Federal-State Relations (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares132 Views

    Trump’s Deployment of Troops to L.A. Protests Is a Do-Over of 2020

    by

    President Trump was talked out of deploying the military to crush the George Floyd protests in 2020. He always regretted it.In 2020, as racial justice protests swept through the country over the murder of George Floyd, President Trump was itching to deploy the military to crush the unrest. He was talked out of it by his top national security advisers, who feared that such a decision would be viewed as moving toward martial law.Five years later, as protests against his immigration policies began to swell in Los Angeles, Mr. Trump said he had learned his lesson.“I’ll never do that again,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday, about waiting to send in the National Guard in 2020. “If I see problems brewing,” he added, “I’m not going to wait two weeks.”With the Los Angeles protests, Mr. Trump has seized the chance to make up for his first-term regret.His decision to send in federal troops right away, taking the extraordinary step of deploying active-duty military to deal with domestic unrest, fits into the larger pattern of Mr. Trump operating without any significant pushback from the people around him in his second term.“He saw the military as his reactionary arm,” said Olivia Troye, a former homeland security official and aide to former Vice President Mike Pence. Ms. Troye said she witnessed multiple national security officials explain to Mr. Trump in 2020 that the military takes an oath to the Constitution — not Mr. Trump — and that it should not be turned against American citizens, even protesters.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

    More stories

    • 138 Shares111 Views

      in Elections

      700 Marines Are Deploying to LA Protests to Join Federal Response

      by

      The Pentagon mobilized 700 Marines and 2,000 more National Guard troops even as the president said the situation was “under control.” Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the escalating response.The Pentagon significantly escalated the federal response to the immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles on Monday, mobilizing a battalion of 700 Marines and doubling the number of California National Guard troops in what officials described as a limited mission to protect federal property and agents, even as President Trump described the situation as “very well under control.”Earlier Monday, Mr. Trump labeled the demonstrators “insurrectionists,” but he stopped short of saying he would invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which would allow him to call up the military to intervene directly in putting down the protests.In an announcement, the Pentagon did not make clear why it would need an additional 2,000 National Guard troops. But more worrying to state and city officials, legal experts and Democrats in Congress was the use of active-duty Marines. By tradition and law, American military troops are supposed to be used inside the United States only in the rarest and most extreme situations.The mystery was deepened by the fact that the president said the unrest was calming down thanks to his decision to federalize the California National Guard and send its troops into the streets, over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom. On Monday evening, the state filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s move and calling president’s actions illegal.In a statement on Monday night, Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, said the decision to send the additional National Guard troops was made “at the order of the president.”The mixed messages — Mr. Trump’s flexing of additional military power in response to the protests, even while claiming early success — came after several days in which the president and his allies have appeared to relish the immigration standoff with local and state officials.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

    • 75 Shares151 Views

      in Elections

      This Is What Autocracy Looks Like

      by

      Since Donald Trump was elected again, I’ve feared one scenario above all others: that he’d call out the military against people protesting his mass deportations, putting America on the road to martial law. Even in my more outlandish imaginings, however, I thought that he’d need more of a pretext to put troops on the streets of an American city — against the wishes of its mayor and governor — than the relatively small protests that broke out in Los Angeles last week.In a post-reality environment, it turns out, the president didn’t need to wait for a crisis to launch an authoritarian crackdown. Instead, he can simply invent one.It’s true that some of those protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles have been violent; on Sunday one man was arrested for allegedly tossing a Molotov cocktail at a police officer, and another was accused of driving a motorcycle into a line of cops. Such violence should be condemned both because it’s immoral and because it’s wildly counterproductive; each burning Waymo or smashed storefront is an in-kind gift to the administration.But the idea that Trump needed to put soldiers on the streets of the city because riots were spinning out of control is pure fantasy. “Today, demonstrations across the city of Los Angeles remained peaceful, and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly,” said a statement issued by the Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday evening. That was the same day Trump overrode Gov. Gavin Newsom and federalized California’s National Guard, under a rarely used law meant to deal with “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”Then, on Monday, with thousands of National Guard troops already deployed to the city, the administration said it was also sending 700 Marines. The Los Angeles police don’t seem to want the Marines there; in a statement, the police chief, Jim McDonnell, said, “The arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city.” But for Trump, safeguarding the city was never the point.It’s important to understand that for this administration, protests needn’t be violent to be considered an illegitimate uprising. The presidential memorandum calling out the National Guard refers to both violent acts and any protests that “inhibit” law enforcement. That definition would seem to include peaceful demonstrations around the site of ICE raids. In May, for example, armed federal agents stormed two popular Italian restaurants in San Diego looking for undocumented workers; they handcuffed staff members and took four people into custody. As they did so, an outraged crowd gathered outside, chanting “shame” and for a time blocking the agents from leaving. Under Trump’s order, the military could target these people as insurrectionists.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

