NFL owners voted on Tuesday to allow players in the league to participate in the flag football competition at the upcoming 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The proposal said that no more than one player from each team could participate in the event – which is making its Olympic debut as a sport in the City of Angels – as well as providing support for those players involved, including injury protection and salary cap credit. “It’s an incredible honor for any athlete to represent their country in the Olympics, which is the pinnacle of global sport,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement. “I know first-hand that the inclusion of flag football in the Olympics has sparked a tremendous amount of excitement among NFL players interested in the chance to compete for their country on the world stage. We are thrilled that they will now have that chance.” In order to pass any motion, there needs to be a 75% majority in favor of the rule change among NFL owners, with 24 out of 32 votes needed. Goodell told reporters that the owners voted unanimously in support of letting NFL players participate. The league will work with the players union, International Federation of American Football and relevant Olympic governing bodies on rules for the participation of NFL players. Minnesota Vikings wide receiver Justin Jefferson said he was lost for words after hearing the news that he could potentially have the chance to play in the Olympic Games. “To think about the chances of playing in the Olympics and getting a gold medal is a dream,” Jefferson told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday alongside Goodell, Vikings linebacker Brian Asamoah II, NFL EVP of football operations Troy Vincent and EVP of club business and league events Peter O’Reilly. “Just reverting back to being a kid and watching the track and field meets, watching basketball win the gold medal. That’s something that as a kid I always wanted to be a part of, but football wasn’t globally. So now that we’re expanding the game and we’re going more globally it’s pretty cool.” The Vikings star added that being able to say you’re the best in the world is also an incentive behind playing in the 2028 Summer Olympics. The Olympic flag football competition will consist of six men’s and six women’s teams with 10 players each. The game will be five-on-five with the rest of the players serving as substitutes. “Players have expressed to us a great desire for the honor of competing in the Olympics, and we’re excited that our members will be able to represent their country on the highest international stage,” NFL Players Association executive director Lloyd Howell, Jr. said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the league, IFAF, and Olympic authorities on the terms of their participation to ensure players who compete will do so with protections to their health, safety, and job.” Since flag football was announced on the Olympic program, an increasing clamor has risen about letting NFL players take part. NFL players have been seen competing in flag football events in recent years, with the Pro Bowl adding a flag football game to its schedule in 2023. “The membership believes that participation by NFL players in flag football during the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, California will support such growth and advance several league interests, including increasing fan and public interest in flag football, expanding the global reach of the NFL,” the proposal stated. Flag football is a non-contact version of the traditional game. According to the International Federation of American Football (IFAF), it is played by more than 20 million people in more than 100 countries. Instead of tackles, a player is stopped by removing one of the two flags attacked to the ball-carriers waist. Games are five-on-five, with no offensive or defensive lines, and teams able to field a 12-person squad to choose from. “I warmly welcome the outcome of this vote, which promises to add another dimension to what is already shaping up to be a game-changing debut for flag football at the Olympic Games,” IFAF President Pierre Trochet said in a statement. “The National Football League is home to the biggest stars in American football, who come from more and more countries, and now have the opportunity to shine on the greatest stage in world sport, showcasing everything that makes flag football a genuine worldwide phenomenon.” Given the focus on speed and elusiveness to evade opposition trying to grab flags, NFL players such as Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson or Philadelphia Eagles running back Saquon Barkley could make for valuable editions to Team USA’s squad.

House Republicans are proposing to gut energy savings and clean energy tax credits in President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill — funds that are creating thousands of jobs in GOP states and saving homeowners money on their bills. It’s all on the chopping block. The House GOP is moving closer to a final vote on Trump’s tax package, before it heads to the Senate. If Congress passes the tax bill as it stands, it could cost the US more than 830,000 jobs that would otherwise be created in the coming years, the think tank Energy Innovation found. The impacted jobs are mostly in construction and manufacturing, building factories and components for EVs, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and other clean energy products — the vast majority of which are in GOP states and districts. It also threatens an eye-popping amount of investment from companies that piggybacked on the passage of the 2022 clean energy bill, also known as the Inflation Reduction Act. “We’re talking about an awful lot of money — approaching a trillion dollars in private sector investment that’s either been made or has been planned — that is at risk,” said Robbie Orvis, Energy Innovation’s senior director of modeling and analysis. The threatened funds are in the same places the jobs are at risk; nearly 80% of the investment sparked by the law is in Republican areas, according to data from the Rhodium Group and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bottom line, that’s what the new tax bill is, essentially: a repeal of the clean energy provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, according to independent analysis from the two nonpartisan think tanks. “It’s functionally equivalent to a full-out repeal,” Orvis said, adding the current bill proposed by House Republicans is a “sledgehammer on steroids.” It would hurt Republicans the most. Republicans represent 14 of the top 20 congressional districts that are on the cusp of gaining the most jobs from the law, which was championed by former President Joe Biden. Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas, among others, have gained most of the new jobs in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and could stand to lose the most if tax credits disappear. Rep. Mark Amodei, whose Nevada district alone is poised to gain more than 20,000 jobs in mining, refining and processing lithium for EVs and batteries, previously told CNN that continuing to fund these facilities in his district is “fundamental.” Orvis said the Republican tax bill could not only hurt future projects, it will likely hurt existing manufacturing facilities as well. “Some of the proposed language in the (bill) text actually puts existing facilities at risk because they will no longer qualify to receive some of the tax credits that they got financing on,” Orvis said. The cost of electricity for everyday Americans and businesses would also go up; Energy Innovation found wholesale electricity prices would increase by 50% by 2035. This is in large part because solar and wind energy are cheaper than fossil fuels. Rhodium’s analysis found the GOP bill would slash the amount of new clean energy on the US electric grid by 57-72% through 2035. Cutting cheaper wind and solar will raise American’s energy bills, analysts said. “You don’t worry about (price volatility) with wind and solar; the sun is still free,” Rhodium analyst Ben King told CNN. “By shifting away from renewables and back to natural gas, you are exposing yourself to price volatility as well.” Some Republican lawmakers have voiced concerns that repealing the tax credits could hurt electricity generation at a time when the US needs more power than ever. The AI boom is gobbling up electricity for data centers, and companies are on the hunt for electrons wherever they can find them. That’s the central argument solar CEOs have been making to Republican lawmakers as they’ve pleaded with them to keep the credits intact. “Solar is the most effective form of energy going forward; it’s the fastest and cheapest to market,” said Zaid Ashai, CEO of solar company Nexamp. “The reality is we’re in this economic competition with China. The only way to win the technology and AI race is to be energy independent, and solar is a really key component of that.”

