Announced by President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Wednesday, July 16, the decision comes about a month after a scathing federal report found there was “no viable path” to complete even a partial section of the long-delayed rail project. Trump, who canceled nearly $1 billion in federal funding for the project during his first term in the White House, had threatened to revoke federal funds again this go-round.

“To the Law abiding, Tax paying, Hardworking Citizens of the United States of America, I am thrilled to announce that I have officially freed you from funding California’s disastrously overpriced, ‘HIGH SPEED TRAIN TO NOWHERE,’” a post on Trump’s Truth Social account said Wednesday. “This boondoggle, led by the incompetent Governor of California, Gavin Newscum, has cost Taxpayers Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and we have received NOTHING in return except Cost Overruns. The Railroad we were promised still does not exist, and never will.”

Duffy, in his own statement, also blamed California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democrats.

“Federal dollars are not a blank check – they come with a promise to deliver results. After over a decade of failures, (California High-Speed Rail Authority’s) mismanagement and incompetence has proven it cannot build its train to nowhere on time or on budget,” Duffy said.

Duffy said he’s also directed the Federal Railroad Administration to review other grants related to the high-speed rail project. He said the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Justice, will consider other moves, “including potentially clawing back funding related to” the project.

Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid, and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion.

But Newsom, responding to the news, said the California High-Speed Rail Authority is “entering the track-laying phase and actively building across 171 miles – with 50 major railway structures and 60 miles of guideway already completed.”

“We will be exploring all options to fight this illegal action,” Newsom said.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Dave Cortese, who chairs the legislature’s Transportation Committee, said the federal funding loss won’t “derail this project,” maintaining it has enough support from state funding. And the state legislature, he said, will consider whether to allocate $1 billion per year from the state’s cap-and-invest program into the project with a goal to complete the first phase of the section, connecting San Francisco to Anaheim, and attract private investment.

“You can’t stop this kind of momentum in an innovative, can-do state like California,” Cortese, a Democrat, said. “The California High-Speed Rail Authority is also working on a plan to address potential funding gaps and continue construction.”

California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it would pull back roughly half of the 4,000 guard members federalized in June—deployed after mass immigration raids sparked widespread protests, a downtown-area curfew and a legal battle with the state. While federal officials cited an easing of unrest, Newsom said the administration was continuing to use military force to intimidate immigrants. The state, meanwhile, is still pursuing its legal challenge to the federal deployment.

“We still have thousands of National Guards,” Newsom said Wednesday during a press conference. “They are still waiting for the Pentagon to get their act together, to end this theater once and for all.”

He added: “This cruelty, it’s about terrorizing communities. It’s about appearing tough, I’ve said it and I’ll repeat it, weakness masquerading as strength.”

Newsom’s press conference was held at Downey Memorial Christian Church in Los Angeles, the site of a reported immigration arrest last month.

“It’s an example of what’s occurring, and it’s an example of what’s occurring all over here in Southern California,” Newsom said, “what’s occurred at a level we’ve not seen in modern times.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the partial drawdown Tuesday, saying unrest in Los Angeles had subsided.

“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement. “As such, the Secretary has ordered the release of 2,000 California National Guardsmen from the federal protection mission.”

Even after Tuesday’s reduction, about 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines remain in the city.

The Trump administration initially deployed the troops in early June in response to mass protests over intensified immigration enforcement. Demonstrators took to the streets after surprise ICE raids across Los Angeles, which immigrant advocates called indiscriminate and traumatic. Some protests turned violent, with demonstrators blocking freeways and throwing projectiles at officers, who used tear gas and rubber bullets in response.

Just last week, heavily armed federal agents and mounted officers appeared at MacArthur Park to support an immigration operation. Homeland Security declined to confirm arrests or share details, but local officials called the show of force an attempt to intimidate and sow fear in immigrant neighborhoods.

Beyond guarding federal buildings, hundreds of soldiers have also accompanied immigration officers on raids at public and at workplaces, fueling tensions in a city with one of the nation’s largest immigrant populations.

Newsom has repeatedly denounced the deployment as reckless and unconstitutional, suing the Trump administration over what he called a breach of state sovereignty and a likely violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from domestic law enforcement. An early federal court ruling in Newsom’s favor was overturned on appeal, with further arguments set for next month.

Trump officials, meanwhile, defended the deployment as necessary to maintain order and protect federal facilities.The White House has maintained the military presence is essential to protect federal personnel and ensure immigration laws are enforced. The president himself has contended that “there has been an invasion” of migrants entering the country without legal permission.

Meanwhile, immigration raids have continued to roil Southern California. ICE operations have targeted workplaces, car washes, bus stops, immigration courts and other businesses, even detaining U.S. citizens in some cases. The sweeps have sparked mass protests and calls from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other local officials for the federal government to stand down.

“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong,” Bass said in a statement Tuesday after the Pentagon’s announcement. “We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in LA, but throughout our country.”

A federal judge last week also barred the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles, finding the Department of Homeland Security had detained people without probable cause and targeted them based on race, language or occupation.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Southern California leaders, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Orange County Rep. Lou Correa, responded quickly to the announcement from the Pentagon that 2,000 federalized California National Guard troops were being released from their federal assignments.

Newsom, for example, said Trump “has been exploiting” the National Guard for more than a month “as his political pawns.”

“Thousands of members are still federalized in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state,” Newsom said. “End this theater and send everyone home.”

Trump’s action, Bass said, “happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong. We organized peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court — all of this led to today’s retreat.

“My message today to Angelenos is clear,” she added. “I will never stop fighting for this city. We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in L.A., but throughout our country.”

Bass was scheduled to hold a news conference Tuesday evening to more fully respond to the Pentagon’s announcement.

In early June, President Donald Trump deployed about 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 active duty Marines to respond to a series of protests against immigration raids in and around Los Angeles. Trump ordered that 2,000 California National Guard troops be brought under federal control and deployed to Los Angeles to protect federal facilities and personnel in light of protests that erupted mainly in the downtown area. Another 2,000 troops were later added to that deployment, along with 700 U.S. Marines.

Immigration enforcement activities in early June across Los Angeles and Orange counties sparked protests and heightened fear among many immigrant families. On June 7, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the federal building in downtown Los Angeles and marched through the area to denounce the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles.

“The days of chaos ruling the streets are over,” FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said that day. “Either obey the law, or go to jail, there’s no third option.”

By July 7, federal officers on horseback cruised a mostly empty MacArthur Park near downtown. Defense officials had said about 90 California National Guard members would be there in addition to more than a dozen military vehicles to help protect immigration officers during their raid at the park.

City officials said they didn’t believe there were any arrests at the park. The Department of Homeland Security wouldn’t say whether anyone had been arrested or what the operation was about.

Correa, for his part, welcomed the news Tuesday but said he also hopes to see troops be taken out of Santa Ana.