    • 163 Shares115 Views

      in Elections

      The President Is Playing With Fire, Which Is Just How He Likes It

      by

      It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump administration is spoiling for a fight on America’s streets. On Saturday, after a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests degenerated into violence, the administration reacted as if the country were on the brink of war.The violence was unacceptable. Civil disobedience is honorable; violence is beyond the pale. But so far, thankfully, the violence has been localized and, crucially, well within the capacity of state and city officials to manage.But don’t tell that to the Trump administration. Its language was out of control.Stephen Miller, one of President Trump’s closest advisers and the single most important architect (aside from Trump himself) of the administration’s immigration policies, posted one word: “Insurrection.”Vice President JD Vance wrote on X, “One of the main technical issues in the immigration judicial battles is whether Biden’s border crisis counted as an ‘invasion.’” That statement set the stage. He wants courts to believe we’re facing an invasion, and any disturbance will do to make his point. “So now,” Vance continued, “we have foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement. If only we had a good word for that …”Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, posted his own screed on X, declaring that the Department of Defense “is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.”Trump posted on Truth Social, “If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”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

    • 113 Shares165 Views

      in Elections

      Why TV Meteorologist John Morales’s Hurricane Plea Went Viral

      by

      A TV forecaster said he was not confident he could predict the paths of storms this year, touching a nerve amid concerns about how federal cuts could affect hurricane season.A meteorologist who has spent his career warning South Florida about hurricanes had a new warning for viewers last week: He’s not sure he can do it this year.John Morales of WTVJ in Miami said the Trump administration’s recent cuts to the National Weather Service could leave television forecasters like him “flying blind” this hurricane season. “We may not exactly know how strong a hurricane is before it reaches the coastline,” he warned.Clips of Mr. Morales’s comments have spread widely: one posted on MSNBC’s TikTok account has nearly 4,500 comments, and news outlets around the world have written articles about what he said. (This isn’t the first time Mr. Morales has been the subject of viral attention: In the fall, his emotional reaction to Hurricane Milton’s rapid intensification also hit a nerve.)Here’s what Mr. Morales had to say and more about what is going on with the Weather Service.He warned of less accurate forecasts.Mr. Morales’s presentation on Monday began with a clip of himself following the Category 5 Hurricane Dorian in 2019 as it moved over the Bahamas. He reassured his Florida viewers that the powerful storm would turn north before it reached their coastline. And it did, exactly when Mr. Morales assured anxious viewers it would.The clip cuts to him in present day, slightly older and now wearing glasses. He recalled the confidence he used to have in delivering an accurate forecast to his viewers.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

    • 125 Shares187 Views

      in Elections

      A Court Debates Whether a Climate Lawsuit Threatens National Security

      by

      The judge asked lawyers how a suit by Charleston, S.C., claiming oil companies misled people about climate risks, might be affected by a Trump executive order blasting cases like these.Two teams of high-powered lawyers clashed this week in Charleston, S.C., over a global-warming question with major implications: Do climate lawsuits against oil companies threaten national security, as President Trump has claimed?In the lawsuit, the City of Charleston is arguing that oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and about a dozen others carried out a sophisticated, decades-long misinformation campaign to cover up what they knew about the dangers of climate change.There are some three dozen similar cases around the country, and recently Mr. Trump issued an executive order calling the lawsuits a threat to national security, saying they could lead to crippling damages. The hearings in Charleston were the first time lawyers had to grapple in a courtroom with the president’s assertions.Mr. Trump’s executive order was the opening salvo in a broad new attack by his administration against climate lawsuits targeting oil companies. Citing the executive order, the Justice Department this month filed unusual lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan seeking to prevent them from filing their own climate-change suits. (Hawaii filed its suit anyway, and Michigan’s attorney general has signaled that she will also be proceeding.)In court hearings in Charleston on Thursday and Friday, Judge Roger M. Young Sr. asked each side to weigh in on the order as they sparred over the companies’ motions to dismiss the case, which was filed in 2020.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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Vote Against E.V. Mandate Felt Like an Attack on California, Democrats Say