Memorial Day weekend marks the unofficial start of summer for many in the United States, but it won’t feel like that in the East leading up to the holiday thanks in part to a rare May nor’easter. A one-two-punch of storms will deliver heavy rain and gusty winds to the Northeast and parts of the mid-Atlantic through the end of the week and into some of the holiday weekend. The miserable weather will be made even more miserable by unusually chilly temperatures that feel more like early March. Nor’easters – coastal storms that track along the East Coast – are more common from September through April, rather than the warmer months in the US, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They’re usually fueled by a strong jet stream that sets up between a clash of colder air sweeping south over the East and warmer air pushing north over the Atlantic Ocean. That scenario rarely comes together from late spring to early fall because temperatures in the East are typically more on par with the heat over the Atlantic during that time. Without a temperature clash, the jet stream is weaker and there will be no nor’easters. That’s not the case this week. The weather pattern underway in the East looks more like it would when winter turns to spring, despite summer being right around the corner. Right now, parts of the Arctic are unusually hot. It’s been a record-hot May in Iceland, while parts of Greenland and Arctic Canada have also been feeling unseasonable heat. All that heat has ejected colder air from the Arctic and sent it farther south than normal for nearly-June, setting up the temperature clash to fuel this rare nor’easter. A warming Arctic has already been linked to changes in nor’easters. As parts of the region heat up faster than the rest of the globe due to fossil fuel pollution, studies have shown that it may be causing winter nor’easters to get worse. What to expect Memorial Day weekend A first storm is already bringing cool, wet weather to the mid-Atlantic and Northeast Wednesday. The nor’easter will follow, developing overnight and moving just off the mid-Atlantic coast on Thursday. Nor’easters are typically powerhouse storms that can deal major impacts, but this week’s is packing a relatively mild punch. The nor’easter will strengthen some as it slowly pushes toward New England, bringing more rain and gusty winds to the Northeast and churning up rough seas for much of the coast into the weekend. Most of the Northeast will record up to 2 inches of rain through Saturday with closer to 3 inches possible in some spots in southern New England, parts of New Jersey and New York. The region has been quite wet in recent weeks, so the rain could lead to some localized flooding or rises on waterways, but widespread flash flooding is unlikely. Nor’easters are synonymous with snow, but despite temperatures dropping as low as the 40s in parts of northern New England, any chances for it are quite low and confined to the highest mountain peaks. It will be breezy in parts of the Northeast from Thursday through Saturday, especially in southern New England. The combination of saturated soils, rain and gusty winds could bring down some trees and power lines. The damp, windy weather could also hinder travel on the road or at the region’s busy airports. Some dampness will linger into Sunday but then temperatures will start to rebound. Seasonable temperatures and some sunshine will return just in time for Memorial Day on Monday in much of the Northeast.

Multiple tornadoes and intense storms hit the eastern half of the United States on Tuesday as a relentless severe weather pattern that left 28 people dead in recent days began to wind down. Damaging storms tore through parts of 10 states – including areas already battered by this spring’s storms like Kentucky and Tennessee – on Tuesday, unleashing multiple tornadoes, damaging wind gusts and hail bigger than baseballs. There have been more than 2,000 reports to the Storm Prediction Center of damaging wind gusts, hail and tornadoes since last Wednesday and more than two dozen states have reported some sort of storm damage in that span. The stretch of violent weather killed 19 people in Kentucky, seven in Missouri, and two in Virginia. It also prompted four tornado emergencies– the most serious tornado warning issued by the National Weather Service – in Illinois, Alabama and Kansas since Friday. At least two EF4-strength tornadoes and multiple EF3s have been confirmed so far. The weather pattern behind these seven consecutive days of dangerous thunderstorms is easing up significantly Wednesday, though a few pockets of severe storms are still possible. Destructive storms hit multiple states Tuesday Tornado watches stretched across parts of 11 states Tuesday afternoon as storms roared to life. A possible tornado damaged a Kirkland’s warehouse close to Jackson Regional Airport in Madison County, Tennessee, causing substantial damage to the roof, according to the county’s emergency management agency. A “large and destructive tornado” was confirmed in Madison County, Alabama, near Huntsville in the evening, the National Weather Service said, prompting a rare tornado emergency for part of the county. Huntsville also received reports of “golf ball size hail and related damage along with a lot of power outages,” said city spokesperson Kelly Schrimsher. Authorities so far have not reported any injuries. In a video obtained by CNN, a resident in the city of Madison, Alabama, west of Huntsville, captured a massive funnel cloud moving in the background of a road. Another video from Madison shows a suburban neighborhood with a path of destruction “at least 1 mile long,” according to the resident who posted it. At least one home is missing a roof, with debris and trees scattered on the road, the video showed. Parts of northern Alabama and Georgia were battered by damaging wind gusts and heavy rain throughout the day and overnight Tuesday, with emergency authorities in both states reporting power outages and downed trees. Power was out for tens of thousands of homes and business across Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and Kentucky early Wednesday morning, according to energy tracker PowerOutage.us. A few small pockets of severe weather are possible on Wednesday, but the threat is nowhere near as expansive as what’s played out over the past week. Seven straight days of damaging storms Ferocious storms have carved through hundreds of miles of the US in recent days, and there have been