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.

This story first published in The LA Local.

Take a deep breath. The elimination rounds of the World Cup have begun. Mexico will battle against Ecuador on Tuesday, with kickoff at 6 p.m. local time.

After winning every game in their group for the first time in their history, Mexico faces their toughest opponent yet. There is no room for mistakes, a loss means instant elimination for either team. Ecuador barely squeezed out of their group with a final impressive victory against Germany. Now potentially 80,000 Mexican fans await them in Estadio Azteca.

Here are the free spots showing the game all over Koreatown, Pico Union, and Westlake. There are no official park-sponsored watch parties in the local neighborhoods, according to the city’s Kick It In the Park schedule, but here are a few of the local sports bars, restaurants and other spots that will be showing the game.

Koreatown

The Line Hotel
3515 Wilshire Blvd. 
The hotel has been showing games throughout the tournament and will have special offers on drinks and food. The venue will show the game on a large LED screen, with live mariachi band and DJ set by Chulita Vinyl Club. There will also be a 90-minute unlimited margarita pitchers for $45 per person, according to the organizers. More information can be found here.

Biergarten
206 N. Western Ave.
Don’t be mistaken. The Biergarten is showing every match on multiple screens all over the bar. Their promise of Korean-German fusion is accompanied by a plethora of drinks on tap. More information can be found here.

Eastwood
611 S. Western Ave.
The country inspired bar and restaurant will host the game on various screens around the bar as well as serving bar towers and other specials. If the game isn’t enough of an emotional rollercoaster for fans, they can try their luck on the bar’s mechanical bull. Door will open at 430pm. More information can be found here.

Baja’s Grill Sports Cantina
3250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 103
For flavors of Baja California during the game this Cantina will be running specials and happy hour. The Bar is surrounded by multiple screens and regularly hosts $35 open bars from 6-10pm.

Lock and Key 
239 S. Vermont Ave. 
The cocktail den will be hosting the game alongside $8 drink specials for margaritas, palomas, and vodka martinis. Multiple DJs will also be present during and after the game. More information can be found here.

DJM Soju Bar
3275 Wilshire Blvd.
The restaurant will host the game both indoors and outdoors alongside food and drink specials. They serve a variety of plates from spicy pork bulgogi, seafood soup, to sweet and sour chicken. A wide variety of soju is also offered. Doors will open at 4pm. More information can be found here.

Westlake and Pico Union 

Pulgarcito Family Restaurant 
2500 W. Pico Blvd.
This family-owned restaurant serves pupusas, quesabirria and plato de dirria, along with camarones a la diabla, plátanos fritos with beans and crema and many more Salvadorean meals. They also have cold drinks and multiple screens for the game. More information can be found here.

Casa Gish Bac Cocina Oaxaqueña                                                                                 1436 S. Vermont Ave. 
The Oaxacan restaurant will be showing the games on multiple TVs as well as on a projector. Happy hour is from 2-6pm right before kickoff. Deals include $5 beers and $2 tacos. They’re also sweetening the celebrations with a free shot with every Mexico goal. More information can be found here.

Huicho’s Bakery                                                                                                                 1250 Vermont Ave.
The local bakery will be showing the game outside of their shop on one TV. They offer a variety of Central American and Mexican food as well as pastries and bread.

Xecul Restaurante Guatemalteco
1051 S. Alvarado St.
The Guatemalan restaurant will show the game on two TVs indoors. They offer a wide variety of traditional Guatemalan flavors like their El Shuco Xecul as well as mixed fusion plates like Chowmein mixto.

Sol Agave
800 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite A130
For a more relaxed atmosphere this restaurant serves upscale Mexican cuisine and will be showing the game with TVs around their bar and dining areas. Margaritas and drink specials will be served.

Cafe con Ron
819 S. Flower St.
The Mexican seafood and brunch location will be hosting the game with TVs around their cantina area. They offer fish tacos as well as quesabirria and drink specials. More information can be found here.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Tuesday agreed to pay $9.6 million to the family of a man fatally shot by sheriff’s deputies in Compton in 2020 to settle a wrongful death lawsuit.

The unusually large settlement came amid claims Samuel Herrera Jr. was unarmed, targeted by deputies because he was Mexican American and that the deputies involved were part of a law enforcement gang.

The shooting was the subject of a rare coroner's inquest in 2021 — one of three conducted amid widespread criticism of law enforcement shooting in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. That inquest did not conclude deputies acted wrongfully.

A review by the District Attorney also determined the deputies acted within the law.

But a civil rights lawsuit filed by Herrera’s family claims deputies acted with negligence.

“This lawsuit concerns the outrageous and unlawful use of deadly force by county deputies and officers, as well as their malicious effort to distort the true facts of their own misconduct,” the lawsuit states. Herrera posed no threat to deputies, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Herrera’s two minor sons and minor daughter.

