While Washington has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates and emissions enforcement, California is moving in the opposite direction — and the nation’s largest automakers are paying close attention.

Late last month. executives from the Detroit Three met with regulators from the California Air Resources Board, reopening a conversation that has become increasingly consequential for the future of the U.S. auto industry and consumer vehicle choice.

For automakers, the lesson is familiar. Regulatory swings are inevitable, but market access is permanent.

The meeting came at a pivotal moment. Congress has revoked California’s long-standing authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards, federal fuel economy rules have been weakened, and financial penalties for missing emissions targets have been eliminated. Yet California is signaling it has no intention of slowing its push toward zero-emission transportation.

Instead, the state is preparing to launch a $200 million electric vehicle incentive program aimed at offsetting the loss of the federal $7,500 EV tax credit and sustaining pressure on automakers to electrify their fleets.

Stuck with Sacramento?

For Detroit automakers, the calculus is complex. Federal relief has eased near-term compliance costs, but California remains the largest single automotive market in the country and a regulatory bellwether for more than a dozen other states. Ignoring Sacramento has never been a viable long-term strategy, regardless of which party controls Washington.

CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez underscored that reality in a recent interview, saying the state is accelerating its zero-emission agenda while attempting to balance environmental goals with workforce stability and industry constraints. That balance is becoming harder to maintain as political and legal battles reshape the regulatory landscape.

California’s influence dates back decades. Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the state was granted unique authority to seek EPA waivers allowing it to impose stricter emissions standards than federal rules. Other states were permitted to adopt California’s standards, giving the state outsize influence over national vehicle design and production.

War on waivers

That authority has now been curtailed. Using the Congressional Review Act, Congress rescinded California’s Advanced Clean Cars II waiver, which would have required a phaseout of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. Lawmakers also revoked waivers governing zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and stricter diesel emissions rules, while federal regulators halted penalties for automakers that miss tailpipe targets.

The financial implications are significant. General Motors has said the rollback of federal emissions rules could save the company up to $750 million — relief that matters in an industry facing high interest rates, slowing EV demand, and rising production costs.

California officials argue that short-term relief may come at a long-term cost. Weakening U.S. emissions and efficiency standards, they say, risks surrendering technological leadership to global competitors such as China, which has aggressively subsidized EV manufacturing and battery development.

From the state’s perspective, the new $200 million incentive program is meant to bridge a growing gap. With federal tax credits gone, EVs remain more expensive than comparable gasoline vehicles for many consumers, and EV sales have slowed nationwide. State incentives are intended to prevent demand from stalling further while encouraging manufacturers to continue investing in electrification.

Cooling demand

Automakers, however, are responding to a market that no longer aligns neatly with policy ambitions. Consumer interest in EVs has cooled, charging infrastructure remains uneven, and concerns about affordability, insurance costs, and resale values persist. In response, manufacturers are delaying some EV launches, scaling back production targets, and refocusing on hybrids and internal combustion vehicles that better match consumer demand.

That disconnect has fueled tension between California leaders and the auto industry. Governor Gavin Newsom sharply criticized GM last year after the company supported federal efforts to roll back California’s authority. GM, while welcoming federal regulatory relief, emphasized California’s importance as a market and reaffirmed its commitment to ongoing dialogue with state regulators.

The legal fight is far from over. California officials are preparing to challenge potential efforts to rescind the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” which underpins federal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Repealing it would mark one of the most consequential shifts in environmental policy in decades and would almost certainly trigger prolonged court battles.

At the same time, California has quietly pulled back some proposals. The state withdrew waiver requests that would have imposed strict locomotive emissions rules and accelerated diesel truck replacements, framing the move as a strategic effort to preserve flexibility while pursuing alternative regulatory and incentive-based approaches.

RELATED: GM’s $7 billon loss exposes gap between EV optimism and market reality

Bloomberg | Getty Images

A familiar lesson

For automakers, the lesson is familiar. Regulatory swings are inevitable, but market access is permanent. California’s economy rivals that of entire nations, and its policies continue to influence vehicle standards well beyond its borders. Even without formal waiver authority, the state retains powerful tools through incentives, procurement policies, and partnerships.

