The Brief

In the summer of 2021, before an array of union-made electric vehicles parked by the White House, then-President Joe Biden announced that he was setting an ambitious target: By the year 2030, 50% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. would be battery-powered.

"There's no turning back," Biden vowed before taking a joy ride in a plug-in electric Jeep.

Now President Donald Trump is trying to, well, turn back.

"We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers," he said in his inaugural address. "In other words, you'll be able to buy the car of your choice."

One of his first acts in office was to revoke Biden's 50% EV target.

That target was never enforceable on its own; it served as a signpost for other policies that would have more tangible effects.

Likewise, Trump removing the target doesn't change anything now. Consumer tax credits are still available; state mandates and federal emissions rules are still in place. That's because an executive action, on its own, can't undo or overwrite laws.

But the U-turn is a big, blinking arrow toward where the administration is hoping to go.

Next stop: The agencies

Trump identified his target as the "electric vehicle mandate." The federal government does not directly require that electric vehicles be sold — but Republicans have argued that regulations to cut vehicle emissions effectively serve as mandates because automakers would face high costs if they did not sell more EVs.

Part of Trump's roadmap ahead is to revise rules, particularly emissions standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency, but also fuel economy requirements from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. All push companies to build more EVs than they would otherwise.

But before any regulations can change, an agency has to propose adjustments. Then, there are mandatory public comment periods, and the agencies are supposed to incorporate the feedback into any changes. That means it will take a few months at least. But Stephanie Brinley, associate director of AutoIntelligence at S&P Global Mobility, says she thinks it'll be much faster than during the first Trump administration, when it took more than two years to rewrite auto regulations.

"Part of the reason that it can happen faster is simply that the Trump administration's team knows more than they did last time," she says.

A crossroads at Congress

The Trump administration has also lambasted subsidies and incentives, like federal tax cuts, that encourage sales and domestic production of EVs, calling them market distortions.

Trump's executive actions do not affect the availability of EV tax credits; to change those will require an act of Congress. But both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, and they're eager to find ways to save money to balance out the other kinds of tax cuts that Trump has promised. Eliminating EV incentives could help that cause.

That summary makes it sound like reducing EV funding will be easy. That might not be true, because Trump and Republican lawmakers are also keen to promote U.S. manufacturing and jobs. Most of the federal funds for clean energy projects are going into districts that vote Republican — like the emerging battery belt for electric vehicles in the South. And those funds have helped encourage hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment that's pouring into EV manufacturing.

The Biden administration always sought to tie climate action to U.S. jobs, in part to build a more enduring coalition to support clean energy. Now that strategy will be put to the test, as conservative lawmakers weigh their distaste for the tax credits against the local jobs they've helped create.

For example, last week, Rep. John James of Michigan — a Republican and a vocal critic of Biden's EV policies — celebrated the end of "EV mandates," saying he was "thrilled." But he proceeded to ask that the House of Representatives "proceed with caution" when it came to rolling back manufacturing and energy tax credits, noting that job creators in his district and around the country are relying on them.

James repeated a line many Republican lawmakers have used in reference to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration's capstone climate legislation, calling for a "scalpel," instead of a sledgehammer or chainsaw, to dismantle it.

Which incentives will be spared the scalpel? Expect some intense negotiations.

A detour through the courts

Some of Trump's first-day executive orders do have material impacts on the EV industry. He froze the disbursement of funds that were set aside to build new EV chargers, for instance.

It was widely expected that Trump would not fund any more projects once he was in office, which was why the Biden administration was motivated to get money out the door near the end of his term. According to Atlas Public Policy, which closely tracks EV-related incentives, about two-thirds of federal funds for highway chargers have been allocated to states, and 72% of grants for community chargers have been awarded.

Some of that money is already spent. But some has been promised and not yet delivered. How much can Trump block?

"It's a legal question that's going to have to be answered by the courts," says Levi McAllister, a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis and the head of its EV working group.

Several companies are building federally funded EV chargers, including chains of travel stops that want to add EVs alongside their gas stations. At least one of them now says that they're waiting for the administration's next move.

Kim Okafor, general manager of zero emissions for the travel stop chain Love's, told NPR in a statement, "Love's will continue to monitor related executive orders and subsequent changes in law to determine the next steps."

Meanwhile Pilot, another travel center company that received significant funding for chargers, says it tried to anticipate that government programs could change, and that it still plans to build out its EV network.

There's uncertainty about more than just charger funding. Many other elements of Trump's EV roadmap will ultimately be up to the courts. That includes an anticipated fight between Trump and California over that state's influential EV requirements. Those policies call for 100% of new vehicles to be zero-emission (including plug-in hybrids) by 2035, and have been adopted by other states. California's authority to set such rules is unique, and Trump has ordered federal agencies to terminate state policies that would limit gas vehicle sales.

