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.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Monday unveiled a $14.9 billion budget that is significantly rosier than last year’s spending plan, when she suggested massive layoffs and service cuts to accommodate a billion-dollar deficit.

This year, because of a projected increase in revenues, the mayor is proposing no layoffs and a modest expansion of street services. Bass' budget also calls for hiring police officers to keep up with retirements and resignations, maintaining Fire Department spending and holding steady funding for homelessness programs.

“This budget is about protecting the progress we have made and making clear that Los Angeles is moving forward and will not go backward,” Bass said at a news conference.

In the proposal, the reserve fund is 5.7% of the general fund, or $490 million. The budget does not dip into the reserves, in contrast to last year’s plan.

Bass is seeking re-election this year. The primary is June 2.

Some of her challengers in the upcoming election, including Councilmember Nithya Raman, criticized Bass’ proposal as doing little more than maintaining the status quo.

“The budget the Mayor released today tells us the plan is to largely keep doing what we're doing — but what we're doing is not working,” Raman said in a statement.

Next, the proposal will go to the City Council for consideration. Budget hearings will be conducted in the coming weeks.

Increasing revenue

Among the reasons city officials say revenue will go up is the expected influx of thousands of visitors to World Cup soccer matches this summer. More travelers mean more people staying in hotels and paying hotel taxes, as well as more sales tax revenue.

The budget projects a $412 million increase in general tax revenue, including $71 in business taxes, $34 million in sales taxes and $67 million in utility taxes.

The budget would add 170 new positions in the department that handles street repairs and increase funding for street and sidewalk fixes, curb-ramp installation, street sweeping, bulky item pickup and dedicated illegal dumping enforcement throughout the city.

The budget also proposes hiring 510 police officers, representing a target of 8,555 for the Police Department and enough to keep up with attrition, according to budget officials. Bass has set a goal of 9,500 officers.

“It’s about preventing the shrinkage of LAPD,” Bass said.

That proposal is likely to see opposition from some council members who want to see the department shrink and funding for unarmed response teams increase.

Inside Safe

The budget sustains citywide coverage for civilian unarmed crisis response, maintaining deployment of 500 crossing guards and expanding a program that aims to help children get to and from school safely and protect them from gang violence.

Under the budget, funding for Inside Safe, the mayor’s signature program to address homelessness, would remain about the same — $104 million.

The mayor touts an 18% drop in street homelessness as evidence of its success.

The budget maintains funding for the city Fire Department. In November, voters are expected to decide whether to increase the sales tax by half a percent to pay for more firefighters and equipment.

Criticism for the budget

Bass’ challengers immediately criticized her budget as lacking vision.

“This budget maintains a status quo of reduced services and higher fees, the direct result of fiscally irresponsible decisions made by this Mayor in prior years,” Raman said in her statement.

In January, the council member voted against Bass’ plan to hire 170 more police officers.

Adam Miller, a tech entrepreneur and another Bass challenger, said keeping the budget flat “implies that the status quo is working.”

“That is tone-deaf to the city of Los Angeles as Angelenos overwhelmingly feel we need change," he said.

The budget needs to be approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor by July 1, the start of the fiscal year.

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is leaving her post amid an internal investigation brought on by complaints about misconduct.

White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung announced the departure on X, writing "she has done a phenomenal job in her role by protecting American workers, enacting fair labor practices, and helping Americans gain additional skills to improve their lives." Cheung said Chavez-DeRemer was taking a position in the private sector.

A senior official at the Labor Department not authorized to speak publicly about the departure said the secretary had resigned.

Chavez-DeRemer is the third cabinet member to leave during President Donald Trump's second term.

In early March, Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shortly after lawmakers on Capitol Hill berated her over her agency's handling of immigration enforcement — as well as its $220 million ad campaign featuring the secretary on horseback.