Detroit’s continued engagement reflects a recognition that today’s rollback may not be tomorrow’s reality. Political power shifts, court decisions evolve, and regulatory frameworks rarely stand still. Maintaining dialogue with California regulators is less about immediate concessions than long-term positioning in an industry with product cycles measured in decades.

As federal and state governments continue to diverge, automakers are left to bridge the gap. This week’s meetings may not resolve that tension, but they underscore a growing reality: California is pressing ahead with an agenda that increasingly outpaces consumer demand, infrastructure readiness, and market economics.

Incentives and mandates can shape product planning, but they cannot manufacture affordability or force trust. When policy consistently runs ahead of buyers, the result is not innovation — it is distortion. And the cost of that distortion is ultimately borne not by regulators, but by consumers.

​Lifestyle, Auto industry, California, Carb, Gavin newsom, Lauren sanchez carb, Emissions, Ev mandate, Align cars 

A Florida felon is accused of pointing a gun at a vehicle in a fit of road rage over the weekend.

The Walton County Sheriff’s Office said it received a 911 call around 1 p.m. Sunday about a male pointing a firearm at them while traveling north on 331 S near Sherwood Road.

‘When you put all your skill points into chaos and none into dental.’

Officials said the Office of the City Marshal, DeFuniak Springs Police located the suspected vehicle as well as the driver — identified as Blackie Alvarez, 33, of Bonifay.

Alvarez then exited the vehicle, pulled a black handgun from his waistband, and placed it on top of his car, officials said.

What’s more, two metal knuckles were found in his pockets, officials said.

Further investigation revealed the victims were headed north on 331 S when Alvarez — driving a white Ford Explorer — began speeding and honking at them, officials said.

The victims told deputies that Alvarez sped around them, came to a complete stop in front of their vehicle, took out a firearm, and pointed it at them, officials said. The sheriff’s office characterized it as a “road rage incident.”

Alvarez refused to speak with deputies, the sheriff’s office added.

RELATED: Motorist fatally shoots road rager wielding baseball bat — and DA issues ruling

Image source: Walton County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office

Officials said Alvarez was criminally charged with two felony counts of false imprisonment, two felony counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one felony count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, two counts of unlawful carry of a concealed weapon, and driving without a license.

In addition, Alvarez also had a warrant from Bay County for failure to pay child support, officials said.

Alvarez was given a $235,000 bond, officials said. Jail records reviewed on Thursday morning indicate he remains incarcerated.

The sheriff’s office Facebook post about the arrest has drawn more than 3,000 comments; the following are a handful of notable entries:

“A jump-scare warning would’ve been nice!” one commenter quipped.”When you put all your skill points into chaos and none into dental,” another user observed.”Don’t chew on grenades,” another commenter suggested.”He’s already started shaking down the tooth fairy for bail money,” another user opined.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Road rage, Florida, Walton county sheriff’s office, Blackie alvarez, Pointing gun, Multiple felonies, Failure to pay child support, Arrest, Jailed, False imprisonment, Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Crime 

Over the past two months, Minnesota’s widening fraud scandals have drawn national attention. Investigators and watchdogs have uncovered what appear to be major abuses of taxpayer dollars tied to fraudulent day care and health care operations, and Democrat officials who oversaw the programs look, at minimum, asleep at the switch.

Minnesota isn’t alone.

Arizona’s reputation rests on independence and straight dealing. Katie Hobbs and Kris Mayes have replaced that image with stonewalling, favoritism, and excuses.

In Arizona, Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) have spent the past three years building a record that looks less like competent governance and more like protection for a corrupt status quo. Again and again, their offices have resisted transparency, shielded allies, and resisted oversight — while Republicans in the legislature have tried to drag basic accountability back into view.

Whether in Minnesota, Arizona, or any other jurisdiction across the country, taxpayers deserve better than a government that treats disclosure as optional and oversight as an attack.

Inaugural fund secrecy

Arizona governors often raise private money to cover inaugural expenses and then transfer leftover funds to the state. Hobbs broke that norm. Her office resisted disclosing donor information and withheld more than $1 million that should have gone back to taxpayers, triggering a direct clash with the legislature.

Lawmakers responded by writing the old precedent into law: Future administrations must fully report inauguration fundraising and spending. The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support — proof that this wasn’t a partisan gripe. Even Democrats understood that Hobbs had created a mess for herself.

