More stories

  • in

    U.S. Will Allow California to Ban New Gas-Powered Cars, Officials Say

    California and 11 other states want to halt the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. President-elect Donald Trump is expected to try to stop them.The Biden administration is expected in the coming days to grant California and 11 other states permission to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, one of the most ambitious climate policies in the United States and beyond, according to three people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to revoke permission soon after taking office, part of his pledge to scrap Biden-era climate policies. “California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,” Mr. Trump has said. “I will terminate that.”The state is expected to fight any revocation, setting up a consequential legal battle with the new administration.“California has long led the nation in pioneering climate policies and innovation,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, earlier this year. “Those efforts will continue for years to come.”He has described the ban as the beginning of the end for the internal combustion engine.Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has for decades allowed California, which has historically had the most polluted air in the nation, to enact tougher clean air standards than those set by the federal government. Federal law also allows other states under certain circumstances to adopt California’s standards as their own.The waiver can be used to rein in toxic, smog-causing pollutants like soot, nitrogen dioxide and ozone that lead to asthma and lung disease. But California officials have also been using the waiver to curb greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, a chief cause of global warming. Gas-powered cars and other forms of transportation are the biggest source of carbon dioxide generated by the United States.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Panic at Pepperdine University in Malibu as Wildfires Threaten City

    No structures were damaged and no one was injured, but students spent a frantic night sheltering in place as thousands of nearby residents evacuated.The residence halls had lost power, and cell service was not working. Embers had sparked tiny flare-ups on the school grounds, setting palm trees ablaze. Helicopters were descending to extract water from a campus pond.And so the students gathered, many in their pajamas, in the library and in the campus center where the windows framed a distressing sight: Flames ravaging the mountains in the not so far distance; smoke spiraling in the dark sky.They called their parents. They prayed.So went early Tuesday morning for nearly 3,000 students, faculty members and staff members at Pepperdine University, a Christian school in Malibu known for its bucolic setting of rolling hills and ocean views.Around them, the Franklin fire, fueled by fierce winds, ravaged the Santa Monica Mountains and forced thousands of people to evacuate from Malibu — the famed affluent coastal enclave that boasts picturesque beaches and celebrity homeowners. Schools were closed, and residents were ordered to stay away.The blaze also shut down a portion of the Pacific Coast Highway, a key artery in and out of the city, as flames leaped across it and threatened the Malibu Pier, a popular tourist attraction. By Tuesday afternoon, the wildfire had burned more than 2,800 acres, and officials said that gusts as strong as 60 miles per hour had challenged the more than 700 firefighters responding to the scene.“But rest assured, we are going to have a coordinated air and ground assault on this fire for as long as it takes,” said the Los Angeles County fire chief, Anthony C. Marrone.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Ro Khanna: Brian Thompson killing was ‘horrific’ but people ‘aren’t getting care they need’

    Progressive congressperson Ro Khanna has sympathy for murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – yet at the same time is not surprised that the killing reignited a national dialogue about inequities in the US healthcare system, he said in an interview Sunday.“It was horrific,” the California Democrat said on ABC This Week with respect to the slaying of Thompson, whose survivors include his widow and two sons ages 16 and 19. “I mean, this is a father we’re talking about – of two children, and … there is no justification for violence.“But the outpouring afterwards has not surprised me.”Khanna told the show’s host, Martha Raddatz, that he agreed with fellow liberal and US senator Bernie Sanders when he wrote recently on social media: “We waste hundreds of billions a year on health care administrative expenses that make insurance CEOs and wealthy stockholders incredibly rich while 85 million Americans go uninsured or underinsured. Health care is a human right. We need Medicare for all.”“After years, Sanders is winning this debate,” Khanna said, referring to the Vermont senator’s support for a single-payer national health insurance system seen in other wealthy democracies.While police have stopped short of offering a possible motive behind Thompson’s 4 December shooting death, the apparent targeted nature of the attack – as well as shell casings found at the scene of the killing displaying the words “delay”, “deny” and possibly “depose” have suggested it was maybe linked to the largely privatized US healthcare industry’s routine denial of payments to many Americans.Healthcare debt has emerged as a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US while for-profit health insurers such as UnitedHealthcare are among the country’s richest companies. Thompson, 50, who lived near UnitedHealthcare’s headquarters in Minnesota, commanded a salary of $10m annually before a gunman wearing a mask shot him dead outside a hotel in Manhattan as he prepared to attend a meeting with investors of his company.Many greeted news of Thompson’s death not with sympathy but with mockery. A widely shared example of the sentiment was a social media post from Columbia School of Social Work’s Anthony Zenkus, which read: “Today, we mourn the death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down…. wait, I’m sorry – today we mourn the deaths of the 68,000 Americans who die needlessly each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires.”Khanna on Sunday said his status as a member of the US House has not immunized him from absurd insurance battles.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThough he acknowledged it paled in comparison to people with cancer, heart disease and diabetes being denied coverage while they battle for their lives, Khanna said: “I, as a congressperson had UnitedHealthcare deny a prescription for a nasal – a $100 pump spray, and I couldn’t get them to reverse this. So imagine what ordinary people are dealing with.”Khanna said some modest steps that the US could take to begin addressing healthcare inequities in the country is to cap out-of-pocket costs while also requiring the private insurers relied on by many Americans “to cover anything” that Medicare would.Medicare is the public US health insurance program for those older than 65 and people who are disabled.“We have to understand people with cancer, with heart disease, with diabetes, with insurance aren’t getting the care that they need. They’re getting stuck with huge medical bills.” More