A month later, Attorney General Pam Bondi left amid simmering frustration over her leadership of the Justice Department and her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

While Chavez-DeRemer has played a far less visible role than Bondi or Noem in Trump's second term, her tenure has also been marked by controversy.

In January, the New York Post first reported that the Labor Department's inspector general was looking into complaints that Chavez-DeRemer was having an affair with a subordinate, drinking alcohol on the job and using taxpayer-funded travel to visit with friends and family members.

NPR has not independently verified the contents of the investigation.

While in office, Chavez-DeRemer spent much of her time away from Washington. A year ago, she launched her "America at Work" listening tour, an initiative that took her to all 50 states.

Chavez-DeRemer's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, who had been on leave since January, resigned in early March. A third senior member of her staff, Melissa Robey, said in a statement issued March 26 that she had been fired a couple days earlier, after giving a four-hour interview to the Office of the Inspector General.

Meanwhile, the New York Times was first to report that Chavez-DeRemer's husband, Shawn DeRemer, an anesthesiologist in Portland, Ore., had been barred from Labor Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., after at least two staffers reported he had touched them inappropriately. Washington, D.C. police and federal prosecutors closed the investigations without bringing charges.

An unconventional choice

Trump's selection of Chavez-DeRemer to lead the Labor Department was seen by many as a concession to Teamsters President Sean O'Brien. O'Brien had been friendly with Trump through the presidential campaign, taking a prime-time speaking slot at the 2024 Republican National Convention and later declining to endorse Trump's opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

O'Brien had pushed for Chavez-DeRemer's selection, noting that she was one of only a few Republicans in Congress to have supported the PRO Act. That bill aimed to make it easier for workers to organize unions, including by overturning state Right to Work laws, which weaken unions.

At the time, Trump wrote, "Lori's strong support from both the Business and Labor communities will ensure that the Labor Department can unite Americans of all backgrounds."

Deputy Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, who has already been running much of the day-to-day operations of the Labor Department, has been named acting secretary, according to Cheung's post on X.

Sonderling previously served at the Labor Department during the first Trump administration and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Biden administration, having been nominated by Trump during his first term to fill a Republican seat.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Before he became an Orange County Superior Court Judge, Ebrahim Baytieh was fired as a prosecutor by District Attorney Todd Spitzer for allegedly cheating to win convictions. And Baytieh was accused by a San Diego judge last year of lying under oath. But an O.C. nonprofit that teaches youth about constitutional rights awarded Baytieh “Judge of the Year” at its annual reception last week.

The group, the Constitutional Rights Foundation, Orange County, said in a statement that they honored Baytieh because he was the top volunteer for the group’s high school mock trial competition. The statement said the group had “received positive feedback from coaches and students over whose trials [Baytieh] presided.”

Some questioned whether the award was appropriate.

“It’s disgusting,” said Scott Sanders, the former public defender who uncovered the so-called “snitch scandal,” in which Baytieh was a major player. “If you’re going to have a group that’s dedicated to constitutional rights, it is not a good look to make your ‘Judge of the Year’ a guy who has been found to violate constitutional rights.”

What’s come to be known as the O.C. snitch scandal refers to the systematic use of jailhouse informants to coax confessions from defendants without their lawyers present, and then hide that evidence from defendants — both of which are illegal. The misconduct took place under former District Attorney Tony Rackauckas. Spitzer, the current DA, has vowed to never let such misconduct happen again. But he has been left to deal with the fallout, including past wrongful convictions that continue to come to light.

Baytieh, who held a top position in Rackauckas’s office, repeatedly denied the allegations of misconduct.

Nevertheless, a federal civil rights investigation ultimately concluded that O.C. law enforcement “systematically violated criminal defendants’ right to counsel."

Baytieh’s prominent role in those violations has come into focus in recent years, most recently when the District Attorney’s Office was forced to drop murder charges in a decades-old case that Baytieh had initially prosecuted. The judge in that case concluded that Baytieh and his prosecution team had withheld evidence, and then lied on the stand about it in 2024. The judge called the prosecution’s behavior "reprehensible."

