California
What do Trump’s environmental rollbacks mean for California?
President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, streamline permitting for oil and gas drilling and revoke electric vehicle rules.
The claims, which came in his inaugural address and in statements from the White House, are a replay of actions Trump took to roll back environmental rules during his first term from 2017 to 2021.
“We will drill, baby, drill,” Trump said Monday. “America will be a manufacturing nation once again, and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have: the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it… we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American autoworkers.”
But many of Trump’s efforts to rewrite environmental laws during his first term were overturned by courts or reversed by President Biden after he took office four years ago. As with Trump’s first term, experts are expecting California and other Democratic states to continue now to push to meet the Paris Agreement’s voluntary targets — which aimed to keep the planet from warming more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit or 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels — and take other steps to maintain their state environmental laws.
“I think there is going to be more rhetoric about California than impact on California,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University. “California has very strong decarbonization policies and state environmental policies. The concern is all the other states. California can’t tackle climate change alone. But California will use the resources we have to move its targets forward.”
In 2017, former Gov. Jerry Brown helped launch the U.S. Climate Alliance, an organization of states that agreed to work toward the Paris targets by expanding renewable energy, electric vehicles and other areas. Today there are 24 states in the group representing 55% of the U.S. population, including California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and most of the New England states.
“We’ve filled the void left by the federal government before and Americans can be sure, we’ll do it again,” said Casey Katims, executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance, on Friday.
Trump is likely to clash with California on the environment in five main areas: Vehicle emissions, offshore oil drilling, offshore wind energy, water policy and federal aid for wildfires and other natural disasters.
When he was president the first time, Trump denied California permission under the federal Clean Air Act to set pollution standards for cars and trucks that are tougher than national standards, something it has done since the 1960s. Trump also attempted to revoke the state’s ability to set tougher standards at all for cars, trains, trucks or any vehicles.
But he failed to achieve long-lasting change. California sued, and the lawsuit was still pending when Biden took office and restored the state’s powers. A month ago, Biden granted a key waiver to allow California to move forward with state rules to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars, minivans and pickup trucks starting in 2035. Already, 24% of new vehicle sales in California are electric, with higher percentages in the Bay Area.
After the first clash, California also signed voluntary agreements with five large automakers — Ford, VW, Honda, BMW and Volvo — to adhere to the state’s tailpipe emissions standards through 2026 as a way to ensure consistency when they design and build vehicles.
On offshore oil, Biden signed a sweeping memorandum earlier this month withdrawing all federal waters off California, Oregon and Washington from new offshore oil drilling. Trump said he would overturn it. But Biden used a 1953 law that a federal judge in 2019 ruled cannot be reversed without a vote of Congress. Some Republicans in California, Florida and other coastal states do not support expanding offshore drilling.
On offshore wind, the Trump White House announced Monday that “President Trump’s energy policies will end leasing to massive wind farms that degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers.”
Trump has opposed wind energy for years, ever since the government in Scotland allowed turbines near a golf course he owned. He has claimed without evidence that wind turbines cause cancer and kill whales.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Biden pushed hard to build floating offshore wind turbines 20 miles or more off California’s coast to expand renewable energy. Trump could block new leases. But Biden already approved leases with five companies who have paid the federal treasury $757 million for the rights off Morro Bay and Humboldt County. Proposition 4, approved by voters in November, includes $475 million in state funding to expand ports to help build and deploy wind turbines. But the stock prices of some large wind companies fell after Trump’s win in November.
On disaster aid, Trump threatened to deny it to California during a rally in October over disagreements with the state over forest management and water policy.
“We’re not giving any of that fire money that we send you all the time for all the fire, forest fires that you have,” Trump said. “It’s not hard to do.”
Newsom and Democratic leaders, along with a few Republicans, like Rep. Young Kim, R-Anaheim, have said they do not support any conditions being placed on disaster assistance. Trump is scheduled to visit Los Angeles on Friday to tour areas that burned.
“In the face of one of the worst natural disasters in America’s history, this moment underscores the critical need for partnership, a shared commitment to facts, and mutual respect,” Newsom said Monday.
Originally Published:
Billionaire developer Rick Caruso will not run for Los Angeles mayor or California governor, after months of speculation that he would seek one of the two posts.
Caruso, who had been teasing a possible run for months, made his decision Friday, saying it came after “many heartfelt conversations” with his family.
“Though my name will not be on a ballot, my work continues,” Caruso said on X. “Public service does not require a title. It is, and always will be, my calling.”
