Federal Judge Blocks Trump From Suppressing Funds for EV Chargers
A federal judge has issued a temporary block on a Trump administration order to withhold funds for EV charging infrastructure.
U.S. District Judge Tana Lin ruled that states involved in a lawsuit with the federal government were likely to win, alleging that the government was illegally withholding billions of dollars.
The suit refers to a $5 billion EV charging program intended to build out at least half a million chargers across the U.S. by 2030 that was frozen by the DOT in February.
A federal judge has stepped in to issue a temporary block on the Trump administration's suppression of funds awarded to states for building improved electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The funds were part of a 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) that specifically appropriated $5 billion for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program.
When he took office, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to stop releasing funds under the IIJA, resulting in 17 attorneys general filing suit against the administration. Following the executive order, the Department of Transportation (DOT) began withholding funds from states. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's order.
PATRICK T. FALLON
|
Getty Images
According to a report from Automotive News, Lin's order does not apply to the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and Vermont. All three of which also sued over the funding rescission, but did not provide evidence that they would suffer immediate harm as a result of the DOT's decision. Lin's order won't go into effect for seven days, giving the Trump administration a grace period to file an appeal and ask an appellate court to block her ruling from taking effect.
"The administration cannot dismiss programs illegally, like the bipartisan Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program, just so that the President's Big Oil friends can continue basking in record-breaking profits," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a social media post.
Jack Fitzgerald
Associate News Editor
Jack Fitzgerald's love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1.
After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn't afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf. Read full bio
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scott Galloway Reached His Financial Goal 8 Years Ago. He Says There's Just No Justification For Becoming A Billionaire
Scott Galloway had a plan: sell his company, take $25 million, raise another $250 million, and become a billionaire. But then he stopped to think about it. 'Why would I want back on this hamster wheel of stress?' he asked on a recent episode of his podcast, 'Office Hours.' Galloway, a business professor, entrepreneur and investor, said he realized the pursuit of more wealth would just cost him time, peace of mind and family moments. 'I've been doing nothing but working for a quarter century,' he said. After hitting his personal financial target, he made a different choice: spend on what brings joy, pay people well, and give the rest away. 'I hit my number eight years ago,' he said. 'And I decided there's just no reason why I would ever need to be a billionaire.' Don't Miss: Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can invest with $1,000 at just $0.30/share. Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. 'Every year I look at my number,' he explained. 'Anything above that number, I do one of two things: I either spend it or I give it away.' He added, 'It feels amazing to spend money and to give it away.' He owns a plane and refuses to let money prevent him from enjoying life. When friends can't afford to join, he covers the cost himself, saying it gives him satisfaction. His shift in mindset mirrors that of Andrew Wilkinson, a Canadian entrepreneur who told his own story in the 2024 book, 'Never Enough.' Wilkinson became a billionaire after building the tech conglomerate Tiny, but eventually saw the limits of wealth. After nearly partnering with legendary investor Charlie Munger, Wilkinson said he turned it down. The thought of chasing another level of wealth no longer appealed to him. Both Wilkinson and Galloway reached a similar conclusion. Once you have enough, more doesn't necessarily improve your life. In fact, it can increase stress. Trending: GoSun's Breakthrough Rooftop EV Charger Already Has 2,000+ Units Reserved — Become an Investor in This $41.3M Clean Energy Brand Today Galloway recalls the fear he felt in 2008 when his first son was born during the financial crisis. 'All I felt was shame and fear,' he said. 'I thought, I've failed this kid. I don't have enough money.' That fear stayed with him until he reached financial security. 'Happiness is not only a function of the things you have,' he said. 'It's a function of the things that you don't have—specifically, an absence from stress.' Galloway also wants to normalize open conversations about money. 'This zeitgeist that you're not supposed to talk about money is nothing but an effort by rich people to keep the poor and middle class down,' he said. He encourages people to share information about salaries, taxes and financial tools to help each other get ahead. 'Talking about it a lot gives you ideas and opportunities and can be quite cathartic,' he said. These days, Galloway says he's off the hamster wheel for good. He spends on joy, gives generously and says he finally feels free. Read Next: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: Schedule your free call with a financial advisor to start your financial journey – no cost, no obligation. Are you rich? Here's what Americans think you need to be considered 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Scott Galloway Reached His Financial Goal 8 Years Ago. He Says There's Just No Justification For Becoming A Billionaire originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the 'shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Related: The self-deportation psyop Trump's legal strategy has a name. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Tom Nichols on the president's weapon Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues. Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran's propaganda. Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth's guide to war Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now? Culture Break Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Zohran Mamdani is the future of the Democrats, they're doomed
