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.

People may have been getting high off cannabis earlier than previously thought — at least 2,800 years ago, a new study suggests.

Archaeologists who led a dig at a monumental tomb in Siberia said they turned up evidence of the earliest known use of cannabis for psychoactive purposes.

The findings point to cannabis consumption at least 300 years earlier than previously known use in neighboring China.

Ancient drug use has long intrigued scholars. The Greek historian Herodotus wrote about inhabitants of Central Asia smoking cannabis around 440 B.C., and recent archaeologists have found the seeds in tombs across its highlands.

The team from Germany, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland said analysis of hair in the royal tomb where cannabis seeds turned up sheds new light on the plant’s role in ancient societies.

“It’s extremely rare that we have both preserved plant parts and human soft tissue with the active compounds in it in the same context,” said co-author Gino Caspari, an archaeologist at the University of Bern.

It’s not clear whether the cannabis was consumed through inhalation or ingestion, he said.

The dig took place starting in 2017 at a large burial mound at the Tunnug 1 site in the Uyuk Valley of southern Siberia, home to one of the earliest monumental tombs showing material culture of the Scythians — ancient nomads who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia and Ukraine.

The team, deployed “essentially out in the middle of nowhere,” lived in tents for months and faced a spring-to-autumn season that variously featured swamps, snowstorms, frosts and swarms of mosquitoes. Herds of horses ran freely across the grassy steppe.

Larger artifacts on the site include weapons in the burials, horse gear and animal-style motifs. But the team “struck gold” as it also found tiny black spots that turned out to be cannabis seeds along with preserved human hair, Caspari said.

“It’s only so often as an archaeologist that you do get to drug test a person that’s been dead for almost 3,000 years,” he said.

Radiocarbon dating on some of the more than 1,000 seeds helped establish the time of origin, and “they are not there by accident” but deposited within the tomb, suggesting that the plant material had significance in the community, he said.

Results were published Thursday in the journal Science.

Not all independent experts were convinced.

The hair analysis “is scientifically weak” and there’s not enough evidence to tell whether cannabis was used, wrote Volker Auwaerter, head of the forensic toxicology section at the University Medical Center in Freiburg, Germany, in an email.

“For a central part of the study, the article falls far short of what would have been possible,” Auwaerter said. “This matters because the hair data carry the abstract’s main claims (cannabis consumption and use for its psychoactive properties).”

Today, scholars don’t consider ancient accounts trustworthy without corroborating evidence. Because the cannabis plant has other uses — seeds are pressed for oil and fibers used for cloth — their presence alone doesn’t confirm drug use.

Auwaerter, who was not part of the study, said the data didn’t distinguish consumption from external exposure — in other words, the hair could have picked up traces of weed simply by being buried together with it. He said a lab test involving forensic toxicology expertise would have been advisable and easy to arrange.

But Elisa Guerra Doce of the University of Valladolid in Spain, who has written about use of consciousness-altering substances in European prehistory, said toxicological hair analysis was not new in archaeology and has been used to identify consumption of psychoactive substances. She was not involved in the study.

In an email, she credited the authors for showing, through their methodology, that “cannabis was not merely deposited as a funerary offering but was actually consumed by individuals associated with the burial rite.”

A California appeals court has found that “ER” and “The Pitt” have enough similarity that a lawsuit brought by the widow and estate of “ER” creator Michael Crichton alleging “The Pitt” is an unauthorized reboot can move forward.

A three-judge panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously on Wednesday that the trial court judge was correct to reject a motion to throw out the case from “The Pitt” production company Warner Bros. Television, which also produced “ER.” But the judges dismissed Noah Wyle — the star of both shows and a producer on “The Pitt” — as a defendant along with two other producers who worked on both series.

The lawsuit is a clash between the makers of multiple Emmy-winning TV series that were each among the most important and acclaimed shows of their eras.

Crichton, the author of “Jurassic Park” and many other novels that became hit movies and TV shows, wrote the pilot script for “ER,” the NBC show about a Chicago emergency room that redefined the medical drama genre and drew tens of millions of weekly viewers in its run from 1994 to 2009.

The lawsuit brought by Sherri Crichton was filed two years ago, before a single episode of “The Pitt” had aired. The HBO Max series that shows a real-time day in the life of a Pittsburgh emergency department has since become perhaps the most lauded series in television, winning two Emmys for best drama for its first two seasons and two best actor Emmys for Wyle.

Along with more technical legal issues, the judges had to decide whether the shows had at least the minimal similarity that would give the lawsuit enough merit to move forward. Their decision applies only to this early legal challenge and they did not rule on whether the plaintiffs had proved the “The Pitt” is derivative of “ER.”

The court agreed with the plaintiff that “both shows provide commentaries on the healthcare system; they focus specifically on the emergency room and the difficult conditions under which the medical staff operates. Both shows take place, with little exception, in the emergency room, as opposed to other medical shows which track patients as they move out of the emergency room, or indeed never enter it.”

The opinion also said that both feature “very fast pacing, and reactions to multiple overlapping crises. The fast-paced dialogue is (to a layperson) frequently incomprehensible shorthand and jargon, lending an air of immediacy and accuracy.”

Warner Bros. Television said in a statement that “WBTV continues to maintain that ‘The Pitt’ is an entirely original series and that the claims against it are without merit. Nothing in the Court of Appeal’s decision establishes otherwise, and WBTV looks forward to defending its position as the case proceeds.”

The defendants argued in legal filings that the shows have “generic similarities” that would exist in “any dramatic story” that features “overworked doctors and staff.”