Trump's order is expected to trigger a legal battle. Speaking to investors on Tuesday, General Motors CEO Mary Barra said that California's regulations will be changing, in part because market conditions mean they're not feasible — but that whether Trump's executive action means they're entirely void is simply not clear.

"We're very clear on the direction, but I don't think we can, as an auto manufacturer right now … assume that that is gone at this precise moment," she said.

A new Lexus electric car is displayed at the New York International Auto Show on March 27, 2024. The show emphasized new electric and hybrid models.

(

Spencer Platt

/

Getty Images North America

)

Final destination?

Trump's orders on EVs emphasize consumer choice. And that's just fine with the auto industry, which has welcomed the prospect of easing regulations.

"There's a saying in the auto business: you can't get ahead of the customer," John Bozzella, the president of the trade group representing automakers, said in a statement responding to Trump's first-day action.

The flip side is that you don't want to get behind the customer, either.

"Let's say they roll back everything," says Levi McAllister, the lawyer. "The question still remains: Is there a demand for these products? And if there is, there will be manufacturing for those products."

Right now, EVs make up about 10% of U.S. sales. And according to JD Power's Elizabeth Krear, the percentage of new vehicle shoppers who say they're "very interested" in buying an EV recently reached a two-year high of 29%. Automakers like Ford and GM have argued that because EVs are fun to drive and cheaper to own, they'll eventually win over a larger chunk of shoppers.

At the same time, car companies also have to consider regulations in other countries, where political leaders remain concerned about the consequences of catastrophic global warming. Electric vehicles have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than gas-powered vehicles, and are a key element of the global plan to fight climate change.

"The global stage is still moving in this direction," says Stephanie Brinley, the S&P analyst. "So automakers still have to develop the technology … because they're going to have to sell it somewhere else."

A vote of confidence in critical minerals

For most of the EV supply chain, the road ahead is full of uncertainty, with the Trump administration angling to roll back a whole suite of supportive policies.

But there's one corner of the supply chain where Trump signaled he'd stay the course: the raw materials for EV batteries. Currently, China dominates the mining and processing of many critical minerals. Building a domestic supply chain was an economic and national security imperative for Biden — so too, for Trump. In his executive orders on energy, Trump specifically named critical minerals as a national priority that deserves federal funding.

Rhyolite Ridge, a massive lithium project in Nevada being developed by the company Ioneer, received a government loan for nearly a billion dollars in the final days of the Biden administration. Bernard Rowe, the company's managing director, points out that Barack Obama was president when they drilled the project's first hole.

"We've been through four administrations during that time," he says. "And what I would say is that fortunately, we've enjoyed very strong bipartisan support for these critical minerals supply chains right through those four administrations."

David Klanecky, of the battery recycling company Cirba Solutions, is similarly bullish about Trump's support for the minerals. But he adds a caveat. "I think there's a little bit of a conundrum that's occurring," he says, arguing that the entire supply chain needs to be supported if the goal is to compete with China and build American jobs.

"I think it's great that they're supportive of critical minerals, but if there's no one buying vehicles or using batteries, like, you don't need the critical minerals," he says. "It's a two-sided story."

Correction
Jan. 30, 2025
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that former President Joe Biden set a target that 50% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. would be battery-powered by 2035. In fact, the target year was 2030.

Public officials across California are contemplating what to do with dozens of streets, parks and libraries named in honor of civil rights icon César Chávez in the wake of allegations he sexually assaulted two girls and a woman decades ago.

The allegations surfaced in an investigation by the New York Times published earlier this week that sent shock waves across the country.

Chávez, who was head of the United Farm Workers union, is widely recognized as one of the most influential labor leaders in U.S. history, known for founding the union and for leading national boycotts of grapes to improve working conditions for farmworkers.

Chávez died in 1993.

Many state and local leaders, including L.A.’s mayor and county supervisors, suggested changing the César Chávez holiday on March 31 to Farm Workers Day. March 31 was Chávez’s birthday.

In Sacramento on Thursday, Democratic leaders of the state Legislature said they would push for such a change.

“The farmworker movement was never ever about one man,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said at a news conference. “It was built by tens of thousands of workers. People who labored in the fields, people who organized, people who sacrificed and who stood up when it was hard.

“We have a responsibility to remember the movement and to move it forward with integrity.”

Also on Thursday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed a proclamation renaming the city's César Chávez Day holiday as “Farm Workers Day.” The city recognizes the holiday on the last Monday of March.

“I grew up as a child admiring the farmworker movement,'' Bass said. “I didn't think I was ever going to eat grapes again because my family boycotted grapes.”