Given all the ICE activity in the area, the Santa Ana Democrat said, the area “is as boring as it comes.”

The presence of the National Guard is negatively impacting the community, citizens and non-citizens alike, Correa said.

“It’s an occupational force,” he said. “It’s not only people without documents. It’s also U.S.-born citizens who have gotten apprehended by ICE.

“This is unacceptable,” Correa added. “We’re not a communist regime; we’re not a dictatorial nation where you control us. We have freedoms.”

The National Guard’s deployment to L.A., Newsom said, had pulled troops away from their families and civilian work “to serve as political pawns for the President in Los Angeles.”

“While nearly 2,000 of them are starting to demobilize,” the governor added, “the remaining guardsmembers continue without a mission, without direction and without any hopes of returning to help their communities.”

Trump, though, has contended that “there has been an invasion” of migrants entering the country without legal permission.

But that wasn’t the assessment of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine.

“I don’t see any foreign, state-sponsored folks invading,” he said to lawmakers at the time, “but I’ll be mindful of the fact that there have been some border issues.”

Local officials contested the deployment in multiple ways, including in court.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, in fact, found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from Newsom. But an appeals court allowed the president to retain control of National Guard troops he sent to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids.

In a unanimous, 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that conditions in the L.A. area were sufficient for the president to deploy the troops.

“Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination,” read the unsigned opinion, “we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard.”

The three-judge panel included two Trump appointees and one of former President Joe Biden.

Reporters Kaitlyn Schallhorn and Teresa Liu provided content for this story.

On July 8, the governor embarked on a two-day, multi-county tour of South Carolina with the state’s Democratic Party, a trek billed as an opportunity for Newsom to hear from rural communities that the party said is “too often left to recover alone from economic setbacks and natural disasters.”

It’s that latter part — disaster relief — that Newsom and his camp have said he’s focused on this trip.

California, reeling from the catastrophic wildfires that destroyed communities and killed 30 people six months ago, is still waiting on a $40 billion request for federal disaster relief. South Carolina, also still reeling from September’s Hurricane Helene devastation that left 50 people dead, received federal disaster aid last year.

Still, it’s impossible to ignore the massive elephant — or rather donkey — in the room, the 2028 of it all.

Newsom, longstanding denials notwithstanding, has been viewed as a presidential candidate for years now. And South Carolina, for even more years, has been a key player in national presidential politics.

The Palmetto State has earned a moniker, ‘First in the South,’ based on a consistent record for picking candidates in primary elections who eventually go on to become presidential nominees for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

In 2024, national Democrats moved the South Carolina primary to the top spot. And while it’s not yet set where it will land on the 2028 calendar, South Carolina is still expected to be an early state, if not first again.

But regardless of where it falls on the primary calendar, there’s no overstating how prominent a role South Carolina voters, particularly Black voters, play in Democratic presidential politics.

Since 1988, when South Carolina began holding presidential primaries, the winner of the Democratic primary has only failed to clinch the party’s nomination two times: John Edwards in 2004 and Jesse Jackson in 1988, both of whom were born in South Carolina. Last year, South Carolina Democratic primary voters picked President Joe Biden before he dropped out of the reelection race.

Experts say that makes Newsom’s visit to South Carolina — even this early in the cycle, even without formally declaring it to be a presidential campaign stop — a smart move. If Newsom, or any Democrat, is going to win a national election, he or she will have to win over voters less liberal than those who have supported Newsom throughout his career.

“California is going to go Democratic in the presidential election, but South Carolina is often make or break for who becomes the Democratic nominee,” said Scott Huffmon, who teaches American politics and voting behavior at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

“The road to the White House,” he said, “leads through South Carolina.”

‘Heads Carolina, Tails California’

Over two days, Newsom barnstormed around South Carolina in relatively rural areas, including places that overwhelmingly voted for President Donald Trump in previous elections. He met with supporters and the curious in coffee shops, churches and meeting halls.

He encouraged Democrats to stand up to Trump’s policies and didn’t shy away from talking about his home state.

At a stop in Pickens — where Trump drew tens of thousands of supporters for a 2023 rally and in a county where more than 75% of voters chose Trump in 2024 — Newsom talked about the relationship between his state and the president. He drew heavily on the administration’s actions in recent months, as Trump has deployed troops to Los Angeles amid aggressive deportation efforts, the Greenville News reported.

While Republicans and Fox News have painted California as a liberal hellscape — Rep. Sheri Biggs, a freshman Republican who represents the western part of South Carolina, sent a text message blast encouraging recipients to reject “California’s woke agenda” that includes “letting mob rule and crime run rampant” — not everyone thinks Newsom should avoid his Golden State bona fides.

California, after all, generates more economic output per person, contributes more in federal taxes and ranks better (or far better) than national averages for homicide, obesity, cancer deaths and educational attainment, among other things.

“I certainly think if you were to ask a Republican about Gov. Newsom, you’d hear things about California not being a great place to live,” said state Rep. Kambrell Garvin, a Democrat who represents Richland County in the statehouse.

“But I think if you talk to Democrats, I don’t think that perception is the same,” Garvin said. “As a lawmaker, I look to California for many of the progressive policies that are being implemented there as a template of what can be done in South Carolina.”

“Of course, there are going to be conservatives who say we don’t want to do things the way California does, but there are some actually good things happening in California that the rest of the nation can follow.”

Still, South Carolina — as it long has been for Democratic presidential hopefuls, official or not — has long been a testing ground for candidates’ messaging.

And Newsom has some work to do there, said Joshua Hollington, a Democratic voter in South Carolina, who argued that the Democratic Party, as a whole, needs to do more to win back rural communities, blue-collar workers and suburban voters.

If Newsom is to be successful, he said, the governor has to shake any reputation as “being out of touch with the average person” and solidify himself as “an everyday guy you want to have a beer with.”

“The only way to do that is to connect with rural voters,” Hollington said.

“You’ve got to get out of your posh areas and into the heartbeat of America.”

“I think it’s smart to meet people and campaign, and there’s no better way than to meet (voters) face-to-face. Good for him for coming to South Carolina,” said Rep. Neal Collins, a Republican who represents Greenville and Pickens counties in the Upstate.

“In the general, we’re maybe not as important,” said Collins, noting South Carolina has a Republican supermajority and is extremely likely to go for the Republican candidate in the general presidential election.

“But we’re immensely important for the primary.”

‘Gone to Carolina’

Newsom isn’t the only Democrat whose name is being whispered along with “2028” and “White House” who has forayed into South Carolina in recent months.

In May, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee) and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore headlined events in Columbia, the capital city.

“I would be interested to see who else is going to journey to South Carolina,” said Chase Meyer, who teaches American politics and elections at the University of South Carolina.