A pay-to-play stench

The most serious cloud over Hobbs’ administration is an alleged pay-to-play scandal involving the Department of Child Safety.

The Arizona Republic reported that Sunshine Residential Homes, a for-profit group home operator with state contracts, received a significant rate increase approved under Hobbs’ administration after donating to Hobbs’ inaugural fund. The same request had been denied under the outgoing Republican administration.

The reporting also noted that Hobbs’ DCS did not approve comparable increases for other group homes. At the same time, the DCS ended contracts with 16 group homes — making Sunshine’s preferred treatment look even more suspect.

Mayes announced an investigation, then tried to push Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and the Arizona auditor general off the case — even though legislators had asked those offices to investigate. Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee publicly rejected Mayes’ attempt and urged the county and auditor investigations to continue.

Since then, Mayes’ office has offered little public clarity. Nearly two years without meaningful updates invites the obvious question: Was the “investigation” a press release designed to run out the clock?

Hobbs then vetoed a bill last session meant to close loopholes and prevent future executives from gaming the system.

SNAP: Fighting anti-fraud efforts

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program doles out nearly $100 billion a year. It also attracts fraud. The Government Accountability Office flagged $320 million in stolen benefits between October 2022 and December 2024. The U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2023 estimated that around 12% of SNAP benefits were fraudulent.

That should make anti-fraud measures easy to support.

Instead, Mayes sued the Trump administration over efforts to gather more information from states about SNAP beneficiaries. Hobbs refused to comply with data requests. Whatever one thinks about SNAP’s scope, no serious public servant should block reasonable efforts to root out fraud and protect taxpayers.

When elected officials fight transparency in a program that moves billions of dollars, they aren’t defending the vulnerable. They are protecting a system that invites abuse.

RELATED: Mike Lee reveals the real victims of Somali fraud: ‘It is not the rich people who suffer’

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A shady operator

Kris Mayes has other problems.

U.S. Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) has asked the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of a pay-to-play bribery scheme involving Mayes and outside political groups, claiming she traded official actions for political benefits.

And late last year, a top official in Mayes’ State Government Division was arrested on charges related to controlling and trafficking stolen property. The city of Peoria had reportedly warned Mayes’ office nearly two years earlier about serious allegations involving that official, yet she remained in a position of authority until her arrest.

Arizona’s reputation rests on independence and straight dealing. Hobbs and Mayes have replaced that image with stonewalling, favoritism, and excuses.

Voters should take note. If Arizonans want honest government, they will have to demand it — at the ballot box and through aggressive oversight — before the culture of corruption becomes permanent.

​Opinion & analysis, Arizona, Katie hobbs, Kris mayes, Abraham hamadeh, Corruption, Investigation, Welfare fraud, Warren peterson, Snap, Theft, Benefits, Supplemental nutrition assistance program, Pay for play, Waste fraud and abuse, Department of child safety, Maricopa county 

President Trump took to Truth Social this week to set the record straight regarding the invitation list for the upcoming governors’ dinner at the White House.

On Wednesday, President Trump took some shots at governors from both sides of the political aisle in his effort to clarify some “incorrectly stated” facts about the dinner.

‘I even invited the SLOB of a Governor, JB Pritzker, and horrendous California Governor, Gavin Newscum, to the Dinner.’

Trump first called out the “RINO” governor of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt, for saying that Trump intended to invite Republican governors only.

“That is false! The invitations were sent to ALL Governors, other than two, who I feel are not worthy of being there.”

RELATED: ‘She is putting a target on their backs’: New Jersey governor launches online portal to track ICE agents

Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

He went on to single out the two Democratic governors who did not receive an invitation — Jared Polis of Colorado and Wes Moore of Maryland — and gave several reasons for their unworthiness to attend.

“I did not invite the Governor of Colorado, who has unfairly incarcerated in solitary confinement a 73-year-old cancer stricken woman (A nine year term!), for attempting to fight Democrat Voter Fraud, plus the foul mouthed Governor of Maryland, who fraudulently stated that he received Military medals, A LIE, is doing a terrible job on the rebuilding of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and has allowed Baltimore to continue to be a Crime Disaster.”