more than 150 tornado reports since Wednesday. National Weather Service storm survey teams are still picking through extensive damage to determine exactly how many tornadoes tore through the central and eastern US since last week, but they’ve confirmed multiple EF3s and two EF4s. An EF4 tornado tore through Williamson County in southern Illinois on Friday with 190 mph winds, injuring at least seven people as it damaged homes and obliterated trees. An EF3 tornado rocked the St. Louis area Friday, according to the NWS, reaching its peak intensity with 152 mph winds as it stretched a mile wide over the north side of the city. The tornado killed at least five people and injured dozens, while also “damaging or destroying thousands of buildings.” Storms also left vast destruction behind in Laurel County, Kentucky, with 17 deaths reported there over the weekend. The city of London, about 75 miles south of Lexington, was hit particularly hard by an EF4 tornado with 170 mph winds. Police responding to mutual aid calls for tornado victims described the devastation as overwhelming. The twister’s track through Pulaski and Laurel was about 55 miles long and its maximum width was about a mile long, the county said. It was the deadliest tornado in the county’s history – the last tornado, and death from a twister, confirmed in the county was in 2012. Evacuations were briefly scheduled in London and other devastated parts of Laurel County Tuesday evening over fears that new storms could turn lingering debris into dangerous projectiles. Sunday night saw tornadoes tear through Kansas, with authorities reporting significant damage to homes in the city of Plevna, roughly 60 miles from Wichita, and the small northwestern town of Grinnell. Plevna was under a rare tornado emergency, the most extreme tornado warning, issued by the National Weather Service. Grinnell endured a “large and extremely dangerous tornado” Sunday evening, according to the NWS. Crews later determined it was an EF3 with 140 mph winds. About 20 homes were destroyed in Grinnell, which is home to fewer than 300 people, according to Gove County Sheriff Shawn Mesch. “Essentially the entire west of Grinnell was destroyed,” Mesch told CNN Monday. But despite the level of destruction, there have been no reports of injuries: “It’s insane that nobody was hurt,” he said. The threats didn’t let up Monday, with dangerous storms stretching more than 500 miles from northern Texas to Nebraska in the afternoon hours. Multiple dangerous tornadoes unfolded in parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Nebraska. At least five counties in Oklahoma were damaged by storms, according to the state’s emergency management. Pittsburg County, in eastern Oklahoma, was hit hard by a tornado in the evening.

Imagine boarding a flight from Seattle to London, but instead of burning fossil fuel, your plane’s engine runs on fuel created — quite literally — from thin air. It sounds like science fiction, but research labs are already working on making it happen. So far it’s on a very small scale. A new class of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) pulls carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air and turns it into jet fuel, offering a glimpse into a future where aviation could be virtually emissions-free. The catch? The price tag for these e-fuels is still sky-high. The high cost – and potential – of e-fuels Sustainable aviation fuel prices vary depending on how they’re made, and none of these fuels are widely used yet. There are two main types: bio-based SAF, made from organic materials like used cooking oil and agricultural waste, and e-SAF (also known as electrofuels, e-kerosene and e-fuels), made with renewable hydrogen and CO₂ captured from the air. E-fuels are the most expensive option, largely due to the high cost of carbon capture and electrolysis. But they hold immense promise: they could be genuinely carbon-neutral. “Among all alternatives to fossil jet fuel, e-kerosene offers the most promising path to decarbonize the aviation sector,” says Camille Mutrelle, aviation policy officer at Transport & Environment, a European nonprofit focused on sustainable transport. “Unlike bio-based SAF, which is limited by feedstock availability and land use concerns, e-kerosene can be sustainably scaled up to meet aviation fuel demand without competing with food production.” Lifecycle emissions for e-SAF can approach zero — especially when it’s made using CO₂ captured directly from the air and powered by renewable electricity, Mutrelle adds. Though the market is still nascent, the first commercial flights using e-fuels, at least in part, are expected by 2030, Mutrelle says. More than 30 industrial-scale projects are already underway across Europe, and major airlines including United Airlines and IAG are beginning to invest. “We expect broader deployment in the 2030s as production ramps up and costs fall,” Mutrelle adds. According to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, e-fuels currently average 7,695 euros (about $8,720) per ton. Bio-based SAF is cheaper, at 2,085 euros (about $2,365) per ton, but still far more expensive than conventional jet fuel, which averages 734 euros (about $830) per ton. This massive price gap explains why SAF adoption — especially e-fuels — has been slow. Turning air into jet fuel So what’s the science that could power a 280-ton Dreamliner across the Atlantic — using nothing but air, water and renewable energy? Carbon capture fuels avoid the environmental pitfalls of traditional biofuels, which often rely on monoculture crops like sugarcane that can damage biodiversity and compete with food production. Instead, e-fuels use CO₂ from the atmosphere (or industrial emissions), plus hydrogen extracted from water via electrolysis using renewable electricity. The result is a synthetic jet fuel that can be used in existing aircraft engines, recycling carbon instead of adding more to the atmosphere. Among the companies pioneering this approach is Twelve, a California-based startup developing low-temperature CO₂ electrolysis. It’s an energy-efficient method of turning CO₂ and water into syngas, the foundation of fuel that’s synthetic, or simply made of something other than natural fossil resources. “Our way is the electrochemistry way, where we’re doing CO₂ electrolysis at the front end — and we’re doing it at low temperatures,” says Ashwin Jadhav, Twelve’s vice president of business development. “There’s not many folks out there focused on