“How you run for president, a lot of it is determined by who else is running and how they’re running their campaigns,” Meyer added.

Take 2020, for example. That year, Meyer said, many Democratic presidential hopefuls took more left-wing positions, an attempt to woo supporters away from progressive Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The shift, he said, left room for more moderate candidates, like then-South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and eventual nominee and president Joe Biden, to find success.

“Newsom has recently started to position himself to try to be more moderate,” Meyer said, pointing to Newsom’s podcast featuring a host of right-wing figures.

“Is that going to play well with Democratic voters? It depends on what everyone else does. If every other candidate says, ‘No, that’s horrible, I’d never talk to Steve Bannon,’ there might be an opening for such a candidate,” he said.

For Democrats, South Carolina is the place to test whether a candidate has national appeal. The state is incredibly diverse, and local voters can help champion a candidate in other southern states, including potential swing states like Georgia and North Carolina.

That means the first step for Newsom — should he decide he is running for president — is to start building a network in South Carolina, said Huffmon, the Winthrop professor who leads the school’s Center for Public Opinion & Policy Research.

“If Gavin Newsom is smart,” Meyer echoed, “he’ll be meeting with Democrats in the state legislature, local Democratic mayors, local City Council, and will put their political machinery to work behind him. That means their volunteers and political consultants.”

If history provides any lessons that might be key in the next presidential election cycle, it’s the 2008 Democratic primary where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton clashed in South Carolina. Their battle only underscored how important Black voters, particularly Black women, are in the Democratic primary.

“Black women voters in South Carolina are very smart, and they know their power. They’re going to spot a fake appeal a mile away,” said Huffmon, saying the last candidate to court Black women voters organically was Obama.

While the former secretary of state’s strategy for winning over women was to deploy her husband, former President Bill Clinton, he ended up putting his foot in his mouth, said Huffmon. Bill Clinton, who was nicknamed the “first Black president,” was perceived as angry during the primary campaign in South Carolina, and called Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

“But the Obama folks had the beauty parlor campaign. They’d call up Black beauty parlors and say, ‘Can I come and talk about this candidate who’s running?’ It’s tough to catch lightning in a bottle like that again, but you do need to find a way to appeal to African American voters, especially African American women, in a legitimate way.”

Democrats in South Carolina, said Garvin, the state representative, are looking for a leader.

“What Democrats need most right now is somebody who is willing to fight and can take the message of why being a Democrat — and what we stand for — is a positive thing,” said Garvin, who has not yet endorsed anyone for 2028.

“Democrats are at a point where we must decide who we are as a party, and what we believe,” Garvin said. “I think that we have got to do a better job of explaining to people why it’s cool to be a Democrat and why what we believe can be transformational to their lives and to our future.”

“Everything I’ve seen from Gov. Newsom thus far, he’s checked those boxes,” he added.

While Newsom has remained relatively mum on his presidential aspirations, others are less so, including one of the most important figures in South Carolina politics, longtime Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn.

Clyburn, who is credited with saving Biden’s 2020 campaign, appeared with Newsom at a stop in Camden, just northeast of Columbia, introducing him as one of the “candidates that are running for president.” Clyburn later told reporters that he feels “good about (Newsom’s) chances” in 2028.

Just what Newsom’s future political plans are remains to be seen.

In Los Angeles, before he left for the East Coast, Newsom waved away questions ahead of the trip about 2028, insisting that it’s important to him to “work with governors, not just Democratic governors but Republican governors” on the issue of disaster relief.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster did not meet with Newsom this week, said Brandon Charochak, a spokesperson for the Republican chief executive.

But if Newsom is preparing a run for the White House, getting to know South Carolina — its voters, its issues and maybe even just how important Joe’s Ice Cream Parlor in Easley is to the community — is a first step.

Tens of thousands of California state employees were bracing to return to the office on July 1 after Gov. Gavin Newsom declared there was an “operational necessity” for all California state employees to work in person a minimum of four days per week.

That changed just before the deadline when CalHR, which represents the governor in collective bargaining, negotiated a set of deals with public employee unions that delayed the mandate for a year. Relieved workers welcomed the news.

Yet labor leaders – and even some in-office evangelists – said the governor’s willingness to suddenly drop his demand proved the order was a clever political move and undermined his insistence that in-person work is superior, necessary for productivity and builds public trust.

“Many of our members feel the sudden shift toward rigid (return to office) policies had more to do with politics and pressure than performance,” wrote Anica Walls, president of Service Employees International Union Local 1000, in an email. The union, the largest in California state government, represents almost 96,000 state employees. “This pause is a direct result of our members fighting back.”

Walls declined multiple requests for an interview and insisted that CalMatters send questions in writing.

Many state workers had been on edge since March when Newsom penned the executive order that would have required an estimated 108,000 employees who still worked a hybrid schedule to return to the office nearly full time. The new order doubled the number of required in-office days from two to four, building on Newsom’s first crackdown on work-from-home in April 2023.

Several state employee unions filed grievances, and two groups sued Newsom and CalHR, the state’s human resources agency, alleging that the administration’s order wrongfully sidestepped the collective bargaining process by unilaterally changing working conditions.

Aggrieved state employees also fundraised more than $30,000 to erect billboards around Sacramento that accused Newsom of creating traffic jams. Many workers argued the state had downsized some locations so there would not even be enough room for them to work in person.

Lawmakers, whom the public employee unions view as allies, questioned whether the state was ready to suddenly bring so many workers back to the office. They didn’t get clear answers.

‘You don’t have numbers for us’

During budget hearings in April and May, members of the Assembly subcommittee that oversees government administration grilled officials from CalHR and the Department of Government Services about how much it would cost to have tens of thousands of workers come in four days a week instead of two.

The lawmakers didn’t hide their exasperation when administration officials admitted they did not  even have a rough estimate.

“I’m still really astonished that you don’t have numbers for us,” said Assemblymember Liz Ortega, a Democrat who represents Hayward, during a May 22 committee hearing.

“This is pretty bewildering,” echoed Democratic Assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco.

But Newsom maintained that the benefits of in-person work, such as increased collaboration, communication and mentorship for newer employees, were undermined by the two-day in-office policy since teams weren’t required to come in on the same days. Four days in office would mitigate that issue.

The tension escalated in May after Newsom announced the state faced a $12 billion budget problem and suggested delaying state worker pay raises for a year, as well as pausing contributions to their retiree health care funds, to cut costs.

Ultimately, CalHR reached new labor agreements with three unions, including the state’s largest, to delay the in-office order until July 2026. Those new deals also included some of the cost savings the governor wanted.

SEIU Local 1000 recently agreed to offset a 3% pay raise this year with five extra hours of “unpaid” leave time each month. The agreement, which affects about a third of the union’s 96,000 represented workers, could ultimately cost the state more since an employee’s accrued hours gain value as their pay rises over time. Many state workers wait to cash out unused leave when they retire, typically at their highest pay rate.

