The Brief

California will have to build public charging stations at an unprecedented — and some experts say unrealistic — pace to meet the needs of the 7 million electric cars expected on its roads in less than seven years.

The sheer scale of the buildout has alarmed many experts and lawmakers, who fear that the state won’t be prepared as Californians purchase more electric cars.

A million public chargers are needed in California by the end of 2030, according to the state’s projections — almost 10 times more than the number available to drivers in December. To meet that target, 129,000 new stations — more than seven times the current pace — must be built every year for the next seven years. Then the pace would have to accelerate again to reach a target of 2.1 million chargers in 2035.

A robust network of public chargers — akin to the state’s more than 8,000 gas stations — is essential to ensure that drivers will have the confidence to purchase electric vehicles over the next several years.

“It is very unlikely that we will hit our goals, and to be completely frank, the EV goals are a noble aspiration, but unrealistic,” said Stanford professor Bruce Cain, who co-authored a policy briefing detailing California’s electric vehicle charging problems. “This is a wakeup call that we address potential institutional and policy obstacles more seriously before we commit blindly.”

Under California’s landmark electric car mandate, a pillar of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s climate change agenda, 68% of all new 2030 model cars sold in the state must be zero emissions, increasing to 100% for 2035, when 15 million electric cars are expected in California.

“We’re going to look really silly if we are telling people that they can only buy electric vehicles, and we don’t have the charging infrastructure to support that,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino who introduced a package of unsuccessful bills last year aimed at expanding access to car chargers.

“We are way behind where we need to be,” Gabriel told CalMatters.

Big obstacles stand in the way of amping up the pace of new charging stations in public places. California will need billions of dollars in state, federal and private investments, streamlined city and county permitting processes, major power grid upgrades and accelerated efforts by utilities to connect chargers to the grid.

State officials also are tasked with ensuring that charging stations are available statewide, in rural and less-affluent areas where private companies are reluctant to invest, and that they are reliable and functioning whenever drivers pull up.

In Pacific Gas & Electric’s vast service area, home to 40% of all Californians, electric car purchases are moving twice as fast as the buildout of charging stations, said Lydia Krefta, the utility’s director of clean energy transportation. Californians now own more than 1.5 million battery-powered cars.

Patty Monahan, who’s on the Energy Commission, the state agency responsible for funding and guiding the ramp-up, told CalMatters that she is confident that California can build the chargers its residents need in time.

The agency’s estimate of the current chargers is likely an undercount, she said. In addition, fast-charging stations could play a bigger role than initially projected, meaning hundreds of thousands of fewer chargers might be needed. Also, as the ranges and charging speeds on cars improve, there may be less demand for public chargers.

“California has a history of defying the odds,” Monahan said. “We have a history of advancing clean cars, clean energy, writ-large. We have naysayers left and right saying you can’t do it, and then we do it.”

Barriers to private investments: an uncertain marke

On a September day last year, Monahan spoke behind a podium in the parking lot of a Bay Area grocery store. A row of newly constructed car chargers rose behind her.

“Let’s celebrate for a moment,” she said.

California had met its goal of 10,000 fast electric chargers statewide — two years ahead of a target set in 2018.

California Energy Commissioner Patty Monahan speaks during the launch of an EVgo fast charging station in Union City on Sept. 25, 2023.

(

Loren Elliott

/

CalMatters

)

Fast chargers like the new ones at the grocery store are increasingly seen as critical to meeting the needs of drivers. They can power a car to 80% in 20 minutes to an hour, while the typical charger in use today, a slower Level 2, takes from four to 10 hours.

But installing and operating fast chargers is an expensive business — one that doesn’t easily turn a profit.

Nationwide each fast charger can cost up to $117,000, according to a 2023 study. And in California, it could be even more — between $122,000 and $440,000 each, according to a separate study, although the Energy Commission said the range was $110,000 to $125,000 for one of its programs.

Most of America’s publicly traded charger companies have been forced to seek more financing, lay off workers and slow their network build outs, analysts said. EVgo, for instance, has seen its share price crater, as has ChargePoint, which specializes in selling the slower, Level 2 hardware.

California stands apart from other states — it has by far the most chargers and electric car sales, and more incentives and policies encouraging them.