Caruso’s plans were the talk of political circles for many months. Recently, he seemed to confirm that he would seek one of the two positions.
When asked by a reporter on Jan. 7 if it was possible he would not run for any position, Caruso responded: “That option is pretty much off the table now.”
Caruso said he will focus on his nonprofit, Steadfast LA, which brings industry leaders together to help with the Palisades fire recovery.
The 66-year-old developer behind popular L.A. malls like the Grove and the Americana at Brand spent $100 million of his own fortune against Karen Bass in 2022, outspending her 11 to 1 in his failed bid. But Bass beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.
Caruso served as president of the L.A. Police Commission in the 2000s and helped the city hire William Bratton as police chief. He was appointed to the Department of Water and Power board in 1984, at age 26 — the youngest commissioner in city history at the time.
Caruso has steadily critiqued the mayor online and in public appearances since 2022, seemingly honing and refining his argument for voters to reject the incumbent, whom he has described as incompetent.
“Her record is so bad,” Caruso said at a town hall he hosted at the Americana on Nov. 3.
Caruso’s decision not to run for mayor solidifies the 2026 field against Bass. Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner is running a moderate campaign, with arguments about Bass’ response to the Palisades fire and quality of life concerns that are similar to Caruso’s. The developer’s entry could have thrown a wrench into Beutner’s campaign.
Bass also faces a challenge from her left with Rae Huang, a community organizer and reverend, announcing a run for mayor in November.
Most recently, the entry of former reality star and Palisades fire victim Spencer Pratt has added new intrigue to the race.
Bass’ campaign declined to comment on Caruso’s decision.
As for governor, some voters in deep blue pockets of the state may have rejected Caruso, a former Republican who registered as a Democrat in 2022 and has faced questions over his past party registration.
Still, the developer, who has made public safety and quality of life issues his main talking points, might have attracted California voters unhappy with the current crop of gubernatorial candidates.
No single candidate has dominated the field, while some potential contenders, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have announced they’re not running.
As he weighed a bid for governor in the last year, Caruso traveled multiple times to Sacramento and around the state to meet with labor leaders, community groups and politicians.
“My guess is he did polling and he did not see a path forward,” said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of politics at Pomona College.
“Had he jumped into either race and lost, it would have made the prospects of elected office even further away,” she said.
By Marisa Kendall and Ben Christopher, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened many times to withhold state homelessness funds from cities and counties that aren’t doing enough to get people off the streets.
This year, those threats seem more real than ever.
Newsom’s administration and the Legislature are adding new strings to that money, which they hope will help address one of the state’s most obvious policy failures: Despite California’s large recent investments in homelessness, encampments are still rampant on city streets. But cities and counties already are chafing under the tightening requirements, which they worry will make it harder to access crucial state funds without directly improving conditions on the street.
To access state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention money, cities and counties are being pressured to enact a policy regulating homeless encampments that passes state muster – a potential challenge in a state where local jurisdictions’ rules on encampments vary greatly, and many localities have no policy at all. The state also wants localities to get a “prohousing designation” – a special status awarded to places that go above and beyond to build housing. It’s a distinction that only 60 of California’s 541 cities and counties (home to just 15% of the state population) have achieved so far.
Newsom, the Legislature, local officials and other stakeholders likely will spend the next several months fighting about those terms, and hashing out the conditions for the $500 million in homelessness funding proposed in this year’s budget.
Until those details are resolved, exactly what standard cities and counties will be held to – and what will happen to those that don’t comply – is unclear. But one thing is clear: The state is done freely handing out cash.
Some counties are already feeling the heat. They report increased scrutiny as they apply for the homelessness funds already approved in the 2024-25 budget (which, thanks to lengthy bureaucratic delays, have just been made available.)
“They’re holding the counties’ feet to the fire,” said Megan Van Sant, senior program manager with the Mendocino County Department of Social Services.
Newsom’s administration and legislators in favor of the new accountability measures say cities and counties for too long have been scooping up state funds without proving that they’re using them wisely. The new message to locals is clear, said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, a Democrat from La Palma in Orange County: “The state has been moving forward, not only with the investment in dollars, but also with legislation. Now it is your time to show that if you want these dollars…you have to show us what you’re doing.”
But the new requirements may make it more burdensome to access crucial homelessness funds.
“I worry that, one, we may leave more cities out,” said Carolyn Coleman, executive director and CEO of the League of California Cities, “and, two, that we may cause delays in the ability to get more people housed sooner, which I think is the goal.”