Proponents of in-office work were also dismayed by Newsom’s about-face. Michael Genest, who served as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s finance director, said telework shouldn’t be used as a privilege to sweeten contract negotiations.

“Why is this a bargaining chip?” Genest said. “What it shows is a complete lack of respect for the idea that the taxpayer is paying for something that’s of value.”

Only a fraction have returned to the office

Of the estimated 108,000 employees who continue to work hybrid schedules, only a fraction of them have been required to return to office because their unions did not make agreements to delay the order. Many are state scientists, whose union spent four years fighting for a contract and eventually staged California’s first state worker strike before closing a deal in August 2024.

The scientists’ union, the California Association of Professional Scientists, has so far refused the state’s requests to reopen its contract and negotiate the salary concessions the other unions traded for the extra year of remote work privileges.

“The governor’s RTO mandate is not grounded in any logic, data, or operational need. It’s political,” said Jacqueline Tkac, the scientists’ union president, in a written statement. “We are open to collaboration with the state on this issue, but refuse to compromise our contract to participate in Gov. Newsom’s political games.”

When asked to explain his sudden willingness to delay the return-to-office order, the governor’s office did not respond. In an emailed statement, CalHR spokesperson Camille Travis praised the “collaborative approach” with unions that led to the agreement.

“Departments were preparing to implement the return to office order, and this one-year delay gives us the opportunity to refine those plans and work with our teams to ensure a smooth transition,” Travis wrote.

Genest said Newsom’s sudden reversal on the in-office order, just a week before it was set to take effect, created unnecessary whiplash for departments that were scrambling to prepare enough office space to accommodate returning employees.

“If he’s telling the departments, ‘Gear up,’ and then he’s later going to say, ‘Oh, never mind, we’re going to be able to pay them less so you don’t have to gear up,’” Genest said, “that’s a very cynical thing.”

At an electric vehicle showcase in Anaheim, Christopher Grundler — one of the top executives in California responsible for cleaning the air — said despite all the setbacks his agency has faced this year, he’s confident the state can keep making progress.

“This president, this Congress, will not kill the electric car,” said Grundler, a deputy executive officer of the state Air Resources Board. “They won’t kill the electric truck, and they certainly won’t kill the California spirit.”

Despite that optimism, California officials — now reined in by the Trump administration and growing concerns about affordability and costs — are struggling to come up with new ways to clean up the nation’s most polluted air.

Lacking federal permission to set aggressive emission standards for the first time in almost 60 years, California may be left mainly with voluntary agreements with the auto, trucking and rail industries, and subsidies to entice consumers into buying electric vehicles.

Congress last month revoked the state’s authority to implement three landmark rules that ban sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and phase out diesel trucks. In addition, California was forced to abandon four other ambitious rules for zero-emission trucks, locomotives and commercial harbor craft because the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency would be unlikely to grant waivers.

Those seven mandates, now unenforceable, were key to cleaning up the pollutants that leave about 34 million Californians regularly breathing unhealthy air. In another blow to California’s efforts, Congress and President Donald Trump eliminated tax credits for consumers who buy electric cars.

At the same time, California’s air quality rules are facing growing pushback from the public, industry — and even some Democrats in the Legislature — because of the impacts on gas prices and other economic concerns.

Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph, in an interview with CalMatters, did not offer any details on how the agency will make up for the voluminous tons of smog-causing gases and soot those rules would have eliminated.

“There’s no one strategy that’s going to work. It’s really going to need to be a suite of different things,” Randolph said. The governor and Legislature will help decide “what strategies are going to be the most effective, the most cost effective, the most likely to be able to scale up,” she said.

The air board is hosting four meetings in the coming weeks to hear ideas from industry groups, environmentalists and community members about how the state should now approach clean air regulation.

In an executive order last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the air board to develop a new zero-emission car mandate — apparently in preparation for when the state either wins its lawsuit against Trump or when he leaves office.

Newsom also ordered the air board to develop a plan by Aug. 11 to keep expanding California’s market for electric cars and trucks. As part of the plan, the state agency must consider ways to improve charging infrastructure and offer incentives.

“We know that the federal government is going to be completely useless in our efforts to clean the air, despite rhetoric claiming they care about clean air. State and local governments are going to have to do more,” said Adrian Martinez, an attorney with the San Francisco-based environmental group Earthjustice.

“We just have to go it alone.”

Heart and lungs at stake

It’s been a long, bumpy road to cleaning up exhaust from California’s 36 million vehicles. Gas-powered cars and diesel trucks remain the state’s largest sources of smog and soot despite decades of cutting emissions.

Much of that pollution is inhaled by the most vulnerable Black and brown communities near ports, highways and warehouses. Ozone, a smog-causing gas, and fine particles of soot are linked to premature deaths from heart attacks and respiratory diseases, and increased emergency room visits.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UjGyI/embed.js

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dYaGT/embed.js

For six decades, a provision in the Clean Air Act has granted California the power to set its own vehicle standards that are stricter than the federal government’s because of the state’s unique and severe air pollution problem.

But last month, Congress invoked the Congressional Review Act to repeal waivers granted by the Biden administration. The state in its lawsuit called this an unlawful action by Congress.

John Dunlap III, who served as California Air Resources Board chair under Gov. Pete Wilson in the 1990s, said in an interview with CalMatters that the Newsom administration “pushed too fast, and I think there were some holes” in their zero-emission car and truck rules.

Dunlap said by moving forward despite concerns about inadequate charging infrastructure, cost and the impacts on trucking, California regulators sent their critics straight into the arms of a more sympathetic federal government.

“They’ve been all in on zero-emission technology, which is great. It’s been a priority. But, they haven’t really cared to dialogue much, if at all, with the users of technology, particularly truck fleets,” he said. Dunlap was chair in 1996 when the board repealed deadlines requiring sales of electric cars because the technology wasn’t ready.

Under the landmark rule adopted by the air board in 2022, all new cars sold in California would have to be zero emissions beginning with 2035 models, ramping up from 68% in 2030. For trucks, California enacted two rules, one in 2020 and then one in 2023 that would phase out new diesel trucks by 2042. None will now be implemented.

Automakers say the rules were too aggressive and would have led to manufacturing job losses, higher car prices and limited consumer choices.

“The auto industry has invested billions in electrification and has 144 electrified models on the market right now. Again, the concerns were about the mandate – not the technology,” the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said in a statement.

Conservatives say the air board is an unelected board that wields too much power. (Its members include appointees from Newsom and the Legislature, and local elected officials.) A Democrat in the Legislature last month urged Randolph, the board’s chair, to resign because the agency hasn’t analyzed the economic costs of its rules.