that.” This low-temp process uses less energy than traditional high-heat methods and integrates easily with wind and solar, making e-fuel production more efficient and scalable. These “air-based fuels” can reduce emissions by up to 90% compared to fossil jet fuel, without the drilling, refining, and transport pollution of oil, according to representatives at Twelve. Twelve’s first commercial demonstration plant, called AirPlant One, is opening this year in Washington state and the company plans to make 50,000 gallons of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) annually. United Airlines is one of the major supporters helping to make this first round of mass-scale production possible. Twelve has also signed a major deal to supply 260 million gallons of SAF over 14 years to Europe’s International Airlines Group (which owns Vueling, Iberia, Aer Lingus and British Airways). And while Twelve’s fuel hasn’t yet powered a commercial flight, the company aims to supply e-fuel for flights within the next year. Microsoft is part of a three-way partnership with Alaska Airlines and Twelve, whereby Microsoft will offset business travel emissions resulting from employees flying on Alaska Airlines. For now, the expectation is to blend e-SAF with fossil fuels until production of e-SAF is scaled up to fill tanks. Under Europe’s ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, flights within Europe must use 2% SAF by 2025 and 70% by 2050 — with specific targets for e-fuel adoption along the way. Why e-fuels aren’t taking off yet While the technology for green skies already exists, shifting from fossil fuels to truly sustainable aviation is a long, complicated journey. Existing, longstanding investments in oil, political considerations and the pace of regulation all play a role in how quickly the transition takes flight. “Economies of scale are needed to lower prices, but the high upfront costs discourage airlines from adopting SAF widely,” says Marina Efthymiou, a professor of aviation management at Dublin City University. “Without strong policy interventions — such as subsidies, tax credits, and mandates — the financial gap is simply too large to overcome.” She notes that e-fuels have the highest emissions-reduction potential of any SAF — but also the steepest startup costs. So far, most SAF usage by airlines has involved bio-based fuels, especially HEFA-SPK (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids), which are more commercially available. In November 2023, Virgin Atlantic flew the first transatlantic flight powered entirely by sustainable fuels — made from waste fats and plant sugars. No fossil fuel. No e-fuels either. It showed that clean aviation is possible, though next-generation options like e-fuels are still too expensive and difficult to scale. Airlines including Emirates, Cebu Pacific, Virgin Atlantic and British Airways have all flown using SAF, though details are often vague. “Airlines aren’t always transparent about how much SAF they’re using, the blend percentage, or which type of SAF they rely on,” Efthymiou says. Across the energy, technology, and aviation sectors, a growing number of companies are investing in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Airlines like United, Delta, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, and Air France-KLM have committed to scaling up SAF usage, while energy giants like Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies are funding SAF production facilities. Tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have pledged SAF purchases to offset business travel emissions. However, investment in electrofuels (eSAF) — produced by combining captured CO₂ and renewable electricity — is still far more limited. Early adopters like United Airlines, Lufthansa Group, IAG (British Airways’ parent company), and Japan Airlines have signed partnerships with companies like Twelve, Infinium, and Synhelion. Because eSAF is significantly more expensive and energy-intensive to produce than bio-based SAF, corporate investment remains cautious, and large-scale deployment will depend heavily on regulatory support and technological breakthroughs. Barriers to entry: Why e-fuels are so expensive E-fuels are hard to make and even harder to scale. The required infrastructure — carbon capture units, electrolysis systems, fuel synthesis plants — is costly to build. Production also demands huge amounts of renewable energy. Electrolysis, which entails using electricity to isolate hydrogen in water, alone requires large-scale green hydrogen generation, which is still developing in most regions. “E-fuels have the potential to be the most sustainable form of SAF because they can be produced without land use, agricultural input, or waste feedstocks,” says Efthymiou. “But that depends on the source of electricity and CO₂. The sustainability promise only holds if the inputs are truly renewable.” In short, e-fuels will only be as clean as the grid that powers them. Still, a major upside is that e-fuels work with existing aircraft. “Most estimates suggest e-fuels could become more cost-competitive by the mid-2030s,” Efthymiou says, “depending on renewable electricity prices, carbon pricing and technological improvements.” Small-scale demo plants are already running — like Ineratec and Atmosfair in Germany, and Infinium and Twelve in the US. But volumes remain tiny, and costs are high. “Without a solid regulatory push, airlines just aren’t motivated to switch,” says Mutrelle. The road to takeoff Still, with continued investment, policy support, and technological advancements, experts believe that the idea of flying on fuel made from air could become a reality. Though pragmatic about the challenges faced, many experts are optimistic. Jonathon Counsell, head of sustainability at International Airlines Group, is one. “Of course the ultimate goal is to take CO₂ directly from the atmosphere,” Counsell says. “At first, we’re capturing CO₂ from industrial plants to prevent it from entering the air. But the next step is direct air capture — sucking carbon out of the atmosphere itself. That’s where we really want to get to.” He points out that SAF production has already grown from 100 tons to over a million tons in just a few years — evidence that scaling is possible. While carbon capture fuels remain a long-term solution rather than a present reality, if governments, airlines, and innovators align, the idea of flying on fuel made from air could take off sooner than we think.