Tesla, America’s top-selling electric car manufacturer, dominates fast-charging in both California and the U.S. — but the company didn’t get into the business to sell charges to drivers; it got into the charger business to sell its electric cars. Initially Tesla Superchargers were exclusive to its drivers, but starting this year other EV drivers can use them after Tesla provided ports to Ford and other automakers.

Tesla’s manufacturing prowess, supply chain dominance and decade-plus of experience with fast chargers have given it an edge over competitors — a coterie of unprofitable, publicly traded startups, as well as private companies that often benefit from public subsidies, according to analysts.

“All the automakers joined forces with their biggest competitor,” said Loren McDonald, chief executive of the consulting firm EVAdoption. “If that doesn’t tell you how bad fast-charging networks and infrastructure were, I don’t know what else does.”

Tesla vehicles charge at a Supercharger lot in Kettleman City on June 23, 2024.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

Now Tesla is showing uncertainty about the future of its charging business amid slumping car sales, and eliminated nearly its entire 500-member Supercharger team in April. Then chief executive Elon Musk said in May that he would spend $500 million to expand the network and hired back some fired workers.

In California, Electrify America, a privately held company, was created by Volkswagen as a settlement for cheating on emissions tests for its gas-powered cars. The company is spending $800 million on California chargers, building a robust network of 260 stations, with more than half in low-income communities, including the state’s worst charging desert, Imperial County.

The problem is Electrify America was ranked dead last in a consumer survey last year, and its chargers have been plagued by reliability problems and customer complaints. The California Air Resources Board in January directed Electrify America to “strive to achieve charger reliability consistent with the state of the industry.” A company spokesperson said the dissatisfaction showed “an industry in its growth trajectory.” There are signs of improvement, based on consumer data from the first three months of this year.

Startups continue to jump into the charging business, with the number of companies offering fast chargers growing from 14 in 2020 to 41 in 2024, EVAdoption said. Seven carmakers formed a $1 billion venture to build a 30,000-charger network in North America. And gas stations such as Circle K are offering more charging because electric car customers spend more time shopping while waiting for their rides to juice up.

But the realization that charging is a costly business has set in on Wall Street, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon. “Can public EV fast-charging stations be profitable in the United States?” the consultancy McKinsey & Company asked.

“The fervor, the excitement from the investor base, has definitely dwindled quite a bit, given the prospects that EV adoption in the U.S. is going to be slower, revenue growth is really slower, the path to profitability is going to be slower, and they might need more capital than everyone originally expected,” said Christopher Dendrinos, a financial analyst who covers electric car charging companies for the investment bank RBC Capital Markets.

The stakes are high for California when it comes to encouraging investments in expensive fast chargers: If 63,000 additional ones were built, California might need 402,000 fewer slower Level 2 chargers in 2030, according to an alternative forecast by the Energy Commission.

Billions of public dollars: Will it be enough?

Nationwide $53 billion to $127 billion in private investments and public funding is needed by 2030 to build chargers for about 33 million electric cars, according to a federal estimate. Of that, about half would be for public chargers.

Congress and the Biden administration have set aside $5 billion for a national network of fast chargers. So far only 33 in eight locations have been built, but more than 14,000 others are in the works, according to the Federal Highway Administration. California’s share of the federal money totals $384 million; about 500 fast chargers will be built with an initial $40.5 million, said Energy Commission spokesperson Lindsay Buckley.

In addition, the state has spent $584 million to build more than 33,000 electric car chargers through its Clean Transportation Program, funded by fees drivers pay when they register cars. The Legislature extended that program for an additional decade last year.

Newsom has committed to spending $1 billion through 2028 on chargers with his “California Climate Commitment,” Buckley said. But this year Newsom and the Legislature trimmed $167 million from the charger budget as the state faces a record deficit. A lobbyist for the Electric Vehicle Charging Association said “the state pullback sends a very challenging message” to the industry.

California’s commitment to charger funding is “solid,” despite the cuts, Buckley said. They have not yet estimated the total investment needed in California to meet the targets.

But Ted Lamm, a UC Berkeley Law researcher who studies electric car infrastructure, said the magnitude of building what California needs in coming years likely dwarfs the public funding available.

State and federal programs will “only fund a fraction,” and the state needs to spend that money on lower-income communities, he said.

Another possible funding source is California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which is expected to be revised in November. The program requires carbon-intensive fuel companies to pay for cleaner-burning transportation. Utilities get credits and use that money to pay for chargers, rebates to car buyers and grid improvements, said Laura Renger, executive director of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, which represents utilities.