The grape strike, organized in part by Chávez, lasted five years from 1965 to 1970.

Multiple allegations of sexual assault

The New York Times investigation uncovered multiple allegations that Chávez had sexually assaulted girls and women in the 1960s and ‘70s, when he was head of United Farm Workers, including union co-founder Dolores Huerta.

Huerta, now 95, told the Times the rape and sexual assault resulted in pregnancies that she kept secret. Huerta said she gave the children up for adoption after birth.

In a statement, Huerta said in part: “... for the last 60 years [I] have kept a secret because I believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for.”

Bass said Thursday she met Chávez once and “thought it was an opportunity of a lifetime.” She said her heart “broke” this week when she heard the allegation that Chávez had raped Huerta.

The mayor said renaming the holiday would allow people “to reflect on how the struggle of farmworkers has elevated working people everywhere.”

She added that the city would need to consider changing the names of buildings, streets and other things named in honor of Chávez.

For example, César Chávez Avenue runs through the heart of the Boyle Heights neighborhood. Several murals of Chávez dot the city.

Bass said she had been in contact with Chávez's family, and they supported her action.

The mayor was joined at the proclamation signing by Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez, who said in a statement that the farmworker movement has always been about the power of the people, “especially the women whose labor built it and too often went unseen."

“As we honor that legacy, we also have a responsibility to tell the truth about harm and stand with survivors,” Hernandez said.

Councilwoman Ysabel Jurado also attended the news conference. She said the movement doesn’t belong to one person.

“Farm Workers Day honors the workers, families and organizers still in the fields and still fighting for fair wages, safe conditions and dignity,” the statement from Jurado read. “And it recognizes that this movement is carried forward every single day by people whose names we may never know but whose impact continues to define the spirit of Los Angeles.”

Other cities and counties 

Many other cities and counties are considering wiping Chávez's name from public spaces.

L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis said she would introduce a motion looking at renaming the county’s César Chávez holiday.

Supervisor Janice Hahn suggested the county consider renaming Chávez day “Farm Worker Day.”

“For those of us who grew up admiring the farmworker movement, today's news is heartbreaking,'' Hahn said in a statement Wednesday. "But as in any other civil rights movement, men were only half the story. The abuses of one man will never diminish the extraordinary sacrifices, accomplishments, and legacy of the women of the farmworker movement.

“It's time we put them first.”

The process for renaming streets and other public structures varies from city to city and school district to school district. It could take months before many cities move to erase Chávez's name from public spaces.

You can follow your city council agenda to keep up with what’s going on, or better yet, reach out to your representatives on the council and county Board of Supervisors to make your voice heard on the issue.

California, along with a coalition of 23 other states and a dozen cities and counties, sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday for rolling back the scientific finding requiring it to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.

“This isn’t a small technical change,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference in Sacramento. “It’s a sweeping decision that would increase pollution, worsen climate change and put the health of millions of Americans at risk. And it’s not based on any credible science.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeks to reinstate a 2009 conclusion known as the endangerment finding — that carbon dioxide and other planet-warming gases threaten public health and welfare.

The climate rule served as the scientific basis for the agency’s ability to limit emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The Trump administration finalized the repeal of the endangerment finding Feb. 12. A post on the EPA’s website stated the change would also dissolve restrictions on vehicle emissions and save Americans $1.3 trillion.

“As a result of these changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control and reporting of GHG emissions for any highway engine and vehicle, including model years manufactured prior to this final rule.”

Sanchez said California’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the landmark 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, signed into law by then-Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, “remains unchanged.”

Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties also were parties to the suit.

KQED’s Laura Klivans contributed to this report.

California voters are split along party lines on two controversial proposed ballot measures — a billionaire tax and an initiative requiring voters to show government ID when they cast a ballot — according to a new poll.

The survey from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found 52% of voters backing a proposed one-time, 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires. The money would be used to fund health care programs, which are being cut by the Trump administration; 33% of registered voters said they were opposed and 15% said they are still undecided.

Whether voters back the measure, which is being pushed by a health care labor union, is highly correlated to their partisan leanings: 72% of Democrats said they’d support the billionaire tax if it qualifies for the November ballot, while the same percentage of Republican voters are opposed. Voters with no party preference were more split, with 51% backing the wealth tax.

The voter ID ballot measure is more evenly divided, with 44% of voters in support and 45% opposed. Republican voters said they would overwhelmingly vote “Yes.” Democrats are unified in opposition, with only 19% in support.

IGS co-director Eric Schickler said that while neither measure has qualified yet for the ballot, most voters surveyed said they are aware of the proposals.

