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.

San Clemente’s City Council has approved a proposal to give federal immigration officials broad oversight of the city’s coastline, despite overwhelming public opposition.

Under the agreement, Customs and Border Patrol will be able to install cameras on a hilltop to keep an eye on the city’s waters for incoming panga boats. If people from the panga boats head into the city, federal agents can surveil them in residential neighborhoods. City officials will not have access to the surveillance system or how it’s being used.

The agreement — approved on a 3-1 vote, with one council member abstaining — comes even as city officials have acknowledged there hasn’t been a rise in panga boat landings within city limits.

As next steps, the city manager will enter into a lease with Customs and Border Patrol giving them access to the land to install the camera.

Details of the agreement 

City leaders directed the city manager to enter into a lease agreement with Customs and Border Patrol for a five-year term, with three five-year renewal options. Federal immigration agents will also pay a one-time fee of $10 to the city and cover electricity costs.

Public pushback 

San Clemente residents mostly spoke out against entering into the lease, with many citing privacy concerns.

“ The federal government is demanding a black box operation on our soil. They're asking for a platform to monitor our coastline with zero local oversight,” resident Robin Seymour said at the council meeting.

Another resident, Chelsea Sanchez, said she’s concerned as the daughter of immigrant parents.

“Given that racial profiling is a common tactic of these agencies, how can you guarantee that someone who looks like me won't be swept up in something like this?” she said.

Mark Enmeier, the sole voice of dissent on the dais, also raised concerns with the agreement’s lack of oversight in how the surveillance data will be used.

In the city report, officials said CBP “has stated the system would be configured to avoid scanning residential areas that fall into the scan viewshed.” However, city officials said Tuesday night that the agency “can't commit contractually to not surveilling anything inside the city limits of San Clemente or inside the residential area.”

Other cities with agreements with federal immigration 

The city of Glendale ended a 20-year contract with Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that allowed the agency to use its jails after coming under pressure when immigration enforcement ramped up in Southern California.

Customs and Border Patrol also has an agreement with San Diego County that gives agents access to millions of personal data from the San Diego Association of Governments.

Verizon’s $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications is a done deal after the agreement closed Tuesday, kicking in a slew of digital equity requirements and infrastructure investments for California.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s recent approval included a slew of digital equity requirements, such as expanding affordable internet and new fiber optic projects.

The merger comes as the federal government pulled back $2.75 billion in funding by slashing the Digital Equity Act.

CPUC Commissioner John Reynolds said requirements from the deal will benefit Californians and align with the state’s mission to expand affordable connectivity.

“California isn’t just approving a merger, we’re securing real commitments that will connect communities, lower costs for families who need it most, and strengthen workforce and supplier diversity protections,” Reynolds said in a statement.

Verizon CEO Dan Schulman, in a statement, celebrated the approval.

“Our greatly expanded footprint will enable us to provide more value to more households and businesses in more regions, driving our growth and benefitting our customers and our shareholders,” Schulman said.

What is required of Verizon in this deal? 

The closed merger means Verizon must expand affordable voice and broadband plans. That includes providing free broadband service to qualifying low-income families for at least 10 years. And for at least the next five years, Verizon can’t raise rates on its affordable plans.

The state also reported that Verizon must invest in 75,000 new fiber locations and build 25 new wireless towers that will reach rural areas.

The decision also adopts multiple settlement agreements that include additional commitments related to affordability, service quality, labor protections, infrastructure deployment and $500 million in spending with small businesses.

Verizon must fulfill its commitments or face fines and other penalties from the California Public Utilities Commission, according to the agreement.

Are there concerns? 

Some concerns remain about what these mergers could mean for customers, according to Lindsey Skolnik, manager at the California Alliance for Digital Equity.

“Recognizing that declining competition in the marketplace ultimately leads to increased concentration of power over broadband pricing and service offerings, this potential outcome is deeply worrisome, especially in the midst of California's affordability crisis,” Skolnik said in a statement.

Much of California’s broadband prices are driven by the Big 5 providers that include Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Cox and Verizon-Frontier. They service around 97% of the state’s 10.7 million broadband subscribers, Skolnick said.

In the coming years, the Big 5 could shrink to the Big 4 if the merger between Charter Communications and Cox Communications closes. Charter announced in May 2025 that it had offered to acquire Cox for around $34.5 billion, consolidating two of the largest cable companies in the country.

No details yet on when the agreement may close.

Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion — notably smaller than other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. But ICE's budget has skyrocketed during President Trump's second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, with $85 billion now at its disposal.