The panel also unanimously dismissed as defendants Wyle, John Wells, who created “The Pitt” and worked on “ER,” and R. Scott Gemmill, a “Pitt” executive producer who also worked on both shows. The judges found there was no evidence the three men knew the provisions of the Crichton contract that the lawsuit alleges they interfered with.

Sherri Crichton’s lawsuit alleges “The Pitt” is a rebranded version of an unauthorized “ER” reboot that she had rejected.

Her husband had secured a coveted “frozen rights” provision in his contract for the series, prohibiting Warner Bros. from proceeding with any sequels, remakes, spinoffs or other productions derived from “ER” without Crichton’s consent, or his estate’s consent after his death from cancer in 2008.

After the production company could not reach an agreement with Sherri Crichton over a proposed “ER” reboot, the TV studio proceeded to develop and produce a series based on the same premise without permission, the lawsuit alleges.

Micki Boden wanted a wedding cake that checked off a couple of big boxes — personalized and tasty. Instead of a traditional tiered cake, the San Fernando Valley native went with a favorite from her school days.

“My favorite cake of all time is the coffee cake that I ate through my entire K-12 education going to LAUSD public school,” Boden said.

Boden attended elementary school in Studio City and middle school in Sherman Oaks before graduating from a Reseda high school.

Boden and her husband, Matt Stollman, met in 2016 while working on the reality television show Big Brother and eventually started dating. The two got engaged in 2025.

With the groom’s family traveling from the East Coast for their wedding in October, the couple wanted to provide a uniquely L.A. experience.

Micki Boden and Matt Stollman cut into their LAUSD coffee cake wedding cake.

(

Micki Boden

)

“We wanted something that was gonna be fun, that was gonna be memorable for people,” Boden said.

They held their wedding at the Valley Relics Museum in Van Nuys, surrounded by San Fernando Valley memorabilia, and got a California favorite — an In-N-Out truck — to serve guests.

The search for a cake that fit 

But when it came to the wedding cake, the couple struggled to find something suitable. Neither Boden nor Stollman liked frosting, and traditional wedding cakes didn’t excite them.

“We explored the more traditional tiered cake setup, and it just wasn’t meshing well,” Boden said.

Boden kept returning to the coffee cake she ate throughout her years in public school. Los Angeles Unified School District had published its official recipe online, but she wasn’t confident she could bake it herself. So she reached out to the district to ask for help.

The Stollman's wedding cake, decorated by the chef at Mulholland Middle School in Lake Balboa, sits in a pastry box.

(

Micki Boden

)

How LAUSD made it happen 

Thomas Cohen, a public relations representative at the district, and Manish Singh, the director of food services, arranged for a chef at Mulholland Middle School in Lake Balboa to prepare the wedding cake. The chef also shaped part of the cake into a heart just for the couple.

Singh said the district doesn’t take cake orders from the public — but made this exception.

“We were doing it just to make one of our Angelenos, an ex-LAUSD student, make her special day even more special,” Singh said.

For the bride, it was the icing on her big day.

“I think it’s all just part of being an L.A. student,” she said. “The fact that we have these amazing memories from childhood, I think it’s just so meaningful for a lot of people.”

The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday moved to dismiss its own lawsuit that sought to stop California from counting roughly 20,000 ballots it alleged went to noncitizens until their immigration status could be verified.

The request to dismiss the case comes days after Republicans’ significant losses in the midterm elections and about a week before a scheduled hearing where a special master was slated to evaluate the accuracy of the list. California officials have previously said the list is out of date and includes legitimate voters — a sentiment that the federal judge presiding over the case echoed in his blistering order denying the federal government’s request.

The case was at the forefront of President Donald Trump’s administration’s effort to assert control over state-run elections across the country, which Trump has said are rife with illegal voting without providing evidence.

The Department of Justice remains enmeshed in litigation with multiple immigrant and voting rights groups seeking to limit its use of the list of what is says are suspected noncitizens. Another controversial suit it filed in Alaska at Trump’s direction before the election to block the victory of the Democrat in that state’s Senate race was swiftly dismissed by a federal judge. The administration is appealing that ruling but has yet to file a full brief at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

California had processed roughly 9 million ballots as of early Friday, with nearly 5 million still left to be counted, according to state election officials. The motion to dismiss the lawsuit said that, by the time of the upcoming hearing, the state will have already irreparably “commingled the challenged ballots with lawful ones.”

“The relief the United States sought and needed is no longer available—rendering voluntary dismissal necessary,” the motion said.

Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, previously argued in court that the lawsuit would be irrelevant after election day, because there would be no way to sequester the ones allegedly belonging to noncitizens. The lawsuit was filed in mid-October, when ballots had been sent to all of the state’s 23 million registered voters, and after hundreds of thousands of ballots were already processed. Once a ballot is processed, it is completely anonymized.

Essayli said at the time the lawsuit was filed that his goal was to “safeguard the integrity of the election so it doesn’t have an effect on the upcoming election.”

“We want to stop the illegal voting. We don’t want to chase it later,” he said outside of court the week before the election.

California prosecutors in recent weeks have arrested over 30 noncitizens who are accused of illegally registering to vote. Some who were arrested were also accused of voting in previous elections. Elections clerks around California in the week before the election were sent subpoenas to testify before grand juries slated to convene in November. It’s not clear who is being criminally charged in those cases, but the department does not typically subpoena people whom it regards as targets of a criminal investigation to appear before a grand jury.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter appointed the special master in late October, shortly after allowing California to proceed with elections as planned. Carter, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, argued in his blistering order that separating ballots at that late stage would risk disenfranchising citizens and warned it would “wreak havoc” on the midterm elections.

The special master would have also considered whether or not California election officials did in fact have a mechanism for separating the ballots.