A tougher application process
Applying for state homelessness funds “absolutely” feels different now than it did last year, and the state is asking tougher questions, said Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health program.
Fortunately, the county just approved an encampment policy in September, and has started working on getting a pro-housing designation, he said. But the state still returned the county’s application with plenty of notes.
“It has felt, at times, like the goal post keeps moving a little bit,” Ratner said.
The county’s application still hasn’t been approved, but it seems to be getting close, Ratner said.
In Mendocino County, the state appears to be holding funds hostage until the county can explain its plans to pass an encampment ordinance, said Van Sant. The county board of supervisors is working on such an ordinance, though it hasn’t come up for a vote yet.
But the state’s requirement puts Van Sant and her team in an awkward position. As housing administrators, they have no say in any rules the county passes that regulate or prohibit encampments on local streets.
“I wanted to stay out of it,” Van Sant said. “I still want to stay out of it. We’re housing providers. We try to figure out how to provide people housing. We don’t want to weigh in on enforcement. At all.”
This year, the requirements may get even stricter. Under the current rules, the state seems to be satisfied as long as a city or county can show how it plans to get a prohousing designation or pass an encampment policy. In the next round of funding, local leaders worry the state will withhold funds unless cities and counties have actually achieved those benchmarks.
It’s all about accountability
At issue is the state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program, which provides the main source of state money cities and counties use to fight homelessness.
Though Newsom introduced the first round of funding, $650 million, as a “one-time” infusion of cash for local governments in 2019, it became a recurring feature of his administration’s strategy to reduce homelessness over the next five years.
For four years in a row, the state awarded $1 billion a year to be divvied up between counties, big cities and federally-recognized regional homelessness funding groups known as Continuums of Care. Each round of funding was described as “one-time.” Even so, at least a quarter of the money has gone to day-to-day operating programs, according to data collected by the state.
Top 5 Events In Austin Today – Saturday, 17th January, 2026
Goodman: Major Alabama booster sounds off
Hilcorp affiliate applies with federal regulators to bring LNG imports to Alaska
Turquoise Alert is working but challenges remain, advocates say
FAMU basketball at Arkansas-Pine Bluff: Start time, TV for SWAC game
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
IRS confirms Trump-ordered $1,776 ‘Warrior Dividend’ for 1.45M troops is tax-free
Myanmar military-backed party leads after second round of election voting
DOJ investigating Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey, sources say
Video: Will the ICE Agent Who Shot Renee Good Be Prosecuted?
Trump says no need to invoke Insurrection Act ‘right now’ amid anti-ICE unrest in Minnesota
-
Montana7 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Delaware1 week agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Virginia7 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Montana1 week ago‘It was apocalyptic’, woman tells Crans-Montana memorial service, as bar owner detained
-
Minnesota7 days agoICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
-
Oklahoma6 days agoMissing 12-year-old Oklahoma boy found safe
-
Lifestyle2 days agoJulio Iglesias accused of sexual assault as Spanish prosecutors study the allegations
Last year, things changed. The budget lacked any extra cash for grant funds, and the state’s main homelessness program received no new money. Instead, the Legislature committed to spend $500 million — a 50% reduction from the last round of funding — in the coming fiscal year contingent on “clear accountability requirements.”
Those requirements for localities, spelled out in a follow-up budget bill signed into law last fall, include:
- Having a state-approved housing plan, known as a housing element
- Having a “Prohousing Designation” from state housing regulators
- Having local encampment policy “consistent with administration guidance”
- Ponying up some local funding to match the state contribution
- Demonstrating “progress” and “results” on housing and homelessness metrics
These new demands didn’t come out of left field. For several years now, “accountability” has been one of Newsom’s favorite words when discussing homelessness funding. “People have just had it,” he said in 2023. “We want to see these encampments cleaned up.” He has repeatedly threatened to withhold funds, and has gradually ramped up the strings attached to homelessness dollars.
But the current list represents an especially stringent set of requirements for locals hoping for a cut of what has been one of the state’s signature funding sources to combat homelessness.
Quirk-Silva noted that the current list of requirements is not final. She expects the administration to release additional legislative language in February. Legislators will fight over the details through the June budget deadline.
She expected particularly fierce pushback over any kind of “prohousing designation” requirement.
Revoking funds from areas of the state that lack such a designation would be “penalizing service providers for something that is outside of their control,” said Monica Davalos, a policy analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan wishes the state would focus on more concrete measures of success, such as the number of people housed using state dollars, instead of things like a “prohousing” stamp.
“We’re making this way too complicated,” he said.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