The Republican-led Senate moved Wednesday to overturn key Biden-era waivers allowing California to set its own vehicle emissions, a major blow to that state’s effort to regulate pollution from cars and trucks that could have broad environmental impacts for the rest of the country. And they will do it bypassing the 60-vote threshold typically needed to approve such a measure, infuriating Democrats who warned Republicans — despite their promises not to — were weakening the legislative filibuster. Republican leaders denied that was their intent and vowed to preserve the filibuster forever. Republicans were livid when at the end of former President Joe Biden’s term, the Environmental Protection Agency greenlit California’s plan to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, shifting the state towards electric vehicles. Republicans say the California plan will hurt the US economy and impact the rest of the country because other states follow its emissions rules. In response, they readied action under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to claw back agency rules without needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Tensions have built for weeks as Senate Republicans deliberated behind closed doors about whether to push the measure through despite a finding from the House’s Government Accountability Office that the CRA could not be used to nullify the California emissions waiver. Senate Republicans don’t believe the GAO has the authority to determine that. The Senate parliamentarian — the neutral arbiter of Senate procedure — deferred to the GAO viewpoint. Despite that, the Senate took a series of votes to put it on a track to pass these CRAs in the coming days. California has for many years set its own emission standards separate from the federal government. For decades, federal law has granted California the authority to do so, but the waiver has become a partisan football in recent years. President Donald Trump revoked that authority during his first term in 2019, before Biden reinstated it in 2022. In one of the Biden administration’s last major actions on climate, the EPA in 2024 finalized California’s waiver – effectively greenlighting the state’s plan to phase out sales of new gas vehicles by 2035, the first regulation of its kind in the US. California’s vehicle regulations matter a great deal to the auto industry because close to 20 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted them. And they have a big impact on climate policy; emissions from vehicles are one of the largest sources of planet-warming pollution in the US. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso called California’s efforts a “fantasyland” that will hurt ranchers and farmers in his home state of Wyoming. “California’s EV mandates ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks. They threaten the freedom of every American to choose what they drive,” he said on the floor. “EVs currently make up 7 percent of the U.S. market. Even in California, they account for only 20 percent of vehicle sales. And sales are stalling. Yet California’s radical mandates require 35 percent of all vehicle sales to be electric by 2026 – 6 months from now. By 2035, it jumps to 100 percent.” Senate Democrats have argued that not accepting the parliamentarian’s guidance sets a dangerous precedent, and they are particularly concerned that the GOP may do it again as she sets some of the perimeters of what will be allowed in the massive tax, spending cuts and immigration reconciliation bill moving through Congress now. “It’s going nuclear, plain and simple. It’s overruling the parliamentarian. And second, what goes around comes around,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters on Tuesday, referring to the so-called nuclear option, which is when the majority party changes Senate rules on a party line vote instead of 67-vote supermajority typically required to make a change. Democrats insist that the Californian regulations were created as “waivers” under the Clean Air Act, meaning that they are not considered “rules” that can be overturned through the CRA. The GAO — which weighed in on the issue when that chamber passed these CRAs recently with bipartisan support — agreed. However, Senate Republicans insist that they are not defying the parliamentarian and have said that Democrats’ concern for weakening the filibuster is hypocritical, coming from the party that has expressed opposition to the filibuster’s role in recent years. “The only people that have attempted to get rid of the legislative filibuster – the Democrats – every single one up there that’s popping off and spouting off has voted, literally, to get rid of the legislative filibuster,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday. “This is a novel and narrow issue that deals with the Government Accountability Office and whether or not they ought to be able to determine what is a rule and what isn’t, or whether the administration and the Congress ought to be able to make that decision,” he added. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, echoed Schumer’s concerns in a statement ahead of Wednesday’s vote. “If Senate Republicans force a vote on the California Clean Air Act Waivers, they set a precedent that will allow Congress to overturn nearly any agency decision nationwide,” he warned. “I urge my colleagues to reject this gross overreach.” “By opening this door, Republicans threaten to destroy our permitting and regulatory system, leading to higher energy costs for Americans and making it impossible for new developments to come online. Indeed, nearly every major and minor project the federal government touches could be stalled, creating significant uncertainty if not complete chaos. That is not what the American people want, and it cannot be what Senate Republicans want, either,” continued Heinrich.

Amid growing concerns within the Federal Emergency Management Agency that internal turmoil has left it unprepared for the fast-approaching hurricane season, the agency is taking significant steps to bolster its disaster response workforce and training infrastructure. In a series of internal memos issued this week and obtained by CNN, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department oversees the disaster relief agency, approved requests by FEMA to reopen several training facilities and lengthen contract extensions for thousands of staffers who deploy during natural disasters. This comes days after CNN reported on an internal FEMA assessment acknowledging that the agency “is not ready” to handle catastrophic storms this summer. The document outlined FEMA’s struggles in recent months, including a general uncertainty around its mission moving forward, lack of coordination and training with states and federal partners, and plummeting morale among its diminishing workforce. The Trump administration – which has vowed to “eliminate” FEMA – is in the process of overhauling the agency’s operations and drastically shrinking its workforce as it shifts far more responsibility for disaster response and recovery onto the states. With these new memos, the Trump administration is taking steps to shore up disaster preparations. But multiple FEMA officials tell CNN it could be too little, too late with the official start of hurricane season less than two weeks away. “It will help stop the bleed, but I also feel the damage is done for this season,” a FEMA official said, speaking to CNN anonymously out of fear of professional reprisals. As part of the administration’s last-minute push, FEMA is restarting training courses at the Center for Domestic Preparedness, National Disaster & Emergency Management University, and National Fire Academy – three of its training centers – after a months-long pause due to funding cuts and program reviews by the Department of Government Efficiency. Those programs train federal and state emergency managers and first responders to prepare for natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. The internal assessment obtained by CNN last week found that most hurricane preparations have “been derailed this year due to other activities like staffing and contracts.” As a result, trainings have largely been frozen and critical exercises and collaborations have not happened between FEMA and its state partners, whom the Trump