Trump, of course, was referring to the high-profile case of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in Colorado. The Francis Scott Key Bridge was destroyed in late March 2024 when a ship rammed into one of its piers.

While Polis and Moore were not invited, Trump extended invitations to the rest, including some of his biggest detractors. However, he did not miss the opportunity to call them out as well.

“I even invited the SLOB of a Governor, JB Pritzker, and horrendous California Governor, Gavin Newscum, to the Dinner, despite the terrible job that they are doing. So, as usual with him, Stitt got it WRONG! The Invitations were sent out to all other Governors, Democrat and Republican,” Trump said. “I look forward to seeing the Republican Governors, and some of the Democrats Governors who were worthy of being invited, but most of whom won’t show up.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics, Trump, President trump, Governors annual dinner, Newsom, Pritzker, Wes moore, Jared polis, Colorado, White house, Maryland, Francis scott key bridge, Tina peters 

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on March 23 regarding whether federal Election Day law pre-empts a state law allowing election workers to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

A band of conservatives including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) urge the high court in an amicus brief to be filed on Thursday to consider the inevitable harms that would follow permitting states to flout the Constitution and render Election Day little more than an “abstraction,” Blaze News has exclusively learned.

‘Congress chose one day for federal elections, and one day only.’

The case in question, Watson v. Republican National Committee, is the result of a years-long battle over a COVID-era Mississippi law passed by the Magnolia State’s Republican trifecta that permits the counting of mail-in absentee ballots postmarked by the date of the election but received up to five business days after Election Day.

The RNC and the Mississippi GOP stressed at the outset that mail-in voting is “starkly polarized by party” and “the late-arriving mail-in ballots that are counted for five additional days disproportionately break for Democrats.”

While it has narrowed since 2020, the partisan divide in mail-in voting remained substantial in the 2024 election — which helps explain why so many Democrat-aligned groups have defended the practice and the Mississippi law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Mississippi in October 2024, stating that its late-ballot counting statute was pre-empted by federal law. Last year, however, the state asked SCOTUS to get involved and reinstate its post-Election Day grace period.

RELATED: Lone Republican defies Trump, votes to tank the SAVE Act

Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Image

Mississippi maintains that late counts are acceptable as “federal election-day statutes require only that the voters cast their ballots by election day” — that “an election requires ballot casting — not ballot receipt.”

Sen. Lee, eight other GOP senators, and 15 congressional Republicans joined the American Center for Law and Justice in filing an amicus brief on Thursday in support of the legal challenge, underscoring that Mississippi’s absentee ballot scheme threatens the electoral reliability and uniformity “foundational to democratic government.”

Lee said in a statement to Blaze News, “Congress, exercising its constitutional authority to set the times, places, and manner of federal elections, designated one federal Election Day.”

“States counting ballots received after Election Day clearly violate the certainty, finality, and trust Congress intended to establish by having nationwide elections take place on one set date,” continued the senator.

The brief:

emphasizes that the purpose of the relevant federal Election Day statutes “was and is to prevent voter fraud and state manipulation of federal elections and to promote uniformity in the selection of federal officers”;rejects “the notion that strict construction of this arrangement violates principles of federalism”; andseeks to show “how, absent strict construction of the Election Day Statutes, there is no limiting principle and thus the Constitution’s Election Clause would be meaningless or unenforceable.”

“A Constitution that so jealously rationed federal power chose, in this specific domain, to speak unequivocally: Congress would have the last word in the ‘Times’ of Elections for federal officers,” says the brief. “Congress exercised that power here. It picked a day. One day.”

The brief intimated that should the state law and the corresponding legal interpretation stand, the “very evils Congress enacted the Election Day statutes to prevent — rolling elections, strategic voting, and prolonged uncertainty” — would be likely become inevitable.

The brief suggests further that to treat Election Day as a “philosophical concept untethered to actual deadlines” would liberate states from much-needed guardrails and render them “free to continue the election well beyond the Congressional mandated election day.”

“Congress chose one day for federal elections, and one day only,” the brief says in closing. “The counting of late-arrived ballots [flouts] this choice by altering the pool of received votes after Election Day, in other words, by changing the results of an election that has already taken place.”