      by

      For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past.At the Southern California headquarters of the state’s powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps.For more than half a century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation’s most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California’s standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction.With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state’s authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but also as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place.“We’ve created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states,” Representative Morgan Griffith, who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. “My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, ‘What?’”Federal law typically pre-empts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards as their own under certain circumstances.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said last week that the state would fight in court to preserve its autonomy in setting emissions rules.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressWe 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

    • 50 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Immensely Vulnerable

      by

      How can Americans best defend their democracy from their president?In my last column, I recounted three lessons from other countries where popular movements have made headway challenging authoritarian rulers. Critics of President Trump have frankly been fairly ineffective — witness his election and the way his approval ratings have risen in some polls lately — but Trump does give us a great deal to work with. He is immensely vulnerable.Drawing upon these lessons from my last column, here are what I see as the most promising lines of attack for his critics:Trump is deeply corrupt. All presidents are accused of shady practices: Remember that President Barack Obama was said to have diminished the presidency by wearing a tan suit. But Trump is a felon who is using his office to enrich himself as no president has in history.The Times reported that more than $2 billion has flowed to Trump companies in just a month, and some of his ventures look alarmingly like opportunities for influence-peddling. How else do we explain his announcement that the biggest investors in his new cryptocurrency memecoin, $TRUMP, would get dinner with him? Some guests flew in from overseas for the dinner, held Thursday, and acknowledged earlier that they hoped to influence Trump and his administration’s policy on financial regulation.The Trump family started a different cryptocurrency outfit, World Liberty Financial, that received a $2 billion investment from the United Arab Emirates. Don Jr. is also starting a members club in Washington, with a $500,000 charge to join. And Saudi Arabia and Qatar are investing in Trump businesses, putting money in family bank accounts.Meanwhile, Trump is using the government to help his pal Elon Musk (who even knew that the world’s richest man was needy?). The White House South Lawn was turned into a temporary showroom for Tesla vehicles in March, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick urged people to “buy Tesla” stock, and American embassies reportedly have pushed impoverished countries to grant regulatory approvals for Musk’s Starlink system.Trump is hurting you in the pocketbook. One reason Trump won the presidency was voter resentment at inflation and economic weakness under Joe Biden. Now it’s Trump who is badly damaging the economy and hitting voters in the wallet.