The windfall is thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted last July. After hovering around the $10 billion mark for years, ICE's budget suddenly benefited from a meteoric spike.

"With this new bill and other appropriations, it's larger than the annual budget of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined," said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, senior director of the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute.

ICE is now the lead agency in President's Trump immigration crackdown, sending thousands of agents into U.S. communities. As its funding and profile has grown as part of those efforts, ICE has come under increasing criticism for its officers' actions, from masked agents randomly stopping, questioning, and detaining people and thrusting them into unmarked vehicles to the recent killing of Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis.

A cycle of more migrants, more money and a larger ICE mission

ICE's sudden growth spurt follows roughly two decades of relatively modest funding since 2003, when the agency was created by merging the U.S. Customs Service with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In 2015, for instance, Congress approved a budget of around $5.96 billion, which was nearly $1 billion less than then-President Barack Obama had requested.

In 2019, during the first Trump administration, border control officer's encounters with migrants attempting authorized entry to the U.S. spiked. Those numbers then plummeted as the COVID-19 pandemic prompted invocation of the Title 42 public health law, allowing CBP to expel migrants more quickly, with restricted pathways to asylum.

Encounters rose sharply under former President Joe Biden and soared above 3.2 million in 2023, when Biden lifted Title 42. By late 2024, fewer migrants were arriving at the border, due to U.S. asylum limits and Mexico bolstering enforcement.

When Trump returned to the White House in 2025, he sought to empower immigration authorities to quickly remove migrants and announced a crackdown led by ICE.

Under the 2025 law, ICE has a $75 billion supplement that it can take as long as four years to spend, along with its base budget of around $10 billion. If the agency spends that money at a steady pace and current funding levels continue, it would have nearly $29 billion on hand each year. That essentially triples ICE's total budget from recent years.

To give that large number a sense of scale, consider that the Trump administration's 2026 appropriations request for the entire Justice Department, including the FBI, stands at a little over $35 billion.

The Trump administration has set lofty goals for ICE, aiming to deport 1 million people each year. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act also allocates $45 billion for ICE to expand its immigration detention system — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said last June that the agency will be able to hold up to 100,000 people in custody daily. By comparison, the federal Bureau of Prisons currently holds over 153,000 inmates.

As of Nov. 30, 65,735 people were held in immigration detention, according to the data tracking project Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

With those metrics in mind, ICE went on a hiring spree in 2025, fueled by its bigger budget. In just one year, the agency says, it "more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000." (The Office of Personnel Management, which tracks federal workforce statistics, is only updated through Nov. 30 and does not reflect any hiring made by the DHS in the last quarter of the year.)

According to the DHS, ICE received 220,000 applications in 2025, thanks in part to a generous incentive package with perks like a signing bonus of up to $50,000, disbursed over the course of a five-year commitment, and up to $60,000 in student loan repayment.

ICE is still on that hiring spree, looking to hire deportation officers in at least 25 cities around the U.S., according to a job listing on the USA Jobs website that will remain active through the end of September. The starting salary for an ICE deportation officer in the Enforcement and Removal Operations division, or ERO, ranges from $51,632 up to $84,277.

The dramatic growth came in the same year that the Trump administration sharply reduced the number of federal workers, firing thousands of employees and inviting many more to resign.

What else will the new funds be spent on? 

With base level funding for DHS and ICE due to expire at the end of January, Democrats in Congress are calling for changes to how ICE operates. It comes after a year in which deaths of people in ICE custody spiked to the highest levels in decades, with ICE reporting seven deaths in December, and three more in 2026, as of Jan. 16.

ICE's increased budget makes sense to Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the right-wing Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group advocating for lower levels of immigration. He says the funding boost " is directly commensurate with the size of the task the agency is addressing."

"ICE exists to find and remove people who are in the country illegally," Mehlman said, referring to a category that grew when the Trump administration stripped legal status from 1.6 million immigrants in 2025.

The focus of the new spending reflects President Trump's emphasis on arrests and removals, said Margy O'Herron, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center's liberty and national security program who worked at the DOJ in the Biden administration.

O'Herron said she agrees with the idea that, for years, a reasonable case could be made that DHS agencies such as ICE and CBP needed more money. But other parts of the immigration system aren't getting as much help, she said.

"All of the money is going to enforcement to arrest, to detain and to deport," she said. "It's not going to things like immigration hearings or immigration judges, to conduct additional review of whether or not somebody should be in the country. And that is a real problem for the system."
Copyright 2026 NPR