administration expects to take the lead on future disasters. Roughly 10% of FEMA’s total staff have left since January, including a large swath of its senior leadership, and the agency is projected to lose close to 30% of its workforce by the end of the year, shrinking FEMA from about 26,000 workers to roughly 18,000, according to a FEMA official briefed on the numbers. At Noem’s direction, thousands of FEMA staffers that serve in public-facing roles during disaster response, many of whom work on 2- to 4-year contracts, must be individually approved for extension by her office. But according to the new memos, most of those staffers will now be renewed for 180 days at a time, instead of the 30-day extensions they’ve been receiving in recent weeks, which had raised concerns that more positions could be cut in the middle of hurricane season. These changes offer a semblance of stability to FEMA’s staff amid growing uncertainty about the agency’s deployment plans and capabilities this summer. But during a call last week, FEMA’s new acting chief, David Richardson, told the agency that additional steep staffing cuts are still expected in the months ahead. “This doesn’t address the brain drain, external hiring freeze, the culture of fear being stoked that is pushing folks out, and the fact that the federal agencies we coordinate with are also being gutted,” a second FEMA official told CNN, calling these changes “too little and not reassuring.” When Richardson took the helm less than two weeks ago, he announced an agency-wide “complex problem-solving session” to assess how prepared FEMA is to handle natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes in the months ahead. In a recent interview with a conservative radio channel, Richardson stressed that the agency will be well-prepared for hurricane season, adding that he believes there is no uncertainty at FEMA about its mission. “We’re already putting together teams that are going down range to do some evaluation on what readiness has been done at the state level,” Richardson said. “So, we will be ready, we will meet the president’s intent, and we will make sure that the American people are safe. We may do it a little differently. We will be criticized for it. But we will do it very, very effectively.” Meanwhile, federal and state emergency managers are worried about dire consequences for communities ill-equipped to handle disasters without federal support. At a hearing on Capitol Hill last week, Noem told lawmakers “there is no formalized, final plan” for restructuring the agency and shifting responsibilities to states. In a memo issued Wednesday and obtained by CNN, Richardson officially rescinded FEMA’s 2022-2026 strategic plan, saying it “contains goals and objectives that bear no connection to FEMA accomplishing its mission.” The memo states that a new 2026-2030 strategy will be developed this summer, though it does not mention a plan for the months ahead. President Trump has created a FEMA review council, which met for the first time Tuesday and is expected to submit recommendations to further reform the agency. During the meeting, Noem reiterated the goal of dismantling and even renaming FEMA. “I don’t want you to go into this thinking that we’re going to make a little tweak here, a little delegation of authority over here, that we’re going to maybe cut a few dollars somewhere. No, FEMA should no longer exist as it is. (President Trump) wants this to be a new agency,” Noem told the council. “Our goal is that states should manage their emergencies, and we come in and support them, and we’re there in a time of financial crisis.”

Robert M. LaFollette School on North 9th Street in Milwaukee on Friday, March 14, 2025. The school will temporarily close due so lead hazards can be addressed. What caused Milwaukee's school lead crisis? 3:54 US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that the federal government has “a team in Milwaukee” helping the city address a lead crisis in its schools. The city says that that’s not true and that it’s still not receiving requested aid from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood lead poisoning experts to deal with the ongoing contamination. During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing to review the president’s HHS budget request for 2026, Kennedy fielded questions about programs and staff already slashed from federal health agencies. CNN reported in April that the CDC had denied the city’s request for help with lead exposures in Milwaukee Public Schools’ aging buildings after the agency’s lead experts were swept up in widespread cuts at US health agencies. Kennedy and HHS have said that the government plans to continue the work of lead poisoning prevention and surveillance at the new Administration for a Healthy America, rather than the CDC. The CDC’s experts have not been rehired. “None have been rehired from our lead program or our division,” Dr. Erik Svendsen, who was director of the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, which oversaw the childhood lead program, told CNN on Tuesday. In response to questions Tuesday from Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, about the demise of the CDC’s childhood lead poisoning prevention program, Kennedy said, “We are continuing to fund the program, and in Milwaukee, we have a team in Milwaukee, and we’re giving laboratory support to that, to the analytics in Milwaukee, and we’re working with the health department in Milwaukee.” Caroline Reinwald, a spokesperson for the City of Milwaukee Health Department, said Kennedy’s statement “is inaccurate.” “The City of Milwaukee Health Department is not receiving any federal epidemiological or analytical support related to the MPS lead hazard crisis. Our formal Epi Aid request was denied by the CDC,” she wrote in an email from CNN. Reinwald said the department did recently get help from a lab technician from the CDC’s Laboratory Leadership Service, who was there from May 5 to May 16 to help calibrate a new instrument in the city’s laboratory. “This support was requested independently of the MPS crisis and was part of a separate, pre-existing need to expand our lab’s long-term capacity for lead testing,” Reinwald said. Beyond the contamination in schools, the city has ongoing programs to test for and remediate lead in its aging homes. Earlier this month, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked the city’s health commissioner, Dr. Michael Totoraitis, if the agency had enough resources to accomplish what it needed to do. “We have enough of a team right now,” Totoraitis said. “I think the long-term investigation into the potential chronic exposures of students at the districts is a part that we were really looking to the CDC to help us with, and unfortunately, HHS had laid off that entire team for childhood blood exposure. “These are the best and brightest minds in these areas around lead poisoning, and now they’re gone.” Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, says the CDC is helping the Milwaukee health agency’s lab. At the health department’s request, he said in a statement Tuesday, “CDC is assisting with validating new lab instrumentation used for environmental lead testing. Staff from [the Milwaukee lab] are focused on the lead response and other routine testing while CDC will assist with testing validation, laboratory quality management, and regulatory requirement documentation to onboard the new laboratory instrument.” The city says that the CDC lab technician has left and is not expected to return. As of now, it doesn’t anticipate any further help from the CDC. “MHD is proud of the team currently serving Milwaukee families, managing its regular caseload while also responding to the lead crisis in MPS schools. While we would have welcomed federal support, we continue to move forward without it,” Reinwald said in a statement. At the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat, made a statement to “correct the record.” “There are no staff on the ground deployed to Milwaukee to address the lead exposure of children in schools, and there are no staff left in that office at CDC, because they have all been fired,” Baldwin told Kennedy. “I look forward to working with you to reestablish that. It sounds like you have a commitment to that, but we need staff in order to make it function.”