“I think with that, we would have enough money,” Renger said. She said the program’s overhaul could help utilities invest “billions” in chargers and other electric car programs over the next two decades.

Backlogged local permits and grid delays 

One of the biggest barriers to more chargers isn’t money. It’s that cities and counties are slow to approve plans for the vast number of stations needed.

State officials only have so much political power to compel local jurisdictions to do what they want — a reality made abundantly clear by the housing crisis, for instance. California relies on grants and persuasion to accomplish its goals, and the slow buildout of chargers shows how those strategies can fall short, said Stanford’s Cain.

“The locals cannot be compelled by regulatory agencies to make land and resources available for what the state wants to achieve,” Cain said.

The same obstacles have marked the state’s broader effort to electrify California and switch to clean energy. Local opposition and environmental reviews sometimes hold up large solar projects and transmission projects for years.

California has created a “culture of regulation that emphasizes the need to be extra careful and extra perfect, but this takes an incredible amount of time,” Steve Bohlen, senior director of government affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said last month at the inaugural hearing of the state Assembly’s Select Committee on Permitting Reform.

“We’re moving into a period of rapid change, and so perfect can’t be the enemy of the good.”

Workers install a transformer to power electric car chargers in Calexico

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Chargers aren’t as complicated as large-scale solar or offshore wind projects. But most chargers installed in public spaces do need a land-use or encroachment permit, among other approvals. California has passed laws requiring local jurisdictions to streamline permits for chargers. What’s more, the Governor’s Office of Business Development now grades cities and counties using a scorecard and maintains a map displaying who has, or hasn’t, made life easier for car charger builders. But these strategies only go so far.

“It doesn’t matter how many requirements you put on (local governments),” Lamm said. “If they just don’t have the time in the day to do it … it’s going to sit in the backlog, because that’s how it works.”

The delays have consequences. Getting a station permitted in California, on average, takes 26% longer than the national average, Electrify America reported. Designing and constructing a station in California can cost on average 37% more than in other states because of delays in permitting and grid connections. A utility on average takes 17 weeks after work is completed to connect chargers to the grid, Electric America said.

Powering large charging projects often requires grid upgrades, which can take a year or more for approval, said Chanel Parson, a director at Southern California Edison. Supply chain issues also make getting the right equipment a challenge.

Edison, which has a 10-year plan to meet expected demand, has asked the utilities commission for approval to upgrade the grid where it anticipates high charging demand.

“Every EV charging infrastructure project is a major construction project,” Parson said. “There are a number of variables that influence how long it takes to complete the project.”

Impatient with broken chargers, bad service

Inspired to help the nation reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, Zach Schiff-Abrams of Los Angeles bought a Genesis GV60. As a renter, he has relied on public charging, primarily using Electrify America stations — and that’s been his biggest problem about owning an electric car.

Charging speeds have been inconsistent, he said, with half-hour sessions providing only a 15 to 30% charge, and he often encounters broken chargers.

“I believe in electrical, so I’m really actually trying to be a responsible consumer,” Schiff-Abrams said. “I want to report them when they’re down, but the customer service is horrible.”

For years, the reliability of charging networks has been a well-documented problem. Only 73% of fast chargers in the San Francisco Bay Area were functional in a 2022 study. The growth of the EV market has put increasing strain on public charging stations, a consumer survey found.

In January, the California Air Resources Board approved a final $200 million spending plan for Electrify America — but not before board chair Liane Randolph scolded its CEO.

Randolph — arguably one of America’s top climate regulators — told CEO Robert Barrosa about an exchange she had with his company’s customer service line after finding a broken charger at a station along Interstate-5.

“It didn’t work,” Randolph said during the board meeting. “Called the customer service line, waited like 10-ish minutes. …(The charger) was showing operable on the app and the guy goes, ‘oh, my data is showing me that it has not had a successful charge in three days.’”

“These issues are not easy,” Barrosa responded. “Our head is not in the sand,” he told board members earlier. “We are listening to customers.”

But Randolph, addressing journalists at a conference in Philadelphia, pushed back against the idea that because the transition to electric vehicles is happening gradually that it’s a failure. Many people will rely on charging at home or work, and batteries are becoming more efficient.