      .css-1xd5j6v{margin-top:0.75rem;}.css-xc2fe3{font-weight:700;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-qitxok{margin-left:45px;margin-top:10px;border-left:1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary,#C7C7C7);}.css-2f9c0w{list-style:none;margin:0;-webkit-box-flex:1;-webkit-flex-grow:1;-ms-flex-positive:1;flex-grow:1;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1kziinj{color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-mw5tos{border-radius:50%;height:18px;width:18px;background-color:#000;background-image:url(‘https://www.nytimes.com/vi-assets/static-assets/icon-t-logo-16×16-white-6d6d01f365f1dbdab596ce5f3e5b4592.svg’);background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:10px 10px;display:inline-block;margin-left:4px;vertical-align:-5px;white-space:nowrap;}.css-ept3uu{display:inline-block;margin-right:10px;overflow:hidden;object-fit:cover;border-radius:50%;height:34px;width:34px;}span.css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-size:1rem;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;line-height:2.25rem;}.placeholder .css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;}.css-9ko0hh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:500;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4375rem;max-width:600px;margin-left:0px;width:100%;}@media (min-width:630px){.css-9ko0hh{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box;}}@media (min-width:1440px){.css-9ko0hh{max-width:600px;width:600px;margin-left:calc((100% – 600px) / 2);}}.css-1g0hipa{line-height:1.875rem;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;border-top:1px solid var(–color-stroke-secondary,#8B8B8B);padding-top:0.75rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g0hipa{font-size:1.125rem;line-height:2.25rem;}}.css-1b2d1km{margin:5px 0 20px;border:1px solid var(–color-stroke-quaternary,#DFDFDF);padding:9px 18px 24px 18px;width:calc(100% – 40px);background-image:url(‘data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20width%3D%2219%22%20height%3D%2217%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%2019%2017%22%20fill%3D%22none%22%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%3E%0A%3Cpath%20id%3D%22Vector%22%20d%3D%22M13.2271%2017L7.66331%2012.5661H1.42971C1.05056%2012.5661%200.686942%2012.4151%200.418844%2012.1464C0.150746%2011.8777%200.00013055%2011.5133%200.00013055%2011.1333V1.45216C-0.00242853%201.26238%200.0326583%201.07398%200.103355%200.897906C0.174051%200.72183%200.278947%200.561586%200.411951%200.42648C0.544956%200.291375%200.703417%200.1841%200.878133%200.110887C1.05285%200.0376746%201.24034%20-1.73249e-05%201.42971%205.97386e-09H17.5704C17.9496%205.97386e-09%2018.3132%200.150955%2018.5813%200.419657C18.8494%200.68836%2019%201.0528%2019%201.4328V11.1139C19%2011.4939%2018.8494%2011.8583%2018.5813%2012.127C18.3132%2012.3957%2017.9496%2012.5467%2017.5704%2012.5467H13.285L13.2271%2017ZM1.42971%201.21014C1.37079%201.21014%201.31428%201.2336%201.27262%201.27535C1.23095%201.31711%201.20754%201.37375%201.20754%201.4328V11.1139C1.20754%2011.1729%201.23095%2011.2296%201.27262%2011.2713C1.31428%2011.3131%201.37079%2011.3366%201.42971%2011.3366H8.05934L12.01%2014.4926V11.3366H17.5125C17.5714%2011.3366%2017.6279%2011.3131%2017.6696%2011.2713C17.7112%2011.2296%2017.7346%2011.1729%2017.7346%2011.1139V1.4328C17.7346%201.37375%2017.7112%201.31711%2017.6696%201.27535C17.6279%201.2336%2017.5714%201.21014%2017.5125%201.21014H1.42971Z%22%20fill%3D%22var(–color-content-quaternary%2C%23727272)%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E’);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:calc(100% – 20px) 20px;}.css-1spplqm{margin-left:45px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;}.css-1bctr2p{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.25rem;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);word-break:break-word;}.css-1bctr2p a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-146oyqz{margin:0;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-146oyqz a{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-shrink:1;-ms-flex-negative:1;flex-shrink:1;}.css-1ker8rx{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;display:block;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1ker8rx a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-1ker8rx:afer{content:’ ‘;position:absolute;top:0;right:0;left:0;bottom:0;}.css-1ker8rx:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-qitxok .css-1ker8rx{margin:21px 0 0 16px;}.css-1xd5j6v{margin-top:0.75rem;}.css-xc2fe3{font-weight:700;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-qitxok{margin-left:45px;margin-top:10px;border-left:1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary,#C7C7C7);}.css-2f9c0w{list-style:none;margin:0;-webkit-box-flex:1;-webkit-flex-grow:1;-ms-flex-positive:1;flex-grow:1;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1kziinj{color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-mw5tos{border-radius:50%;height:18px;width:18px;background-color:#000;background-image:url(‘https://www.nytimes.com/vi-assets/static-assets/icon-t-logo-16×16-white-6d6d01f365f1dbdab596ce5f3e5b4592.svg’);background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:10px 10px;display:inline-block;margin-left:4px;vertical-align:-5px;white-space:nowrap;}.css-ept3uu{display:inline-block;margin-right:10px;overflow:hidden;object-fit:cover;border-radius:50%;height:34px;width:34px;}span.css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-size:1rem;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;line-height:2.25rem;}.placeholder .css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;}.css-9ko0hh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:500;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4375rem;max-width:600px;margin-left:0px;width:100%;}@media (min-width:630px){.css-9ko0hh{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box;}}@media (min-width:1440px){.css-9ko0hh{max-width:600px;width:600px;margin-left:calc((100% – 600px) / 2);}}.css-1g0hipa{line-height:1.875rem;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;border-top:1px solid var(–color-stroke-secondary,#8B8B8B);padding-top:0.75rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g0hipa{font-size:1.125rem;line-height:2.25rem;}}.css-1b2d1km{margin:5px 0 20px;border:1px solid var(–color-stroke-quaternary,#DFDFDF);padding:9px 18px 24px 18px;width:calc(100% – 40px);background-image:url(‘data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20width%3D%2219%22%20height%3D%2217%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%2019%2017%22%20fill%3D%22none%22%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%3E%0A%3Cpath%20id%3D%22Vector%22%20d%3D%22M13.2271%2017L7.66331%2012.5661H1.42971C1.05056%2012.5661%200.686942%2012.4151%200.418844%2012.1464C0.150746%2011.8777%200.00013055%2011.5133%200.00013055%2011.1333V1.45216C-0.00242853%201.26238%200.0326583%201.07398%200.103355%200.897906C0.174051%200.72183%200.278947%200.561586%200.411951%200.42648C0.544956%200.291375%200.703417%200.1841%200.878133%200.110887C1.05285%200.0376746%201.24034%20-1.73249e-05%201.42971%205.97386e-09H17.5704C17.9496%205.97386e-09%2018.3132%200.150955%2018.5813%200.419657C18.8494%200.68836%2019%201.0528%2019%201.4328V11.1139C19%2011.4939%2018.8494%2011.8583%2018.5813%2012.127C18.3132%2012.3957%2017.9496%2012.5467%2017.5704%2012.5467H13.285L13.2271%2017ZM1.42971%201.21014C1.37079%201.21014%201.31428%201.2336%201.27262%201.27535C1.23095%201.31711%201.20754%201.37375%201.20754%201.4328V11.1139C1.20754%2011.1729%201.23095%2011.2296%201.27262%2011.2713C1.31428%2011.3131%201.37079%2011.3366%201.42971%2011.3366H8.05934L12.01%2014.4926V11.3366H17.5125C17.5714%2011.3366%2017.6279%2011.3131%2017.6696%2011.2713C17.7112%2011.2296%2017.7346%2011.1729%2017.7346%2011.1139V1.4328C17.7346%201.37375%2017.7112%201.31711%2017.6696%201.27535C17.6279%201.2336%2017.5714%201.21014%2017.5125%201.21014H1.42971Z%22%20fill%3D%22var(–color-content-quaternary%2C%23727272)%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E’);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:calc(100% – 20px) 20px;}.css-1spplqm{margin-left:45px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;}.css-1bctr2p{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.25rem;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);word-break:break-word;}.css-1bctr2p a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-146oyqz{margin:0;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-146oyqz a{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-shrink:1;-ms-flex-negative:1;flex-shrink:1;}.css-1ker8rx{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;display:block;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1ker8rx a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-1ker8rx:afer{content:’ ‘;position:absolute;top:0;right:0;left:0;bottom:0;}.css-1ker8rx:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-qitxok .css-1ker8rx{margin:21px 0 0 16px;}

      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

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

      by

      In 50 years, California’s authority to set environmental rules that are tougher than national standards had never been challenged by Congress. Until now.The Senate on Thursday blocked California’s landmark plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting up a legal battle that could shape the electric car market in the United States.The 51-44 vote was a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a “nuclear” option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy.The repeal deals a blow to California’s ambition of accelerating the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. But the consequences will ripple across the country. That’s because 11 other states intended to follow California’s plan and stop selling new gas-powered cars by 2035. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.The resolution, which had already been approved by the House, now goes to President Trump’s desk. Mr. Trump, who opposes clean energy and has taken particular umbrage at California’s efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, is expected to sign it into law.California leaders have promised to challenge the Senate vote and try to restore the ban.“This Senate vote is illegal,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“California’s auto policy was allowed under permission granted by the Biden administration. The 1970 Clean Air Act specifies that California can receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact clean air standards that are tougher than federal limits because the state has historically had the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards under certain circumstances.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