logo
Federal judge orders Trump administration to release EV charger funding in 14 states

Federal judge orders Trump administration to release EV charger funding in 14 states

Al Arabiya6 hours ago

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funding for the buildout of electric vehicle chargers in more than a dozen states.
US District Judge Tana Lin in Washington state partially granted a preliminary injunction that sought to free up the money approved under then-President Joe Biden that the Trump administration withheld earlier this year. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia sued over the move, arguing that the administration did not have the authority to block the congressionally approved funds. The program was set to allocate $5 billion over five years to various states, of which an estimated $3.3 billion had already been made available. Lin ordered that funding be released in 14 of the states, including Arizona, California, and New York. But she denied granting the preliminary injunction for D.C., Minnesota, and Vermont, saying that they did not provide enough evidence that they would face irreparable harm if the money wasn't immediately freed up.
Lin said the Trump administration overstepped its constitutional authority when it froze the funding previously approved by Congress in 2021 as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 'When the Executive Branch treads upon the will of the Legislative Branch and when an administrative agency acts contrary to law, it is the Court's responsibility to remediate the situation and restore the balance of power,' she wrote. The order will go into effect July 2 unless the Trump administration appeals. The Federal Highway Administration did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on the decision.
The Trump administration in February directed states to stop spending money for electric vehicle charging under the program. The move was part of a broader push by the Republican president to roll back environmental policies advanced by his Democratic predecessor. States suing the Trump administration said the decision to freeze funding halted projects midstream, requiring immediate court intervention. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said after the ruling that the Trump administration could not dismiss programs illegally. 'We are pleased with today's order blocking the Administration's unconstitutional attempt to do so, and California looks forward to continuing to vigorously defend itself from this executive branch overreach,' he said in a statement.
The Trump administration argued that it was working on new guidance for the program and was only pausing future funding in the meantime. The program was meant to assuage concerns about electric vehicles and build infrastructure along highway corridors first, then address gaps elsewhere once the state highway obligations were met. Some states with projects running under the program have already been reimbursed by the Biden-era federal funds. Others are still contracting for their sites. Still more had halted their plans by the time the Trump administration ordered states to stop their spending. Regardless, getting the chargers installed and operating has been a slow process, with contracting challenges, permitting delays, and complex electrical upgrades. It was expected that states would fight against the federal government's efforts to slow the nation's electric vehicle charger buildout. New York, for example, which is part of the lawsuit, has been awarded over $175 million in federal funds from the program, and state officials say $120 million is currently being withheld by the Trump administration.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Netanyahu has used Hamas attack to reshape Middle East
How Netanyahu has used Hamas attack to reshape Middle East