“The infrastructure is continuing to be rolled out at a rapid pace,” Randolph said. “It doesn’t all have to be perfect instantly. It’s a process. And it’s a process that’s continuing to move.”

Data journalists Erica Yee and Arfa Momin contributed to this report.

A federal court jury has ordered the City of L.A. to pay more than $11.7 million to a man partially blinded by LAPD officers during a 2020 Dodgers World Series celebration.

Isaac Castellanos told the court that he was struck and permanently blinded in one eye early in the morning on Oct. 28, 2020, when two officers fired 37mm less lethal launchers toward the crowd he was standing in. He was 22 years old at the time.

The jury on Thursday unanimously found that Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda acted negligently, used excessive force and violated Castellanos’ constitutional rights when they fired into the crowd and caused his injury.

Castellanos isn’t the first crowd control injury case faced by the LAPD, and more are working their way through the courts.

Already, Los Angeles has paid more than $19 million in liabilities stemming from LAPD’s crowd control actions since the beginning of 2020, according to an LAist analysis of data from the City Attorney’s office. Castellanos’ verdict is by far the largest sum awarded since then.

Castellanos and his lawyers told LAist that people should feel free to peacefully celebrate or exercise their first amendment rights without fear of being injured by the police.

“ I'm grateful to have this system of justice where Isaac can be compensated,” Castellanos’ lawyer Pedram Esfandiary told LAist, “and I just hope that this sends a loud and clear message to the LAPD that this is not okay.”

The LAPD has not responded to LAist’s request for comment on the case.

What happened to Castellanos

Unidentified LAPD officers disperse crowds in downtown L.A. during a celebration of the Dodgers winning the World Series against the Tampa Bay Rays on Oct. 27, 2020. A jury has awarded a man partially blinded by officers that night $11.7 million.

(

Jason Armond

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

When the Dodgers won their first World Series in more than three decades on Oct. 27, 2020, Castellanos and his friends went to downtown L.A. to celebrate.

Castellanos told the court that he and his friends didn’t see any police officers nearby when they arrived, but within minutes they noticed a squad of police officers gathering down the street.

Video evidence presented in the trial showed that some people in the crowd threw rocks and glass bottles toward the officers. Castellanos said he was not involved. He said he did not act violently or aggressively.

Castellanos said he saw the officers holding “some kind of firearms” start to move toward the crowd, but he did not hear any order for the crowd to leave. By this time, it was after midnight.

He had begun to leave, he said, when he saw a bright muzzle flash from the direction of the officers and heard a loud pop.

He was immediately in extreme pain and felt warm blood coming from his face, he testified. He also noticed a loss of vision in his right eye.

Dr. Jerry Sebag is an eye specialist who testified as an expert witness in the case. He said that Castellanos experienced “severe blunt force trauma” to his eye, most likely from a rubber bullet, causing legal blindness in his right eye and a loss of depth perception.

Sebag said there is no medication or surgery that could fix his condition.

Evidence provided in the case later proved that the MacArthur and Pineda fired 37mm less lethal launchers at the same place and time as Castellanos says he was injured.

Lawyers for Castellanos argued in court that the officers used their weapons outside of LAPD policy, being too far away from the crowd to accurately use the weapons and not issuing a warning or dispersal order to allow Castellanos a chance to leave.

The city’s attorneys claimed that it was not the officers who caused the injury, and that the officers’ use of their weapons was within policy as they were responding to a threat from the crowd.

Other cases cost the city millions

At least seven other cases since 2020 stemming from LAPD’s crowd control actions have exceeded $1 million in liability costs to the city, according to city data.

Behind Castellanos’ $11.7 million verdict, the next largest was $3.6 million awarded to filmmaker A. Jamal Shakir Jr. after he was found to have been shot by LAPD less lethal projectiles during a May 29, 2020, protest.

City data shows the LAPD’s actions over the course of a single day — May 30, 2020 — eventually cost the city a combined total of $4.25 million to settle three lawsuits.

Iz Sinistra, a Marine Corps veteran who was struck in the head by an LAPD less lethal projectile while attending George Floyd protests on May 30, 2020, was awarded a $1.25 million settlement from the city.

Seconds after Sinistra was hit, Patricia Hill could also be seen struck in the head by a less lethal round fired by LAPD in a video released by the department. Hill was awarded a $1.5 million settlement by the city, according to city data.