Sen. Lee noted that he looks forward “to the Supreme Court recognizing that states are not permitted to conduct interminable rolling elections with late-arriving ballot surprises that invite fraud and undermine trust in American elections.”

Should the high court affirm that federal law pre-empts the state law, 18 other states would likely be impacted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Law, Legislation, Mississippi, Election day, Election integrity, Mail-in ballot, Mail-in voting, Absentee ballots, Elections, Mike lee, Watson v. republican national committee, Republican, Gop, Politics 

The Super Bowl LX halftime show is going down in history as the first halftime show to be performed nearly entirely in Spanish — a factor that didn’t seem to bother those reporting on the performance in the mainstream media.

“The headlines were glowing. The mainstream media loved this halftime show. They just freaking love it. They loved it,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says on “Stu Does America,” pointing out a Rolling Stone headline that reads, “Right-wingers who boycotted halftime show still saw enough of it to be furious.”

“I was not furious about it. It was not enjoyable for me. And, you know, again, I will say I don’t like most of the halftime shows, even when they’re speaking the language that I can understand. This made it even more difficult to enjoy,” he continues.

And while those critical of the right for not loving the performance appear to believe it’s a symptom of racism, Stu is well aware that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“People keep bringing this up as if Latin culture is the thing that people are questioning. Now, we’ve had tons of Latin culture at previous Super Bowl halftime shows. Shakira was at a Super Bowl halftime show. There’s probably five to 10 different examples of people performing within Latin culture at Super Bowl halftime shows,” he says.

“The issue here is that the people in the crowd and the people watching on television couldn’t understand the words being sung. This is a very basic thing. A language is not a cultural statement. A language is a mechanism to allow others to understand what you’re talking about. That’s what it is,” he continues.

“So, when you’re talking to an audience that speaks almost entirely English, it usually would benefit you to have an artist that can communicate to the people watching,” he adds, pointing out that commercials are in English when the audience speaks English for the same reason.

“Why didn’t the announcers just call the entire game in Spanish? Why not? Because they were trying to communicate what was going on at the game,” he explains.

“The bottom line here is, the NFL had a choice to make, and they made this choice with very specific things in mind. Because, as I said, when you try to communicate to a specific audience, you choose the language that they speak,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu’s lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Free, Video, Camera phone, Upload, Video phone, Youtube.com, Stu does america, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Super bowl half time show, Super bowl, Bad bunny, Hispanic, Spanish, Puerto rico 

The House passed a historic election integrity bill Wednesday night with the help of just one Democrat.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy’s SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, passed the House in a 218-213 vote with the support of every House Republican, including Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, a vulnerable candidate who was pardoned by President Donald Trump on bribery and money-laundering charges, was the sole Democrat to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans.

‘There’s a false rumor that I voted against the Save America Act today.’

“I support the SAVE America Act because I believe in a fundamental principle: American citizens should decide American elections,” Cuellar said in a post on X, defying his entire party. “That principle strengthens our democracy and protects the value of every vote.”

“This is the same secure but practical approach Texas already uses — strong photo ID standards with real fallback options — and it’s a big reason Texas has some of the strongest election security laws in the country.”

RELATED: Exclusive: Republicans pen OMAR Act, targeting lawmakers who have ‘blurred’ ethical lines

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Following the bill’s passage, Massie clarified his support for the legislation after initially voting against a procedural vote on the SAVE America Act.

“There’s a false rumor that I voted against the Save America Act today,” Massie clarified in a post on X on Wednesday. “I’ll vote for it when it comes to the floor.”

“I voted against a ‘rule’ that allows it to get a vote, but the ‘rule’ also suspends house rules and allows spending bills to come to the floor with no 24hr notice!”

RELATED: Rogue Republicans side with Democrats, revolting against Trump’s key economic policy

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

With the House’s stamp of approval, the SAVE America Act is headed to the Senate, where onlookers anxiously wait to see if it will garner enough support. As of this writing, 46 Republicans including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) have co-sponsored the legislation.

“I’d be hard pressed to have to defend a position that doesn’t believe that you have to be an American citizen to vote in an American election,” Thune said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Donald trump, John thune, Mike johnson, Thomas massie, Henry cuellar, Chip roy, Save act, Save america act, House republicans, Senate republicans, Senate democrats, Mike lee, Election integrity, Voter id, Politics