One new clean-air rule, the revamped Low Carbon Fuel Standard implemented last week, was met with widespread, vehement criticism from elected officials and industry since it will raise the price of gasoline by an unknown amount.

Amid concerns about the costs to consumers, the Trump administration and industry groups also are making it difficult for local agencies to take bold action.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District — responsible for regulating industrial plants and products that pollute the LA basin’s air — recently rejected rules phasing in zero-emission water heaters and furnaces.

The rules would have brought one of the biggest pollution reductions that the district has implemented in decades. But business groups and others were strongly opposed, saying fees imposed on manufacturers would raise the cost of products. And U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli threatened the local air district with a lawsuit if it approved the rule.

South Coast district Board Chair Vanessa Delgado and Executive Officer Wayne Nastri rejected multiple requests for interviews with CalMatters about what they plan to do next to clean the air in the LA basin.

“As you know, 80% of emissions in our region come from mobile sources — planes, trains, ships, heavy-duty trucks — all of which we do not have federal regulatory authority over,” said Nahal Mogharabi, spokesperson for the agency.

She directed all questions to Trump’s EPA.

What else can the state do?

Last month at the clean-vehicle showcase in Anaheim, Brett Ivy, a fleet manager for the aerospace company Northrop Grumman, wandered through Angel Stadium’s parking lot, looking at electric trucks and machines that he could potentially buy for his company.

Ivy knows the state isn’t enforcing its truck mandates, so he doesn’t know what his bosses will direct him to do in the future. He said they could abandon electric vehicles altogether.

But Ivy added, who knows what the next administration would bring, and Northrop Grumman has to think long-term. He wants to be prepared to do his job managing the company’s fleet of trucks.

“If we don’t, a new administration might reverse what (Trump) did,” he said. “Then you’re behind.”

The trucking industry, when the mandate was approved in 2023, predicted economic chaos and dysfunction and that it would “fail pretty spectacularly.” With its repeal, Nick Chiappe of the California Trucking Association expects that fleet owners will keep buying hydrogen and electric trucks when it makes economic sense, such as with smaller vehicles with shorter hauls.

“The industry will continue to work with (the air board) on reasonable steps to advance zero-emissions technology but maintain that the programs being rolled back were infeasible from the moment they were proposed,” Chiappe said.

Experts and advocates say California will have to approach clean air policy from many angles — mandates and incentives.

“There is still work that can be done,” said Martinez of Earthjustice. It’ll require “being creative and not losing steam,” he said. “These are big hits (from Trump) but I think still continuing to press on zero-emission vehicles is going to be really critical.” 

Craig Segall, a former deputy executive officer for the state Air Resources Board, said the state should set new standards for cars and trucks. “The only thing that EPA is barred from doing is issuing substantially the same – not similar – waivers in the future,” he said. “The state can actually do quite a lot in terms of new standards.”

Segall said the state also should support companies that have already been buying zero-emission trucks with financing programs and get at the root of the transportation problem by expanding mass transit.

Offering incentives to consumers buying clean cars and trucks will be key. But Grundler, when asked whether California has the funds for more incentive programs, answered bluntly: No.

The state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, paid for by its cap and trade market program, typically has around $4 billion for programs related to climate change and air pollution. But because of the large deficit this year, the new budget allocated about $1.5 billion of those cap and trade funds to Cal Fire for fire prevention. It’s unclear how much will be left over for other projects.

In the state’s new budget, $132 million is allocated over the next fiscal year for an air board program offering incentives to truck fleet buyers.There also are creative ways that the state can encourage the purchase of electric cars, said Mary Nichols, the longtime chair of the air board under two previous governors and Newsom. Registration fees or sales taxes could be based on whether a car is gas-powered or electric, she said.

“The state of California has authority over everything relating to what cars can operate on our roads, as long as we’re not violating any constitutional requirements that deal with commerce between the states,” Nichols told CalMatters. “There’s a wide array of things that the state could do to make it clear that they don’t wish to continue having gasoline cars sold in the state of California.”

Tackling ‘pollution magnets‘

Experts say one of the most impactful policies the state could pursue without federal intervention could be regulating “pollution magnets.” These are hotspots, such as warehouses, ports and airports, that don’t directly pollute, but draw high-polluting vehicles, like diesel trucks and trains into communities.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District is developing a rule that would push the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports to install more charging stations for zero-emission trucks and cargo handling equipment. The district also approved a rule for warehouses that environmentalists call a success. These are known as “indirect source rules” since they regulate a place that is a hotspot.

These types of regulations “are definitely a leading strategy that California can continue to pursue environmental justice goals, despite the federal government being completely disinterested in environmental justice,” said Brennon Mendez, an environmental law and policy fellow at UCLA School of Law.

Polluting ports, airports and warehouses “should be held responsible for the air pollution that’s released into these neighborhoods because of their operations,” he said.

But while local air districts’ power to enact indirect source rules is well-established, the state’s power to do the same isn’t as clear.

A bill in the Legislature that enshrines the state’s power is opposed by labor and industry groups, especially now that the ports are facing economic uncertainty because of Trump’s tariffs. Assemblymember Robert Garcia, a Democrat from Rancho Cucamonga, said action on the bill is delayed until next year.

Also, a Senate bill would limit the South Coast district’s power to regulate the LA and Long Beach ports, requiring the agency to consider the costs and how ports and their tenants would be reimbursed, as well as the energy use and impacts on workers.

Randolph said it’s always been a struggle for California to slash enough emissions in California to achieve health standards, but now Trump’s actions “make the challenge even steeper and even harder.”

“The fundamental question,” she said, is “how do we continue to make progress…in the short-term and the long-term?”

CalMatters reporter Rachel Becker contributed to this report. 

A month ago, nearly 6 in 10 Californians disapproved of the governor’s job performance. His approval ratings looked nearly as bad as those for Trump.

By late June, nearly 6 in 10 Californians rated Newsom as “somewhat favorable” or “strongly favorable,” according to the latest UCI-OC poll, which in a first for the program, recently surveyed Californians across the state and not just in Orange County.

Trump, meanwhile, saw a moderate boost in favorability among Californian Republicans, but his support among Californian independents dropped by a commensurate amount. 

The poll data came from three statewide online surveys, two from late May and early June, plus another in late June, after the politicians’ immigration showdown. 

The surveys from late May and early June asked people about the politicians’ job performance, while the survey in late June asked them about their overall impressions of the figures.  

“It’s important to recognize there are two different questions being asked about Newsom because of how we did our polling,” Jon Gould, dean of the UCI School of Social Ecology, said. Nevertheless, Gould says he is sure that June was a good month for Newsom’s favorability among Californians. 

“There is no mistaking that Newsom’s battle with Trump has been good for his standing in the state, certainly among Democrats and also with independents,” Gould said.