Monique Alarcon is an attorney who represented both Castellanos and Sinistra in court.

Alarcon said that while the severity of injuries that have led to lawsuits against the LAPD over its crowd control tactics vary, she sees the improper use of force as a common thread.

“ I think this behooves the City of L.A. and the LAPD to really take a look at their crowd control practices and consider discontinuing using these weapons in those settings, because people get really hurt,” she told LAist.

In the past year, at least two more people have filed lawsuits alleging LAPD less lethal munitions caused permanent eye damage and blindness.

In one such case, Marshall Woodruff claims LAPD fractured his cheekbone and ruptured his right eye while he was photographing the “No Kings” protest on June 14, 2024. His lawsuit claims he is now permanently blind in that eye.

The department acknowledged in a public video that Marshall Woodruff was hit by a 40mm less lethal projectile fired by LAPD.

Jesus Javier Islas says he was blinded in one eye by a less lethal projectile allegedly fired by LAPD at a protest on Jan. 31, 2026. Lawyers for Islas told reporters they are asking $100 million in damages from the LAPD and the City of L.A.

Getting back on track

Castellanos was a college student at Cal State Long Beach when he was injured.

Before the injury, he'd been gaining momentum as an Esports athlete and streamer, testifying that he had recently won a $40,000 prize with a teammate at a competition and had won a qualifying match to play for a professional team.

While he got some accommodations from his college and was able to graduate on time, Castellanos said his Esports career ended with his injury.

Castellanos testified that he played in an Esports competition with a college alumni team after his injury, but he couldn’t play like he did before. By the end of the competition he said his team had done well, but he felt he’d held them back.

No longer able to follow his passion, he said he began working at an Amazon warehouse, packaging and sorting boxes part time. That work, too, was made much harder by the injury.

“I’m always bumping into stuff,” Castellanos testified, “I always mess up and put [items] in the wrong box.”

Now that the verdict is in, he told LAist he wants to get his life back on track so he can lead a full life.

His lawyers described in court how he has suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, depression and panic disorder as a result of the injury. Castellanos said the mental strain also made his relationships with friends and family suffer.

He told LAist the next steps are to mend those relationships and get into professional treatment for his mental health.

“ I want to try to try to get comfortable in my own skin again,” he said.

The U.S. surf team will officially be managed by surfers when the Olympics come to LA in 2028. Duh? Well, for a while there, it was in doubt. Let us explain:

The backstory

US Ski and Snowboard, based in Utah, had initially been vying for control of the Olympic surf team in hopes of turning itself into an action sports juggernaut. But faced with strong opposition in the surf world, the organization dropped its bid to manage the U.S. Olympic surf team late last year.

Why it's a second chance for USA Surfing

The designation of USA Surfing as the official “National Governing Body” for Olympic surfing is a kind of second chance for the organization. Previously, it had relinquished control over the U.S. Olympic surf team following a 2019 audit that found numerous problems with its accounting and finances.

What changed?

In a news conference this week, Gene Sykes, board chair of the U.S. Olympic committee, credited USA Surfing’s “new leadership and new approach” with earning back the board’s confidence. “Surfing is a sport that has deep roots in Southern California and will no doubt be a highlight of the LA28 games,” Sykes said. “We look forward to a positive and collaborative working relationship as we deliver on the promise of LA28 and beyond.”

Tell me about Olympic surfing

Olympic surfing at the LA28 Games will take place at Lower Trestles, a world-class surf break in San Clemente.

Go deeper on this surf v. sand fight, and the latest Olympic news

• Surfers not on board with plan to have ski group control Olympic surfing
• Why are Olympics tickets so expensive?
• LA28 to award billions in Olympic contracts. City officials worry local businesses won't get a slice
• Why city officials are warning that the Olympics could bankrupt Los Angeles

Orange County is set to host two competitions during the Olympics in 2028, with surfing in San Clemente and volleyball in Anaheim. The global event is set to attract millions of fans to the region, and OC officials now want to figure out how to make money off the Games.

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to create the LA 28 Olympic Preparedness Committee, which will be led by Supervisors Katrina Foley and Vicente Sarmiento.

Foley said the county is behind in preparing for the Olympics and the revenue opportunities that may come with the Games.

“Right now, Orange County doesn't really have a seat at the table, so we felt like we needed to get going,” Foley told Laist. “We did miss that opportunity in 1984, and we don't want that to happen again.”

