil Bahtia, whose Santa Monica spot features drinks that use the kava root, a Pacific Island-native herb, instead of alcohol.

“These are different activities that I think are really important to having a brick and mortar, that maybe a traditional bar doesn't really need to do. I think for us, it's always been about curating a really nice experience.”

Stay’s Mann agreed, even though it wasn’t enough to keep her venue open.

“In order to sustain the model, you really have to build out programming,” she said. “Our biggest night was comedy night, and that was amazing.”


Meanwhile, the owners of Free Spirited in Alhambra, Amber Pennington and Arleo De Guzman, focus on being vegan and allergy-friendly in addition to providing a completely 0.0% alcohol experience, which means people find their place through several different channels.

“The culture still isn't to ‘go out to drink non-alcoholic,’" Pennington said. “Hopefully that will change in the next couple years, but having the food in addition ... that's super helpful.”

De Guzman added that “People don't want to go out just to eat nowadays. They want to have more value added to their experience, but also it helps in a non-alcoholic bar [to host events], because some people are still afraid to go out and socialize sober, so attach an event that's in the space and people are like, ‘OK, I'm going to go to this thing. I guess I'll see what the vibe is.’”

Something special

Murillo of Bar Nuda’s Mexican-inspired concept is focused on craft non-alcoholic cocktails that draw on his bartending experience.

“People, I think, aren't looking so much for a non-alcoholic version of a margarita. They're looking for something more creative, something that they possibly have never tasted before,” he said.

Culhane agreed that now a non-alcoholic option can feel just as special as that glass of champagne.

“People often are choosing wine based on what the label looks like. We can't underestimate how much the eye is kind of the first sense of taste,” Culhane said. “I think that's the most important part — feeling like there's an adult experience of something that's convivial and celebratory, and just special.”

As drinkers and non-drinkers alike seek out alternatives to booze, it’s clear these businesses need more than just a great mocktail to stay alive. But with trying times and relentlessly stressful news, the neighborhood watering hole serves a larger purpose of being a third space, and these bars are finding Angelenos willing to pay the premium for a well-balanced mocktail — as long as there’s a little something extra on the side.