“That comes immediately after his contretemps with the president, which does lead one to think that there is political value here for Newsom in being perceived as standing up to the president,” Gould added.

June was a flashpoint in the ever-tenuous relationship between the governor and president. 

From June 6-22, enforcement teams arrested 1,618 immigrants for deportation in Los Angeles and surrounding regions of Southern California, according to Department of Homeland Security numbers reported by the Los Angeles Times.

The administration’s ongoing crackdown on immigration prompted protests in downtown L.A. that led to Trump summoning the California National Guard to the area. A small number were also later stationed at the federal building in Santa Ana.

On June 9, the governor sued Trump for nationalizing the California National Guard against his wishes. 

Later in the month, after surveys were collected for this poll, Newsom also sued Fox News over defamation claims related to how the network reported on phone calls he had with the president about the raids.

Democratic political strategist Orrin Evans said Californians are recognizing Newsom for his stance against the president.

“Americans are horrified by the forced separation of mothers from their children and brutal beatings of civilians that are being carried out daily by ICE agents and masked thugs on behalf of Donald Trump,” he said. “Any elected official who stands up against this domestic terrorism will be viewed favorably.”

Newsom’s recent ratings boost stands out in contrast to other data collected in the poll that suggest 2 in 3 Californians believe the state is “on the wrong, not right, track.”

“One way to interpret this may be that they think Newsom’s heart’s in the right place and they like what he’s doing as against Trump, but they are not satisfied with accomplishments in the state of California at this moment,” Gould said. 

GOP strategist Emily Sissell suspects that Newsom’s benefiting from a “temporary bump” in popularity while the GOP reconfigures its policies and messaging on immigration.

“The message has to be clear that you can’t come here illegally anymore, but the reality is California’s ag and hospitality industries are the largest in the country, and they rely heavily on (immigrant) labor,” she said. “That’s why you’re already seeing the shift in tone where Republicans are still tough on immigration. We have credibility on that, but we’re also acknowledging that we need to be pragmatic in our approach and solutions going forward.”

About two weeks ago, Trump floated the idea of exempting farms and hotels from immigration raids before quickly walking it back. This week, he said the administration is working on a “temporary pass” for immigrants in certain industries.

The poll also asked respondents about state funding priorities.

Democrats and independents named housing and health care as top priorities. 

For Republicans, the top-mentioned funding issue was law enforcement and public safety, followed by health care and housing. 

Republicans’ interest in health care and housing could present a challenge as Republican representatives at the federal level intend to make cuts to Medicaid (Medi-Cal, in California) as part of Trump’s sweeping budget bill. 

A couple California Republicans in the House of Representatives, David Valadao of the Central Valley and Young Kim of Orange County, recently reiterated their concerns about the proposed changes to Medicaid in Trump’s bill, approved by the Senate on Tuesday and now up to the House for a vote. 

The two voted for an earlier version of the bill that, while still including changes to Medicaid, were not as sharp as the cuts included in the Senate’s version.

Both have said they would support certain reforms, but could not back cuts to coverage for vulnerable populations or those that would threaten hospitals, nursing homes and safety net providers. A spokesperson for Kim said they were still reviewing the changes the Senate made when reached for comment Tuesday.

Should it pass, the bill could result in a loss of Medi-Cal coverage for up to 3.4 million Californians, according to Newsom.

Valadao and Kim represent districts with among the highest Medi-Cal enrollment rates.

Evans said that California Democrats can win over voters by calling out Republicans for voting on Medicaid opposite of what they’ve said they’d do and “telling the stories of Californians whose health care has been stripped away.”

“Those stories will play a central role in the 2026 midterms,” he said.

Sissell said that California Republicans must be vocal about standing for Medicaid funding and vote “based on who their constituents are because that’s who they’re serving, whether or not they have an ‘R’ next to their name.”

“California Republicans at the federal level understand that health care isn’t a one-size-fits-all issue,” she said, “and our members in purple districts have been very clear from early in spring that if federal funding puts Medi-Cal access at risk or rural hospitals at risk they’re not going to be silent on this issue.” 

The legislature forwarded the spending plan to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed it on Friday evening, June 27.

But the governor also made clear that adoption of the budget would be contingent on legislators sending him a plan that would make it easier to build housing in the state. The legislature has until Monday to send along the housing construction bill to the governor, with the new fiscal year starting on Tuesday.

Faced with a $12 billion deficit, state officials relied on a combination of cost-cutting measures, borrowing and the use of reserve funds in putting together the 2025-26 budget.

Below, we highlight just a few areas of the budget that will impact Southern Californians — from health care, transportation and public safety to support for Hollywood’s entertainment industry and firefighters.

Medi-Cal

Under the budget agreement, individuals 19 and older with “unsatisfactory immigration status” would no longer be allowed to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, beginning in January.

Current Medi-Cal enrollees can remain on the state’s health insurance plan for low-income people, but those 19 or older with “unsatisfactory immigration status” would lose dental coverage starting in July 2026.

In addition, undocumented individuals ages 19 to 59 would have to pay $30 a month in premiums starting in July 2027. Newsom previously proposed charging $100 a month to adults without legal status enrolled in Medi-Cal, beginning in 2027.

A number of Democrats opposed the governor’s plan to make changes to Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants when he proposed it in May. But Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders ultimately agreed to a budget that included some changes.

Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo of Los Angeles broke with her party, though, and voted “no” on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities.

California last year extended health care benefits to all low-income adults, regardless of immigration status. But more people signed up than anticipated, costing the state billions more than anticipated.

Funding for firefighters

The budget appropriates $39 million in the upcoming fiscal year and $78 million in subsequent years to transition seasonal Cal Fire firefighters to year-round employees, as called for under SB 581, the Fight for Firefighters Act championed by state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg.

“Wildfire season is 365 days per year. We need a modern-day staffing plan that makes CalFire full-time, too, and we’re doing just that with the state budget,” McGuire said.

The Senate leader said California will transition 760 nine-month seasonal firefighters to full-time positions next year, with more to come in future years. In addition, the state has plans to hire thousands of new firefighters in future years.

“Bottom line: This investment will save lives and make our state more wildfire safe,” McGuire said.

The budget also includes $10 million to pay for increased wages for incarcerated firefighters.

Although AB 247, a bill by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, to increase pay for incarcerated firefighters, still needs final approval from the legislature, funding for it has been included in the budget in anticipation of the bill’s passage.

Currently, incarcerated firefighters working through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Conservation (Fire) Camp Program earn $5.80 to $10.24 per day, plus an extra $1 per hour when responding to an active emergency. That amounts to $29.80 a day during an active emergency for someone at the lowest end of the pay scale.

AB 247 would increase these firefighters’ pay to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour while assigned to an active fire incident. The hourly wage rate would be updated annually.