The county is not responsible for paying for the Olympics, but Foley said the committee will work to find out what associated costs there may be.

Those costs could come from transportation needs, security, community events and more.

“It will be a long list,” Sarmiento added. “And we're not going to solve it all, but we need to ask the questions so later on we don't say, 'Why weren't these questions asked?’ or ‘Why wasn't even a discussion entertained?’”

How much of the Games will be in the OC? 

Surfing will be held at a famed break south of San Clemente and volleyball will be held at the Honda Center in Anaheim.

Mike Lyster, Anaheim’s chief communications officer, said the city doesn’t have the full details yet on the cost of hosting the volleyball tournament, but that the city is no stranger to large sporting events.

“The Olympics do bring some added dimension with international visitors and other considerations,” Lyster said. “We are working through that now to best understand what it entails.”

The county is also set to host several countries during the Games, according to Foley.

“We just learned that Italy is taking over all of Cal State Fullerton. That's great news for Orange County,” Foley said. “UCI is going to be an Olympic Village. Dana Point Harbor, we're going to create what I'm calling a seaside Olympic Village, not an official village of the Olympics, but official for Orange County.”

Officials say the athletes and the fans could help the county bolster its tourism.

“This isn't just about the Olympics in 2028,” Foley said. “This is about showcasing Orange County as a place for people to want to come back to after the Olympics.”

How much will Olympic-related spending cost the county? 

That number is elusive, Sarmiento told LAist, and the committee will ask for a report on what the county could be on the hook for.

“We'll be trying to anticipate and predict what the cost would be,” Sarmiento said. “But also being preemptive and looking to both the state and the federal administration to see, are there monies that they are going to be providing for the region?”

Supervisor Doug Chaffee said during Tuesday’s meeting that state and federal funding is in question.

“I know on other boards, such as our transportation board, we're being asked to provide special transportation, but the money hasn't come yet,” Chaffee said. “If the money is offered too late, it'll be hard to provide the transportation.”

Sarmiento said there is interest in developing the relationship between the Los Angeles and Orange counties transportation systems.

“It really is aligning the transportation systems so people can easily access events, training facilities [and] temporary residential sites,” Sarmiento added.

Last month, the Trump administration’s federal budget proposal for L.A. Metro’s key transit plan for the Games didn’t provide a dime of the $2 billion the agency is seeking. The plan includes using thousands of buses to scatter venues hosting the Games.

What could this mean for Orange County residents? 

The committee will also look into organizing community events, like public watch parties and its own fan zones.

“At the county parks, where we currently have movie nights and concerts and we can host 2,000 people, I would like to see us have viewing opportunities and experiences where not only the tourists can participate, but our own residents can participate in the game,” Foley said.

That’s especially important for residents who couldn’t afford the tickets to the Olympics, Sarmiento added.

“Watching them in community, watching them at our parks, at venues that we have available here in the county, is going to be a unique, special experience for many of our residents because we just know they will be priced out of being able to attend in person,” Sarmiento said.

Israel has agreed to begin a 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon, which would pause Israel's conflict with Iran-backed Hezbollah that has escalated since the U.S. and Israel launched a war with Iran. The truce will start Thursday at 5 p.m. Eastern time, President Donald Trump announced.

The devastating conflict in Lebanon has posed a challenge for the shaky ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, as Iranian leaders have insisted the agreement include Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues enforcing a naval blockade on ships entering and exiting Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, as mediators work to bring about an end to the Iran war that has engulfed the region and caused oil supply disruptions and higher fuel prices around the world.

Here are more updates from the Middle East conflict:

Israel ceasefire in Lebanon | U.S.-Iran talks | Iranian threats

Lebanese displaced woman Mariam Zein sits with her son inside the classroom of a school transformed into a displaced reception center in the area of Dekwaneh, east of Beirut on April 15, 2026.

(

Joseph Eid

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Israel agrees to a 10-day ceasefire in the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he has agreed to enter a 10-day ceasefire in the fight against Iran-backed Hezbollah but will not withdraw Israel's troops from southern Lebanon.

His remarks followed President Trump's announcement on social media that Netanyahu and the president of Lebanon agreed to the temporary ceasefire.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said he welcomed Trump's ceasefire announcement.