Donald Trump is moving forward with an ambitious and expensive national missile defense system, saying Tuesday that he aims to get it up and running before the end of his term. Alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Space Force Vice Chief of Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein, the President announced the so-called “Golden Dome”—a defense system of missiles, satellites, and sensors named after his favorite color and akin to Israel’s “Iron Dome,” which the U.S. has in large part funded. Trump tasked Guetlein with spearheading the new project. If completed as planned, the “Golden Dome” would mark the first time the U.S. puts weapons in space. Trump, who promised an Iron Dome for America on the campaign trail, is not the first President to propose such a defense system. Ronald Reagan proposed a space-centric Strategic Defense Initiative (nicknamed “Star Wars”) in 1983, though it never materialized due to financial, political, and technological constraints. “Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they're launched from space,” Trump said. “We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland.” Here’s what to know. What would the Golden Dome look like? While flanked by posters depicting a literal dome around the U.S., Trump provided few details for the exact structure of his proposed “Golden Dome,” though it is clear that it is envisioned as a constellation of on-ground and space-based sensors and missile-interceptors. Hegseth said the system will protect the U.S. from “cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they're conventional or nuclear.” The system, according to an order outlining the President’s expectations back in January, is expected to intercept missiles during any of four stages of an attack: before launch, early flight, midcourse flight, and descent towards a target. Who will build the Golden Dome? Reuters reported in April that SpaceX, the company helmed by Trump ally Elon Musk, in collaboration with software firm Palantir and drone manufacturer Anduril was among the frontrunners to be contracted to develop the “Golden Dome.” Citing unnamed sources, the three firms reportedly met with top officials in the Trump Administration and the Pentagon in recent weeks to propose a plan to build and launch from 400 to over 1,000 satellites around the globe to detect and track missiles. The report added that more than 180 companies have expressed interest in developing and building the “Golden Dome.” The Associated Press reported that the Pentagon, after Trump’s January order, has studied options for the program, tiered by cost and scale based on how many satellites, sensors, and space-based interceptors would be purchased. The AP initially reported that the Trump Administration had chosen a mid-tier option. How much would the Golden Dome cost? A “Golden Dome” will likely require significantly more resources than Israel’s Iron Dome—which the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated cost about $100 million per battery to produce and has 10 batteries—as the U.S. is more than 400 times larger than Israel, which is about the size of New Jersey. Trump, in his announcement, said the project would cost $175 billion over the next three years, with $25 billion earmarked in his tax spending megabill for the initial costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said earlier this month that the overall cost of a space-based interceptor system could depend on launch costs, which may vary in the future. The CBO estimated that the total cost of deploying and operating such a system, over 20 years, could range from $161 billion to $831 billion in 2025 dollars. What are other concerns about the Golden Dome? The proposal has faced considerable opposition from lawmakers and analysts over various issues from costs to capacity. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D, Texas) have led a group of 42 members of Congress urging an investigation into the project’s awarding process, including Musk’s reported involvement. In a May 13 congressional hearing, Sen. Angus King (I, Maine) also questioned defense officials about the Dome’s capability to thwart attacks, asking if such a system “could deny a substantial missile attack from Russia or China.” Even Republican Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana reportedly flagged that the cost of building such a system would be in the “trillions.” Critics of the “Golden Dome” have also raised concerns about spurring an arms race, pushing military adversaries like Russia and China to develop their arsenal to maintain credible deterrence. When asked about criticisms of the proposal, Trump simply said, “Well, they're wrong. It’s about as close to perfect as you can have in terms of real production.”