While the county admitted no wrongdoing, it's not unusual for the county to settle a lawsuit if they believe the damages could be higher if they lost in a jury trial.

A Corrective Action report issued by county lawyers laying out a chronology of events appeared to contradict the lawsuit’s allegations. It also said the use of force and tactical actions employed by some deputies were inconsistent with established policy, practice and training. Contributing factors included deficiencies in coordination, use of cover, communication, and target acquisition.

What the County Counsel report said

Deputies were serving an early morning search warrant on a house where Herrera, 41, was believed to be selling methamphetamine, according to a report by the County Counsel’s office. The report said Herrera was also believed to carry a gun when he sold drugs.

The deputies ended up outside a back garage where Herrera was inside. What happened next was a series of shootings by deputies.

The County Counsel said deputies heard gunshots from the garage and shot at one of the side doors when they thought they saw the barrel of a gun. When a second door opened, deputies fired again. A short time later a fire broke out in the garage, according to the report.

Herrera eventually crawled out of a hole in the garage and “paced back and forth, then turned to the left and made a sudden movement, as if to shoot at the deputies,” the County Counsel report said. Deputies opened fire.

Deputies fired “another volley of gunfire” as Herrera lay wounded on the ground, believing he was reaching for a gun. Herrera was hit by bullets 10 times, according to the medical examiner.

An AR-15 magazine and .45 Glock handgun magazine were found directly next to him, according to the report.

What the lawsuit said

The lawsuit by Herrera’s family claimed he was unarmed at the time of the shooting and said that he did not pose an “objectively reasonable threat” to anyone. It noted deputies opened fire on the garage while Herrera’s brother and a woman and child were still inside. Herrera’s brother Jesus suffered a gunshot wound.

Deputies “through the exercise of reasonable and due diligence, should have known that minors, infants, women and other unintended targets of their raid,” would be on the property.

The lawsuit also claimed Herrera and the others were targeted because they are Mexican American and that the deputies were part of a law enforcement gang.

The lawsuit states the shooting was “part of the county’s long-standing custom, habit, and practice of promoting certain gang-like clique members of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who wear matching tattoos, and engage in initiation rites including using deadly force, seemingly as a part of some gang initiation-like rite, in an unreasonable or excessive manner against Black and Brown men in Los Angeles County.”

The lawsuit does not name the deputies that might have been involved.

A Loyola Law School report documents the existence of at least 18 different deputy gangs and cliques over the last five decades, such as the Banditos, Executioners, and Regulators.

In a statement, the Sheriff’s Department said it does not tolerate any gang-like behavior and “is actively addressing the long-standing issue of law enforcement gangs and is holding personnel accountable for misconduct related to gang like actions.”

The statement also said the department “categorically rejects any suggestion that our deputies target individuals based on race or ethnicity. Such allegations are inconsistent with our policies, training, oversight, and our commitment to constitutional policing.”

In a video reviewing the incident released shortly after the shooting, the unnamed narrator said deputies found a loaded AK-47 assault weapon and loaded handgun inside the garage. That video contains audio, still photos of the scene and text on screen, but no video.

California can continue its long-held policy of allowing transgender student athletes to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams, under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued Tuesday.

“With this ruling, schools and states like California can continue to adopt inclusive policies that ensure every student is treated with dignity and respect,” Tony Hoang, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California said. “Inclusive policies are working across the country, including here in California, where transgender young people have participated in school sports for years without incident.”

The court’s 6-3 decision allows – but doesn’t require – states to bar transgender student athletes from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, upholding state laws in Idaho and West Virginia. Including California, 23 states let transgender students play on teams that align with their gender identity.

Proponents of a ban also celebrated the court’s ruling, saying it’s a major step forward in their fight to keep transgender athletes out of girls sports, and it potentially opens the door to restrictions in the future.

“The Supreme Court just delivered a major victory for girls and for common sense,” said Sonja Shaw, a Chino Valley Unified school board member who’s running for state superintendent. She added that “California should be leading the nation in protecting girls, not forcing them to surrender their rights … We will continue fighting until every girl has the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.”

California, an epicenter of the LGBTQ rights movement, has long maintained policies that protect transgender students in K-12 schools. The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school sports in the state, also allows transgender students to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity.

Nationwide, LGBTQ advocates decried the court’s ruling as a blow to transgender peoples’ rights generally, especially in states that currently restrict – or are leaning toward restrictions of – those rights.

“The SCOTUS majority decision furthers the Trump administration’s widespread attack on civil rights protections and continued attempt to erase transgender individuals from society, including through distorted interpretation of law,” said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates. “(We) will continue fighting for trans equality and trans rights.”

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