But Hezbollah said the Lebanese people have "the right to resist" if Israeli forces remained in Lebanon, Reuters reported, raising the question of whether it will abide by the truce.

Hezbollah has both a political wing, with lawmakers in Lebanon's national parliament, and a militant wing that operates largely independently of the Lebanese government and receives funding and direction from Iran.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said the ceasefire would take effect at 5 p.m. — but warned that Israeli forces would take action if threatened.

"We will have to follow very carefully what's happening on the ground. And if we will feel threatened, we will react," Danon told reporters at the State Department in Washington. "We are not going anywhere. We are holding our positions."

"The problem is not with the Lebanese government. The problem is with Hezbollah. And it will be challenging," he said.

Trump also said he is inviting Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to the White House for peace talks.

These developments come two days after Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to the U.S. held rare talks in Washington, the first direct high-level engagement between the two countries in decades.

Israel had agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon in 2024, but U.N. peacekeepers recorded more than 10,000 violations of that agreement, mostly by Israeli forces.

The latest chapter of fighting escalated after Israel and the U.S. launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28. Within a few days, Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel. Israeli forces responded with airstrikes and an invasion of southern Lebanon.

Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,100 people and displaced over 1 million in Lebanon, according to Lebanese authorities.

Hezbollah's attacks have killed at least 12 Israeli soldiers and two civilians, according to Israeli authorities.

Pakistan army chief visits Tehran to revive talks

Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, a key mediator in talks between the U.S. and Iran, was in Iran's capital Tehran Thursday to secure a second round of U.S.-Iran negotiations ahead of April 22, the deadline of the tenuous two-week ceasefire.

Pakistan, which holds strong diplomatic relations with both the U.S. and Iran, has emerged as a key mediator in negotiations between the two countries.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stressed the point on Wednesday, saying the Pakistanis "are the only mediator in this negotiation" and the president felt it's important to streamline the process through them.

Vice President Vance, Washington's lead negotiator, said a major sticking point that led to the breakdown in Saturday's talks was Iran's refusal to commit to abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

In this photo released by Telegram channel of the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, right, welcomes Pakistan's Army Chief Field Marshal Gen. Asim Munir upon his arrival in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, April 15, 2026.

(

AP

/

Telegram channel of the the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

)

"The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon," Vance said.

Iran, under its 10-point negotiation plan, demanded an end to Israel's attacks against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah as part of any permanent agreement. Other demands from the Iranian delegation included the release of $6 billion in frozen assets, guarantees around its nuclear program and the right to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's military threatens to block key shipping routes

Iran's military warned it will retaliate by blocking other important shipping routes if the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz continues.

Major-General Ali Abdol-lahi, the commander of Iran's top military command center, renewed threats on Wednesday to halt all trade in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Red Sea in retaliation for U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.

Of particular concern is Bab al Mandeb, a narrow waterway in the Red Sea for vessels sailing between Europe and Asia. Iranian-aligned Houthi militias in Yemen control much of the coastline near the Bab al Mandeb. Houthis disrupted shipping in that passage during the height of the Gaza war.

Another route that could be in jeopardy if Iran retaliates is a pipeline that Saudi Arabia has used just after the Iran war began on Feb. 28 to divert crude oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

A top aide to Iran's supreme leader said Thursday Iran would sink U.S. ships if Trump tries to "police" the Strait of Hormuz and that he'd welcome a ground invasion as a chance to hold US soldiers hostage.

Mohsen Rezaee, a former commander in chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, told the Iranian Fars news agency he is personally opposed to a ceasefire, and that Iran is prepared for a prolonged conflict with the United States.

Feelings are mixed among the Iranian public about the possibility of a ceasefire. Many say they welcome an end to the war, but critics of the regime say keeping a hardline government in place will lead to a harsher crackdown on dissent and personal freedoms.

In this voice note shared with NPR, a carpenter in the city of Rasht, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears for his safety, said he thinks it's a good sign that Iran has sat at the negotiating table at all. But many, he says — are fed up with and how long the process has taken. It makes people's hopelessness even worse, he said.

Daniel Estrin in Tel Aviv, Israel, Kat Lonsdorf and Jawad Rizkallah in Beirut, Aya Batrawy in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Ahmed Abuhamda in Cairo, Rebecca Rosman in London, Jackie Northam in Maine, Tina Kraja and Alex Leff in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2026 NPR