“The Billionaire Tax Initiative starts out in a relatively strong position, but with it polling just above 50%, that still leaves room for what will be an intense, expensive campaign,” he said. “The Voter ID Initiative looks like it faces an uphill climb: given the strong Democratic opposition, it needs very strong support among nonpartisan voters, and it currently seems to be falling short. But it is still very early.”

If they move forward, the campaigns around both measures are expected to be expensive and bruising. Democrats are split on the billionaires tax: Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposed, Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna said he’s in support, and many other Democrats — including legislative leaders and candidates for governor — have offered support for the concept but expressed concerns with the details of this proposal.

Some billionaires have already left California, and others, like Google co-founder Sergey Brin, are lining up huge campaign war chests to fight the measure.

And Democrats are gearing up to fight the voter ID measure, which several Southern California Republican lawmakers are pushing. The proposed ballot measure comes as the U.S. Senate debates what’s known as the SAVE Act, a far more draconian voter ID measure.

Backed by President Donald Trump, that legislation would require a passport or birth certificate to register to vote, essentially eliminate mail-in ballots and require states to hand over their voter rolls to the federal government. It already passed the House but is facing a steep climb in the Republican-led Senate.

The poll was conducted between March 9 and 15 among more than 5,000 registered California voters. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 2 points.

The Los Angeles Unified board members who represent schools named for César Chávez are calling for their renaming.

A New York Times investigation published Wednesday found the famed labor leader Chávez sexually abused girls and women including United Farmer Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta.

“In light of this information, we believe it is necessary to move away from traditional César Chávez-centered celebrations and lessons tied to the state holiday and instead prioritize student safety, dignity and truth,” read a statement from board member Kelly Gonez and Vice President Rocío Rivas.

The renaming process would likely take months and include meetings with school staff, students and parents. In the meantime, district leaders and educators are grappling with how the allegations of abuse change lessons about a figure who helped galvanize generations of activists.

“ I think we are all deeply, deeply troubled by the allegations that have come forward over the last couple of days,” said Andres Chait, the acting Los Angeles Unified superintendent.

Chait said that March 27 will continue to be a school holiday (the currently named César Chávez Day, on March 31, falls during LAUSD’s spring break).

A district spokesperson provided a statement Wednesday that said a review of curriculum and resources related to Chávez is underway “to ensure the emphasis remains on the important work of the farmworker movement, not on any one individual.”

How are community members and educators reacting?

Last semester, students at STEM Academy of Hollywood learned about Chávez and the movement to unionize farmworkers in Irene Atilano’s ethnic studies class.

Atilano said students walked into her classroom Wednesday with questions after seeing the allegations of Chávez’s abuse on social media.

“ They were just like, ‘What do you think?’” Atilano said. “And I'm like, 'It doesn't matter what I think. What do you guys think? Let's learn together.'”

Their reactions ranged from “this really sucks,” to a sense of loss.

“This is why we don't try to idolize people,” Atilano said. “We want to make sure that we focus on the community, we focus on the movement.”

Atilano said she plans to teach ethnic studies again and is thinking about how misogyny and patriarchy intersect with political and social justice movements.

“It can be found everywhere,” Atilano said. “I’m trying to see how I can make those connections in the future, but it's a work in progress.”

On March 10, the LAUSD board unanimously approved a resolution recognizing Chávez — one of many such resolutions over the years — and pledging to provide curriculum and resources aligned with the foundation that promotes his legacy, education and economic development. The board last year also passed a resolution honoring Huerta.

In response to LAist’s questions about curriculum related to Chávez, an LAUSD spokesperson provided a statement that said the district is providing additional instructional materials “to support classroom learning, ensuring students continue to engage with themes of leadership, service and social justice in age-appropriate and meaningful ways.”

LAUSD board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin issued a statement Wednesday morning with links to resources related to sexual and domestic violence.

“Just my own team, we’re seven women … and our own triggers, our own stories are coming out,” Ortiz Franklin said. “You can imagine that happening everywhere in homes, in classrooms, the adults having to manage this, and then also, helping students process.”

César Chávez Elementary in El Sereno is one of several schools in Southern California named after the labor leader.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

How would renaming work?

Blanca Juarez was at César Chávez Elementary in El Sereno on Wednesday to pick up her daughter. With a father and grandmother who were both farmworkers, she said she was troubled by the news.

“He was like the only hope in those days — the only one speaking for all of the — and now, well, I don’t know. I don’t know what to say,” Juarez said.

She said it was too soon to be talking about renaming the school.

Gonez and Rivas said they would work with the communities surrounding the elementary school and the César Chávez Learning Academies in San Fernando to identify new names.

In recent years, the school renaming process has included meetings with staff, students, parents and community members and a public vote. The LAUSD board must vote to finalize any name changes.

LAist Deputy Managing Editor Fiona Ng contributed to this story.