Nothing good happens after midnight,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania recalled his late mother warning him. It’s a lesson that seemed to come true in the early hours of Wednesday morning, as a 1 a.m. hearing on President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill spiraled into disarray. What was supposed to be a late-night procedural step toward delivering Trump’s signature domestic agenda—dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—instead exposed the deep and widening fractures within the House Republican conference. By Wednesday evening, more than 16 hours since the overnight hearing began, lawmakers were still debating the provisions of Trump’s bill—leaving the fate of the measure in flux as a few GOP holdouts continued to demand more immediate spending reductions in Medicaid and quicker phaseouts of clean-energy tax breaks. In an attempt to bridge internal differences, Trump requested a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson and some of those holdouts at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, a day after he tried to rally them behind his bill at the Capitol. Johnson told reporters after Wednesday’s meeting that he plans to hold a vote on the measure that night or on Thursday morning, despite demands from conservative hard-liners that they need more time to negotiate. He added that Republicans will only be making “minor” changes to the bill. “There’s not much changing here, because the underlying product we thought was so well done,” he said after returning from the White House meeting he called “productive.” “We're excited. I believe we are going to land this airplane,” Johnson added, echoing a statement from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who described the meeting as “productive” and said Trump pressed for the bill's quick passage. ExploreClose Subscribe Updated: May 22, 2025 3:26 AM IST ‘Nothing Good Happens After Midnight’: Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Sputters as House GOP Scrambles Politics republicans by Nik Popli and Chad de Guzman House Rules Committee Holds Late Night Meeting On Budget Bill Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, listens during a marathon, late-night meeting of the House Rules Committee on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act at the U.S. Capitol on May 21, 2025.Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images “Nothing good happens after midnight,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania recalled his late mother warning him. It’s a lesson that seemed to come true in the early hours of Wednesday morning, as a 1 a.m. hearing on President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill spiraled into disarray. What was supposed to be a late-night procedural step toward delivering Trump’s signature domestic agenda—dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—instead exposed the deep and widening fractures within the House Republican conference. By Wednesday evening, more than 16 hours since the overnight hearing began, lawmakers were still debating the provisions of Trump’s bill—leaving the fate of the measure in flux as a few GOP holdouts continued to demand more immediate spending reductions in Medicaid and quicker phaseouts of clean-energy tax breaks. Advertisement 00:13 03:00 Read More In an attempt to bridge internal differences, Trump requested a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson and some of those holdouts at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, a day after he tried to rally them behind his bill at the Capitol. Johnson told reporters after Wednesday’s meeting that he plans to hold a vote on the measure that night or on Thursday morning, despite demands from conservative hard-liners that they need more time to negotiate. He added that Republicans will only be making “minor” changes to the bill. “There’s not much changing here, because the underlying product we thought was so well done,” he said after returning from the White House meeting he called “productive.” “We're excited. I believe we are going to land this airplane,” Johnson added, echoing a statement from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who described the meeting as “productive” and said Trump pressed for the bill's quick passage. Advertisement Branded Content XPRIZE at the 2025 TIME100 Summit: Making the Impossible, Possible By XPRIZE Passage of the bill would be a major win for Trump, cementing a host of conservative priorities. But he’s operating under very tight margins: House Republicans have one of the thinnest majorities in history at 220-212, meaning Speaker Johnson can only afford to lose three members of his caucus if all Democrats are opposed. As of Wednesday evening, at least a half dozen GOP members do not support the current proposal. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and one of the fiscal hawks threatening to sink the measure, told reporters that the White House offered a proposal late Tuesday on Medicaid and energy tax credits, but would not share the details of the proposal. “There’s broad agreement in the House Freedom Caucus that if that’s included in the package, I think it’s passed,” he said Wednesday, calling on leadership to “figure out” how to incorporate it into the bill. “I think this package is en route to get passed. I don’t think it can be done today.” Trump and congressional leaders have set July 4 as the deadline for final approval of the legislation, with the Speaker insisting the House must pass the bill before Memorial Day, which is Monday. Some of the holdouts have taken issue with the timeline, saying they won’t be rushed into a deal without concessions. “This is a completely arbitrary deadline set by people here to force people into a corner to make bad decisions,” Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, another member of the Freedom Caucus, told reporters Wednesday. “If today comes and goes…it doesn't mean that prospect is off the table—it just means it might not happen today.” Johnson has struggled to craft a bill that slashes enough spending to satisfy right-wing members of his party without losing support from GOP moderates, who are wary of cutting too much from widely used safety-net programs. Late Tuesday, he appeased one faction of the party by striking a deal with blue-state moderates for a more generous state and local tax (SALT) deduction of $40,000 annually—an increase from the current $10,000 cap and from Johnson’s initial offer of $30,000. But conservative hard-liners on the other side of the GOP have been less willing to budge. “You have to work with every member and hear their concerns [to] try to meet the equilibrium point,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday. Trump has grown increasingly impatient with Republican holdouts, labeling some of them as "grandstanders" who should leave the party. He even publicly threatened to support primary challengers for at least one Republican member of Congress who opposed his bill. Four months into his presidency, Trump has largely avoided direct confrontations with Congress—leaning heavily on executive action to carry out his agenda. But his so-called big, beautiful tax and spending bill marks one of the few times he’s needed to plead with Congress to help deliver many of his campaign promises, making these negotiations a high-stakes test of the President’s hold over his party. Trump’s legislation, at more than 1,100 pages, would permanently extend his 2017 tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year while introducing new policies like tax exemptions for tips and overtime wages. It also boosts spending on defense and border security, while reducing spending on Medicaid and food stamps. The measure would also roll back green energy tax credits from the Biden Administration, including the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit incentive. Nonpartisan research groups studying the proposal have estimated that it would add more than $2.5 trillion to the federal debt over the next ten years. A senior White House official refuted those projections to TIME, claiming that the legislation would actually reduce the nation’s debt by generating an additional $2.6 trillion in revenue over the next ten years through increased economic growth. But despite the Administration’s posturing on the debt impact, hardline conservatives are not convinced the legislation cuts spending enough. Some holdouts have complained that the bill should halt clean-energy tax breaks sooner than proposed, and that new work requirements for some Medicaid recipients should start earlier than 2029. Democrats have warned that the measure would force millions of low-income Americans off Medicaid and food assistance programs, to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. “The structure of this bill is such that low- and middle-income households bear the brunt, while the wealthy reap significant benefits,” says Daniel Hornung, the former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden. An analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released Tuesday shows that the wealthiest households are expected to gain from the bill, while the lowest-income households would lose out on resources because of the spending cuts. A separate CBO report estimated that the proposed changes to Medicaid could leave 7.6 million Americans without insurance. “President Trump promised to lower the high cost of living in America. He has failed,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement on Wednesday. “Costs aren’t going down, they are going up. The GOP Tax Scam will make life more expensive for everyday Americans and it’s his toxic legislation that represents the ultimate betrayal.” By Wednesday evening, House members were still waiting for Republican leaders to release a revised bill, even though the House Rules Committee had started debating it at 1 a.m.. The bill would need to pass the committee before heading to a full vote in the House.