A previous version of the bill called for paying incarcerated firefighters $19 an hour, but was later revised down. The latest bill version passed out of the Assembly earlier this month and is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 8.

Public safety

The budget agreement will provide $100 million to help implement Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime initiative that voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for certain drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment.

Advocates of the measure, which include sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers, said the amount budgeted isn’t enough. Some have estimated it would cost about $400 million for the first year of the program.

Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, criticized the budget for failing to fully fund Proposition 36.

“The supermajority Democrats continue to prioritize funding for wasteful and never-ending multi-billion-dollar pie in the sky items like the high speed rail and Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants,” she said in a statement, adding that it “does nothing to reduce rising gas prices for Californians” nor “adequately address the basic needs of Californians.”

Transportation

Legislative leaders negotiated with Newsom to drop his initial plan to cut $1.85 billion in transportation funding, restoring $1.1 billion back into the budget.

That includes approximately $326.2 million for various LA Metro projects and $44.8 million to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority for projects to enhance its Inland Empire-Orange County and San Bernardino lines, according to figures provided by Eli Lipmen, executive director of Move LA, an organization that advocates for public transit.

In addition, the restored funding meant that approximately $196.6 million earmarked for various transportation projects within Anaheim and Irvine, and another $40.5 million previously awarded to the Riverside County Transportation Commission, were saved from the chopping block, according to the figures Lipmen shared.

The restoration of transportation funds was a major win for transit advocates.

In March, Assemblymember Mark González, D-Los Angeles, along with state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, had requested $2 billion in flexible funding over the next two fiscal years to address the operating shortfalls of transit agencies throughout the state.

At the time, González and other Assembly members sent a letter emphasizing the importance of continuing to invest in transit-related infrastructure as the greater L.A. region prepares to host the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2028.

In addition to the restored $1.1 billion, the state will provide a $750 million interest-free loan to prop up transit agencies in the Bay Area while legislators and transit advocates work on a future ballot measure calling for a regional tax to fund the area’s public transit systems, said Stefan Elgstrand, a spokesperson for Arreguín.

Although no such loan was extended to LA Metro, Elgstrand said the Southern California transit agency could seek other loan opportunities.

Lipmen, meanwhile, said the push for funding to enhance transportation services ahead of the Olympics will be fought another day.

“We still need funding for the Olympics. … (LA) Metro is still stuck in a very bad position. That’s definitely still an issue, but it’s being pushed to next year,” said Lipmen, referring to future budget talks.

Film and television tax credit

California’s investment in its film and television tax credit program will more than double in the new fiscal year, an idea which Newsom had been pitching since last fall.

State officials, as well as local officials in and around Los Angeles who support bumping up the allocation from $330 million to $750 million, say it’s critical for California to modernize this tax credit program to remain competitive with other states and countries where shooting a show or movie is cheaper.

A number of film crews and production companies have relocated out of California in recent years. Advocates say these relocations have hurt not only the Hollywood industry but have also resulted in lost economic activity that has negatively impacted local economies more broadly.

Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Hollywood, lead author of a bill to expand the film and television tax credit program, on Friday called the move a “historic investment” in the creative economy and for working families and small businesses.

“We’re not just restarting production — we’re rewriting the script to put workers back at the center of California’s entertainment future,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

While President Donald Trump’s administration was making life “incredibly difficult” for Californians with ICE raids, tariffs and federal spending cuts, Assembly Democrats have “delivered a budget that protects California,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a statement.

“It cuts red tape to build more housing faster — because housing is the foundation of affordability and opportunity,” Rivas said. “It preserves critical investments in health care, women’s health, education and public safety. And it honors our commitment not to raise taxes on families, workers or small businesses.”

Republican State Sen. Roger Niello, vice chair of the senate budget and fiscal review committee, said Democrats “categorically” excluded members of his party from budget negotiations this year, and are ignoring the state’s long-term “structural deficit” with a budget agreement that doesn’t make enough cuts.

“They have said that they hope for a miracle in revenues,” Niello told Bay Area News Group, “and I’ve said that a budget that’s passed on hope is a budget that’s in trouble.”

California lawmakers overspent on a major expansion of health care coverage to immigrants living in the country without legal status, and with President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the trade-reliant state’s leaders were expecting a $12 billion budget deficit. That could climb as high as $24 billion in the years to come, according to state lawmakers.

However, the budget deal announced earlier this week pares back the extension of Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, to immigrants living without legal status in California. The expanded benefits were a priority for Democrats last year, when the state became one of the first in the U.S. to make all immigrants without legal status eligible for the low-income health care program.

In his proposed May budget revision, Newsom called for steeper cuts to Medi-Cal coverage for such immigrants, including a $100 monthly premium.

Those cost savings were softened in this week’s deal. Starting in 2027, most of those immigrants with coverage will be charged a $30 monthly premium. But the state will still pause new enrollment of those adult immigrants starting in 2026. And Medi-Cal will no longer cover dentist visits for those immigrants already on the public health plan.

The Legislature’s influential Latino Caucus had reportedly opposed the rollback. A spokesperson for caucus leader Sen. Lena Gonzalez did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The budget agreement comes with a catch: it hinges on the ability of lawmakers to pass substantial reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act by Monday night — a priority for Newsom this session. Lawmakers were advancing legislation to do so on Friday, setting up a potential showdown. CEQA has paralyzed housing and infrastructure construction in the Bay Area and beyond.

Democrats who control the Legislature are balancing the budget with a combination of money transfers, reserves and deferred payments. The deal taps more than $7 billion from the state’s rainy day fund — 40% of that fund — and $6.5 billion from other reserves. It also transfers about $1.3 billion combined to the state’s general fund from the state’s key cap-and-trade climate program and a climate spending bond that voters approved last year.

With those reductions, the state will spend $228 billion from the general fund in the next year. That’s up from $212 billion in general fund spending during the current budget cycle and $223 billion the year prior, when California faced a whopping $68 billion deficit.

Housing and homelessness

After Newsom initially proposed not extending funding for a program that helps cities and counties combat homelessness — angering many local officials — he agreed to set aside $500 million toward the effort. However, that still only amounts to half the $1 billion the program received last year.

Additionally, the budget agreement keeps $620 million in loans and grants for affordable housing construction that Newsom had originally put on the chopping block.

Another negotiating point was funding for Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime ballot measure that voters overwhelmingly approved in November. Newsom opposed the measure and declined to include funding for it in his May budget proposal. But the latest agreement includes $100 million to support the new law, with money going to drug treatment and county courts. Still, some local officials maintain it’s not enough.

Climate and environment

To help fill the budget deficit, Newsom and lawmakers agreed to shift some funding from Proposition 4, a $10 billion climate bond approved by state voters in November, and from the proceeds of the state’s cap-and-trade climate auctions, to “back fill” environmental and wildfire expenses normally funded by the state’s general fund.