Orange County Asst. Public Defender Scott Sanders questions former prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh, now an O.C. Superior Court judge, about the use of jailhouse informants in a San Diego courtoom on June 10, 2024.

(

Nick Gerda

/

LAist

)

Previously, Baytieh had been fired by Spitzer after an internal investigation found Baytieh had illegally withheld evidence in the same murder case. Baytieh would go on to win election to the O.C. Superior Court a few months later, with endorsements from dozens of current and former judges and law enforcement leaders.

LAist reached out to Baytieh for this story but has not received a response. Paul Meyer, a defense attorney who has represented Baytieh in recent years, declined to comment.

One-man protest from an unlikely critic

As high school students and their parents arrived at Calvary Church in Santa Ana last Thursday for the mock trial awards ceremony, Paul Wilson walked through the parking lot, handing out copies of a six-page letter, penned by Sanders, the former public defender, highlighting Baytieh’s unethical behavior and urging the Constitutional Rights Foundation not to honor the judge.

The event went on as planned.

Wilson and Sanders have become unlikely allies in a quest to root out past misconduct by O.C. law enforcement and seek justice for defendants who didn't get a fair trial.

More than a decade ago, Sanders and Wilson were on opposite sides of the courtroom. Sanders was defending Scott Dekraai, the man accused of killing Wilson’s wife, Christy, and seven others in the county’s worst mass shooting in modern history, at a salon in Seal Beach.

Dekraai was arrested in what appeared to be a slam dunk legal case. But then, while preparing for trial, Sanders discovered a secret law enforcement program that offered money and perks to jailed informants to surreptitiously question defendants, including Dekraai. Questioning a defendant without giving them the opportunity to have a lawyer present runs afoul of the Constitution. Prosecutors were also hiding evidence about informants from defendants, another constitutional violation.

As a result of Sanders’s discovery, the Dekraai case dragged on for years. In a humiliating defeat, the DA’s office was removed from prosecuting the case because of the misconduct. And in a blow to the victims’ families, a judge ruled that the death penalty would be off the table.

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice followed, during which Baytieh, then a top prosecutor, denied having any knowledge of the misconduct.

Paul Wilson hands copies of a letter detailing Judge Baytieh's role in the snitch scandal to attendees of an awards ceremony sponsored by the Constitutional Rights Foundation of Orange County.

(

Courtesy: Paul Wilson

/

LAist

)

After the ordeal, Wilson began crusading to reform O.C. law enforcement. “We haven’t gotten the justice we deserve,” Wilson said of himself and other victims’ family members.

That’s what led him to make copies of Sanders’s denouncement of Baytieh’s “Judge of the Year” award, and to bring them to the Constitutional Rights Foundation’s celebratory event last week, he told LAist.

“ I felt a great need to go down and let some of these students that Baytieh has been mentoring … know who this guy was and what he's all about and what he continues to be,” Wilson said.

“For years and years, those guys operated behind this shield that nobody was going to catch them,” Wilson said of Baytieh and other former O.C. prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies who were found by judges and the U.S. Department of Justice to have participated in the misconduct.

Wilson told LAist he passed out about 45 copies of Sanders’s letter before someone from the Constitutional Rights Foundation asked him to leave.

Read the letter:

Pending justice

Sanders retired last year from the O.C. Public Defender’s office after 32 years. Before he left, around 60 convictions tainted by the misuse of informants had been lessened or overturned. In one, a 69-year-old man was freed from prison after the DA's Office admitted that prosecutors withheld evidence decades ago that mitigated his guilt. The man had already spent 41 years in prison.

Sanders said there’s much more work to do — in court filings, he has detailed dozens of convictions that he argues should be revisited because of law enforcement misconduct.

Baytieh prosecuted many of those cases.

“Every one of his cases should be torn apart,” Sanders said.