Arab News

time35 minutes ago

  • Arab News

How Netanyahu has used Hamas attack to reshape Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been campaigning against Iran since the 1990s. He has used all possible excuses to demonize the Tehran regime, just as he incited Washington against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Syria's Assad regime. Yes, Iran, Iraq, and Syria were sworn enemies of Israel. But while Netanyahu used the US to threaten, penalize, and eventually attack these regimes, he made sure no one raised the essential question about why such hostilities existed in the first place. The tragedy of Palestine lay at the heart of all three conflicts. Netanyahu never made that connection. For him, these countries represented an existential threat to the state of Israel out of pure hatred and animosity toward his country. The Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack provided a beleaguered Netanyahu with the excuse to wage war not only against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank but also Iran's proxies in the region and, finally, against Iran itself on June 13. Last week, he was able to lure the Trump administration into his war. The US attack on Iran's nuclear site had fulfilled Netanyahu's plan for what he has repeated several times: a new Middle East shaped by Israel. Since December 2023, the Israeli leader has been declaring that Israel was fighting a war on behalf of the Western world, seeking to reshape the Middle East. He has said many times that he is closer than ever to achieving this goal. Regardless of how this latest Israel-Iran faceoff will end, Tehran will have to de-escalate to preserve the regime and avoid a wider war with the US. Only one party can claim an overwhelming victory: Netanyahu's Israel. But what does a humbled Iran mean in regional geopolitical terms? An Iranian capitulation is highly unlikely Osama Al-Sharif If Iran finally resorts to diplomacy, now that its nuclear program has been gravely degraded, then there will be new terms. It may have to relent and accept stricter conditions on its ability to enrich uranium, which has been the main issue of disagreement. Any political route to a peaceful settlement will have to resolve this point. But, for Netanyahu, this is no longer the issue. For him, regime change is now the ultimate prize. For the Trump administration, this is a case where its position remains ambiguous. An Iranian capitulation — an issue the mediators will struggle to define — is highly unlikely. Netanyahu will resist any political compromise between Washington and Tehran. But the Trump administration has to think of his MAGA base, which has been overly against a new Middle Eastern war. The US will have to take into account the position of its regional Arab allies, who are anxious about a new extended war in the region. Pushing Iran against the wall may result in an extended battle of attrition that stands to hurt Western economies and force Tehran to adopt extreme measures such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking US military assets in the region. In all cases, one potential winner will emerge and ensure the world knows about it. Netanyahu will claim that in less than two years, his army had destroyed Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, helped bring the regime of Bashar Assad down, degraded the power of the Houthis in Yemen, neutralized the pro-Iran militias in Iraq, and impeded Iran's ability to retaliate. He will say that he did all this on behalf of the West, while reshaping the Middle East. And in many ways, he will be right. If Iran and its proxies are sidelined, Israel will emerge as a significant regional power with virtually no enemies. That is becoming a likelier scenario, and one can go back to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks to see how a grand geopolitical domino effect has taken place, serving Israel's interests. But what does that mean for this region? With Iran humbled and out of the way, Israel will emerge as the region's supreme power with no real threat. Iran may rely on its regional proxies, but none can present a real challenge to Israel. However, a triumphant Israel will not offer an olive branch to the region. Even with Iran's nuclear threat averted, Israel is unlikely to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will continue to be the only country in the region to possess nuclear weapons. Also, an Israeli victory against Iran will encourage Netanyahu and his extremist government to annex most of the West Bank, while carrying out the most extensive plan of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, with little international rejection. The fact is that Israel has been gaslighting the international community for months about its genocidal war in Gaza. Now, it wants to tell the world that it is fighting Iran on behalf of the Western world. Trump is in a position to redraw the lines Osama Al-Sharif The US is in a position to redraw the lines. Yes, Iran has a history of destabilizing the region, but so does Israel. At the end of the first Gulf War, President George Bush Sr. called for the Madrid Conference. President George W. Bush tried to launch a peace process after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Can we expect something similar this time around? At this crucial moment, Trump must initiate a new political process that addresses the root causes of all conflicts in the region. Defeating Iran will not eliminate the source of these hostilities. On the contrary, it will embolden Netanyahu and the Israeli extremists to push for Biblical premises that claim Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq as part of a greater Israel. Arab governments have had a complex relationship with Islamic Iran since 1979. But in the end, there will have to be a balance between where Iran, as a thousand-year culture, stands and what Netanyahu's new Middle East means. If Netanyahu's new Middle East spells out Israeli hegemony, then the countries of the region should think deeply about what that means for the entire area. Does that allow Israel to expel 2 million Palestinians from Gaza? Or does it pave the way for Israel to expel almost 3 million from the West Bank? How would that affect Jordan and Egypt? Netanyahu's new Middle East offers the Palestinians nothing. It assumes that life can go on with Israel as a regional hegemon, while giving nothing to the Palestinians. Even worse, it believes that it can push for a greater Israel that spans territories belonging to sovereign Arab states. At one point, the Arab world will have to respond.

Iran ‘much further away' from building nuclear weapon after US strike, Rubio tells Politic
Iran ‘much further away' from building nuclear weapon after US strike, Rubio tells Politic

Al Arabiya

time40 minutes ago

  • Al Arabiya

Iran ‘much further away' from building nuclear weapon after US strike, Rubio tells Politic

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Politico on Wednesday that Iran is 'much further away from a nuclear weapon' after a US strike on Iran's three main nuclear sites over the weekend. 'The bottom line is, they are much further away from a nuclear weapon today than they were before the president took this bold action,' Rubio told Politico. 'Significant, very significant, substantial damage was done to a variety of different components, and we're just learning more about it,' he added. Developing

NATO chief says US ‘totally committed' to collective defense pledge
NATO chief says US ‘totally committed' to collective defense pledge

Al Arabiya

timean hour ago

  • Al Arabiya

NATO chief says US ‘totally committed' to collective defense pledge

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on Wednesday that the United States was 'totally committed' to the alliance's mutual defense clause, after President Donald Trump appeared to cast doubt on it. 'For me, there is absolute clarity that the United States is totally committed to NATO, totally committed to Article Five,' Rutte told reporters ahead of a summit meeting of alliance leaders. On his way to the summit, Trump refused to commit to NATO's Article Five clause, the basic agreement that says an attack on one member is an attack on all. 'Depends on your definition. There's numerous definitions of Article Five,' Trump told journalists in comments sure to rattle America's European allies. 'I'm committed to being their friend,' he said. Rutte said that there was, however, an 'expectation' that the Canadians and the Europeans would ramp up their spending, with the US long complaining that it paid too much to defend countries in Europe. NATO allies, later on Wednesday, are to sign off a pledge to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense spending -- just over the current US level -- plus another 1.5 percent on broader security-related areas such as cybersecurity and infrastructure. 'This is fair, that we spend the same as the US is spending,' said Rutte.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store