But the budget agreement still leaves several major environmental issues undecided, including Newsom’s plans to streamline approval for a $20 billion tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to make it easier to move water from Northern California to Southern California. It’s a contentious plan. Newsom could still strike a separate deal before the end of the legislative session on Sept. 12 to speed the project, which has been proposed for decades.

The budget deal also defers action on the cap-and-trade program, which requires factories, power plants and other large emitters of greenhouse gases to buy permits for each ton they emit. It generates $3 billion to $5 billion a year for the state and is set to expire in 2030. There is an ongoing debate in Sacramento between the administration, lawmakers and interest groups over how much of that money should fund high speed rail, forest thinning to reduce wildfires, or programs that benefit people living in urban areas, including efforts to reduce heat illness and other types of air pollution.

The budget agreement does not reauthorize the cap-and-trade program and leaves many of those questions unanswered for later in the session or next year.

“Today the Supreme Court has left everything, at best, very confusing,” said Rep. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana.

“There could be a patchwork of different states that permit birthright and others that prohibit birthright,” he said. “It’s going to be a challenging situation. Where we are right now is unbelievable and outrageous.”

• Also see: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear

Sen. Alex Padilla echoed those sentiments, saying the nation’s highest court’s decision “means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit.”

The Supreme Court on Friday, June 27, said individual judges do not have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, a victory for President Donald Trump, who has complained about individual judges halting his agenda. But the court did not rule specifically on whether Trump can upend birthright citizenship, as he seemingly sought to do in an executive order on his first day back in the White House, instead leaving open that possibility.

Still, a slate of Democratic attorneys general struck a hopeful tone Friday morning following the decision.

• Also see: Read what the Supreme Court justices said in the birthright citizenship case

Calling the decision a “mixed bag,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said there are still “some signs of hope.”

“First and foremost, birthright citizenship stands for now,” said Bonta, who co-led the multi-state coalition that sued the Trump administration in January, challenging the executive order.

“The 14th Amendment is alive and strong and well, and birthright citizenship remains, at this moment, the law of the land,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the U.S. an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The injunction blocking Trump’s executive order is still in place for the states that challenged it, including California, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said Friday morning.

“While the executive order is still temporarily blocked from going into effect, this decision is deeply disappointing,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “However, California remains hopeful that the lower courts will ensure blatant federal overreach doesn’t go unchecked.”

But Trump, in his own news conference Friday morning, said he would move to advance his proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that have been blocked by district courts.

Bonta, though, said “the fight is far from over,” vowing to continue to challenge the birthright citizenship executive order.

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president’s anti-democratic agenda,” he said.

What does this mean for other legal challenges to Trump?

Aside from the question of who is a citizen, Friday’s decision may also have a ripple effect on other challenges — including those mounted by California — to the Trump administration.

“The Supreme Court’s decision allows the lower courts to further consider the scope of the district court’s nationwide injunction — which we believe is clearly necessary to provide full relief to the states,” said Bonta. “We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country.”

But Southern California advocacy groups said they are bracing for further disruptions — and still trying to figure out what Friday’s decision means for their work.

“This is still developing,” said Ash Alvandi, vice president of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Orange County. “We haven’t necessarily had conversations internally on what we would tell clients. We’re still waiting to see what effect this has.”

Alvandi said there is concern about the potential loss of funding.

The Trump administration has sought to institute widespread funding freezes for federal grants and other congressionally approved government programs. Those funding freezes have been blocked by federal judges who issued preliminary injunctions.

“We’re relatively lucky in that we’re funded by larger institutions, but we still rely on 20%  to 30% of our funding from federal and state sources,” Alvandi said, noting his organization received a $2.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development this year for efforts to prevent housing loss.

Correa, the Democratic congressman, warned the decision is likely a “double-edged sword” that could leave Republicans unhappy if there is a Democrat in the White House.

“Right now, people are praising the administration, but this is going to be a double-edged sword, and it’s going to be cutting in ways we haven’t foreseen yet,” he said. “This door is going to swing both ways.”

How are lawmakers reacting?

Republicans heralded Friday’s decision by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court “has ruled. No more abusive nationwide injunctions,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Temecula, in a post on X.

“As Justice (Amy Coney) Barrett clearly articulated, the Supreme Court today had the humility to push back against an ‘imperial judiciary.’ In a land of laws and limiting principles, I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Will O’Neill, chair of the Republican Party of Orange County.

“SCOTUS just reined in the power of activist judges to harass other branches of government with nationwide injunctions,” said Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.

But Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, called the order “extremely dangerous.”

The Supreme Court, he said, “just opened the door to a world where a baby born in California is a citizen — but one in Texas isn’t,” Gomez said.

“As a birthright citizen myself, I am outraged at the Supreme Court’s craven decision,” said Rep. Dave Min, D-Irvine. “While they technically did not rule against birthright citizenship, they stripped the ability of judges to enforce against this by issuing nationwide injunctions.”

“The Supreme Court just made it easier for Trump to steamroll your rights,” said Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano. “By gutting nationwide injunctions, they’ve cleared the way for his agenda, from attacking birthright citizenship to crushing dissent.”

What has Trump said about birthright citizenship?

Trump argued that the 14th Amendment was never intended to be used as it has been applied in modern times.

“That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn’t meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,” he said.

Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868, which, in guaranteeing citizenship for all, effectively nullified the earlier Supreme Court ruling against Dred Scott, when it said Black people were not entitled to citizenship.

However, it was an 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that found that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

Then, the Supreme Court sided with Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents from China, in his claim that he was a citizen because he was born in the U.S. He had tried to return to the U.S. after a visit to China, and the government denied him reentry under the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese immigrants from ever becoming U.S. citizens.

Alvandi, with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Orange County, said he is worried about how the ruling will affect Southern Californians who are already fearful amid the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration enforcement actions across the region, even though enforcement of Trump’s executive order cannot take place for at least another 30 days.

“This was one of the last biggest guardrails we had,” Alvandi said. “And it speaks to what we’re seeing in the community, which is a lot of fear and panic. The ripple effects of the ruling today we’re most afraid of is that this is going to expand the fear in the community and limit folks’ freedoms.”

Carlos Perea, executive director of the Harbor Institute for Immigrant & Economic Justice, a progressive group that advocates for immigrant and economic justice locally, echoed those concerns about potential confusion and fear in the community.

“The most dangerous of all of this is immigrants’ rights issues,” said Perea. “They’ve (the immigrant community) relied on courts to block decisions from not just this administration but from previous administrations. While it’s going to take a bit to see the larger impact, this is very concerning for us.”

Santa Ana, where the Harbor Institute is based, has seen National Guard troops stationed outside the federal building in the Civic Center since June 11. It is the only sanctuary city in Orange County and is home to an estimated 70,000 to 80,000 undocumented residents, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.