  • in

    What We Know About the 7.0-Magnitude California Earthquake

    State and local officials were working to assess the full scope of the damage, but early reports appeared to show that the quake did not cause major destruction.An earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 struck off the coast of Northern California on Thursday, briefly prompting a tsunami warning and leaving residents rattled from Southern Oregon to the San Joaquin Valley in California.State and local officials in California were working to assess the full scope of the damage, and early reports appeared to show that the earthquake did not cause major destruction. But it was the strongest to shake the state in more than five years.Here’s what we know so far.Where did the earthquake hit?The quake struck about 30 miles off the California coast a little before 11 a.m. local time, about 62 miles southwest of Ferndale, which has a population of about 1,300 people. It hit near a seismically active area known as the Mendocino Triple Junction, where three major tectonic plates meet.More than a dozen aftershocks were reported after the initial earthquake, including one with a magnitude of 4.3. The aftershocks could continue for weeks, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.Stephen DeLong, a geologist with the Earthquake Science Center at the U.S.G.S., said in a news briefing on Thursday that those closest to the epicenter, including residents of Ferndale, were the most likely to feel shaking or see any damage.The quake was the strongest to hit California since July 2019, when an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.1 hit near Ridgecrest in the Mojave Desert.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Why Was a Tsunami Warning Issued, and Then Canceled? A Forecaster Explains.

    About five minutes after a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Northern California on Thursday morning, forecasters issued a tsunami warning at the highest of four levels.The warning, sent shortly before 11 a.m. Pacific Time, advised people to evacuate because of the potential for waves that could “injure or kill people and weaken or destroy buildings.” It was part of the National Tsunami Warning Center’s protocol in response to an earthquake, according to Dave Snider, a tsunami warning coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The warning was canceled about an hour later, but Mr. Snider said it was typical for a broad alert to be issued initially before it was refined or rolled back.In the first five minutes of an earthquake, the warning center acts quickly to decide whether to issue an alert and at which level, based on the magnitude and the location “because that’s all we have” at that point, Mr. Snider said.Then, about 20 minutes after a quake strikes, the center receives more details that can inform whether a warning should remain active.The center continued monitoring data from deep ocean sensors and coastal tide stations on Thursday, watching for “any very small and local problems to develop from underwater landslides,” Mr. Snider said. After determining that no tsunami was occurring, the center canceled the warning at 11:54 a.m.The warning center takes care with its decision to issue a tsunami warning, Mr. Snider said. “That’s a big deal.” More

  • in

    Sen. Laphonza Butler Discusses the Election During Her Last Days in Office

    An interview with Senator Laphonza Butler, Democrat of California, during her final week in the Senate.Laphonza Butler will have served as a senator from California for only about 15 months. But she has been a close ally of Vice President Kamala Harris for 15 years.This week, I spoke with Butler, whose long partnership with Harris — they first met when Butler was a Los Angeles-based union leader — gives her an intriguing perspective on why her party lost the presidential election and how it might rebuild.Harris hasn’t said much publicly about why she lost. In Butler’s view, some of the fault starts with President Biden, who she believes broke what was a clear campaign promise by running for re-election. But just blaming Biden isn’t enough: Democrats, she says, must stop talking and start listening. Really listening.Butler was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to fill the U.S. Senate seat left open by the death of Senator Dianne Feinstein in September 2023. Because she decided not to run for re-election, this week is her last in the body: On Monday, Representative Adam Schiff will be sworn in as the state’s newest senator.This interview was edited for length and clarity.LL: Why do you think Harris lost?LB: The American people wanted a change. They wanted a candidate who they thought represented change. And I think that might simply be it.Should Biden not have run?President Biden said initially that he was going to be a transitional leader. I think that is the expectation that people had. So in that sense, I think that he probably would have been better to remain in that posture. We can’t deny the success of his presidency. When history looks back, his presidency will be one of the most impactful in my lifetime, for sure. But I think once you sort of create an expectation with people, there is the need to hold to that.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    California Democrat Adam Gray unseats Republican as last House race decided

    Democrat Adam Gray captured California’s 13th congressional district on Tuesday, unseating Republican John Duarte in the final US House contest to be decided in the 2024 elections.Gray’s win in the farm belt seat that cuts through five counties means Republicans won 220 House seats this election cycle, with Democrats holding 215 seats.Gray won by a margin of fewer than 200 votes, with election officials reporting on Tuesday that all ballots had been counted.Duarte captured the seat in 2022 when he defeated Gray by one of the closest margins in the country, 564 votes. He was often listed among the most vulnerable House Republicans given that narrow margin of victory in a district with a Democratic tilt – about 11 points over registered Republicans.Gray said in an earlier statement: “We always knew that this race would be as close as they come, and we’re expecting a photo-finish this year, too.”Duarte told the Turlock Journal he had called Gray to concede, adding “That’s how it goes.”“I’m a citizen legislator, and I didn’t plan on being in Congress forever,” Duarte told the newspaper, though he didn’t rule out a possible future campaign.In a tough year for Democrats nationally, the party picked up three GOP-held House seats in California.Both Gray and Duarte stressed bipartisan credentials during the campaign.Gray, a former legislator, was critical of state water management and put water and agriculture at the top of his issues list. He also said he wants improvements in infrastructure, renewable energy and education.Duarte, a businessman and major grape and almond farmer, said his priorities included curbing inflation, crime rates and obtaining adequate water supplies for farmers in the drought-prone state.There is a large Latino population in the district, similar to other Central Valley seats, but the most likely voters statewide tend to be white, older, more affluent homeowners. Working-class voters, including many Latinos, are less consistent in getting to the polls. More

  • in

    Millions of Mexican Americans were deported in the 1930s. Are we about to repeat this ‘ethnic cleansing’?

    One sunny afternoon in February, a large group of plainclothes federal agents descended on Los Angeles’s La Placita Park, a sanctuary and bustling cultural hub for the city’s growing Mexican diaspora. Wielding guns and batons, they barricaded the park and demanded proof of citizenship or legal residency from the congregants trapped within.Those who failed to produce papers were arrested. More than 400 people were detained and forced on a train back to Mexico, a place many had never been.It’s a scene many fear will come to pass in president-elect Donald Trump’s second term, especially after he doubled down on a campaign promise to “launch the largest deportation operation” in US history, and confirmed he would use the military to execute hardline immigration policies.But this particular episode happened in 1931, as part of an earlier era of mass deportations that scholars say is reminiscent of what is unfolding today.The La Placita sweep became the first public immigration raid in Los Angeles, and one of the largest in a wave of “repatriation drives” that rolled across the country during the Great Depression. Mexican farm workers, indiscriminately deemed “illegal aliens”, became scapegoats for job shortages and shrinking public benefits. President Herbert Hoover’s provocative slogan, “American jobs for real Americans”, kicked off a spate of local legislation banning employment of anyone of Mexican descent. Police descended on workplaces, parks, hospitals and social clubs, arresting and dumping people across the border in trains and buses.View image in fullscreenNearly 2 million Mexican Americans, more than half US citizens, were deported without due process. Families were torn apart, and many children never again saw their deported parents.Hoover’s Mexican repatriation program is, among mass deportation efforts in the past, most similar to Trump’s stated plans, said Kevin R Johnson, a professor of public interest law and Chicana/o studies at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.“This was a kind of ethnic cleansing, an effort to remove Mexicans from parts of the country,” Johnson said. “This episode had a ripple effect that lasted generations, and a long-term impact on the sense of identity on persons of Mexican ancestry.”In Los Angeles, Johnson said, it was a common practice for Mexicans to deny their Mexican ancestry and claim Spanish or European heritage to avoid suspicion. Well into the 1960s, Johnson said, people were afraid to leave home without a passport or identification papers lest they be arrested. More than 400,000 Mexican Americans were deported in California alone, but the legacy of repatriation went unacknowledged for many decades. Finally, in 2005, California state senator Joseph Dunn helped pass legislation apologizing to people who suffered under the program.Since his first presidential run, Trump has invoked President Dwight D Eisenhower’s mass deportation program as a blueprint for his own agenda. During the second world war, the US and Mexican government enacted the Bracero program that allowed Mexican farm hands to temporarily work in the US. But many growers continued to hire undocumented immigrants because it was cheaper. In 1954, the Eisenhower administration cracked down on undocumented labor by launching “Operation Wetback”, a yearlong series of raids named after a racial epithet for people who illegally crossed the Rio Grande.Border patrol agents used military-style tactics to sweep up laborers from farms and factories and send them back to Mexico. More than 3,000 people were expelled every day, and many died under inhumane conditions in detention and transport. The government said it deported more than 1 million people in total, though historians have put the actual number at closer to 300,000.The politics of deportation have always contained an important “racial dimension”, said Mae Ngai, a historian whose book Impossible Subjects explores how illegal migration became the central issue in US immigration policy.View image in fullscreenTrump has deployed racist tropes against various ethnic groups, including Mexicans as drug-dealing “rapists” and Haitians as pet eaters, while lamenting a lack of transplants from “nice”, white-majority countries like Denmark and Switzerland. Last month, sources close to the president told NBC News that he could prioritize deporting undocumented Chinese nationals.“He’s been very clear about going after people of color, people from ‘shithole countries,’” she said, referring to a 2018 remark from Trump about crisis-stricken nations like El Salvador and Haiti.Trump could plausibly deport a million people using military-style raids of the Eisenhower-era, Ngai said, but it is unlikely that he can expel 11 million undocumented immigrants. (According to an estimate by the American Immigration Council, deporting 1 million people a year would cost more than $960bn over a decade.) Still, Ngai said, his rhetoric alone could foment fear and panic in immigrant communities.But Eisenhower’s immigration approach also differed from Trump’s in notable ways, Ngai said. Though the administration did launch flashy raids, it also allowed farm owners to rehire some deportees through the Bracero program, essentially creating a pathway for authorized entry into the US. So far, Ngai said, Trump has hammered down on deportations without providing an option for legal immigration or naturalization. “He doesn’t know the whole story of ‘Operation Wetback’,” she said.Deportations also appear to have harmed the local economy. Far from protecting jobs for white Americans, the repatriation of Mexicans “may have further increased unemployment and depressed wages” in the 1930s, according to a 2017 academic paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Economists today predict a similar outcome: expelling millions of undocumented construction, hospitality and agriculture workers could shrink the GDP by $1.7tn, according to a study by the American Immigration Council.Johnson said there’s little evidence to suggest that the mass deportation efforts of the 1930s and 1950s were successful at curbing illegal immigration. The number of undocumented immigrants has tripled since the 1990s, he said, despite a steady rise in border security measures and patrol agents. “It’s a mistake to think building a wall or engaging in nasty deportation campaigns will end undocumented immigration,” Johnson said. “As long as people can obtain work legally or illegally, they’re going to keep coming.”But fearmongering may be the true legacy and intention of mass deportations campaigns, Johnson said. Self-deportation has been the policy preference for establishment Republicans, he said, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “Part of the strategy,” Johnson said, “is making the lives of undocumented immigrants so unpleasant that some will just leave, and discourage others from coming”. More