It would be easy to call San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie the 'anti-Zohran Mamandi,' but that would fail to do the first-term leader justice. Sworn into office this past January, Lurie – like Mamdani – hails from a storied family, in this case the founders of the Levi Strauss denim dynasty. But that is where the similarities end. Lurie was elected to City Hall last November following nearly a decade of decay across San Francisco. Fuelled by the soft-on-crime policies of former district attorney Chesa Boudin, San Francisco – an urban jewel of technology and wealth – was close to becoming a failed state. Violent crime, open-air drug camps, hundreds of annual drug overdose deaths, a declining population base and desolate downtown plagued the city where I was born and raised. San Francisco's ills were akin to many large American urban centres: Philadelphia with its gruesome 'Tranq' crisis; the epidemic of deadly violent crime devastating Chicago. And, of course, Los Angeles – similarly battling an inhospitable mix of homelessness, drugs and criminality. But sized a mere 49 square miles (one-tenth that of Los Angeles), San Francisco's blight has felt uniquely acute and everywhere – all at the same time. Back in 2022, fed up voters ousted district attorney Boudin, whose laissez-faire prosecutorial approach directly led to the city's spiralling quality of life. Former San Francisco mayor London Breed attempted, honourably, to steer San Francisco back to sanity. But with a record 806 drug-related deaths in 2023 alone – and San Francisco's abandoned business core dubbed a 'ghost town' by major media – Breed lost to Lurie last November. Despite a lack of formal political experience, Lurie is hardly new to politics. His career has been shaped by public service, mostly leading large non-profits focused on tackling urban ills – often in association with scions of other local family dynasties. Lurie's flagship $500 million Tipping Point Community organisation, for instance, was established alongside the daughter of Financial Services billionaire Charles Schwab. The reliance on – rather than rejection of – the private sector for public good has been a key Lurie manoeuvre and stands in sharp contrast to Mamdani's platform. Indeed, much like former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg a decade ago, Lurie has tapped major corporations and philanthropists to fund ambitious city programs hit hard by San Francisco's $800 million budget deficit. Earlier this month, for instance, he set up an entire department, the San Francisco Downtown Development Corporation, to steer private funding to city projects. Lurie has also heavily leaned into San Francisco's abundance of visionary innovators, most notably – and understandably – in the tech world. OpenAI head Sam Altman helped lead Lurie's transition team after his election last year. Such schemes – and there are many – stand in sharp contrast to the economic expansion plan touted by Mamdani, which mostly relies on added taxes levied on New York's wealthiest residents and corporations. And not just any wealthy residents and corporations: Mamdani's own website describes his strategy as shifting 'the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighbourhoods.' Such taxes would then be used to pay for low cost basic services including housing, transport and child care, even groceries. In other words – DEI meets Socialism. If this is the future of the Democrats, they are doomed. The problem with Mamdani's plans is that they rarely benefit – or are even desired – by those for whom they are designed. How else to explain the mostly white, mostly affluent New Yorkers who voted for Mamdani this week. Poor people don't need cheap housing – they need quality housing. They don't want free subway services, but reliable – and never more so – safe public transport. This requires funding, which taxes would supply, but also know-how, supply chains, available workforces and long-term commitments. And these are best delivered by partnering with the private sector. Earlier this month, for instance, crypto billionaire Chris Larsen gave $9.4 million to fund a Real Time Investigation Centre for the SFPD. Investment in law enforcement is another key area where Mamdani could learn from Lurie. Last month the mayor announced that the SFPD would be spared the 15 per cent budget cut he's implementing across city departments. Lurie has also signed an executive order to add 500 police officers to the department by, among other strategies, re-hiring recently retired officers. Lurie's law-and-order focus appears to be working: this week the SFPD made 97 arrests in a single day in San Francisco drug dens – 'the largest one-day fugitive-focused enforcement in recent history,' according to the city. While Lurie boosts officer numbers in San Francisco, Mandani has pledged to slash them. In their place, he will create a Department of Community Safety that relies on social-service schemes – 'evidence-based strategies that prevent violence and crime before they occur,' as he has described it – to maintain public order. This is a city that has finally seen a decrease in spiralling violent crime numbers – precisely because of an increase in police patrols. In 2023, for instance, New York City experienced a 20 per cent rise in arrests, a five-year record according to NYPD Chief John Chell. San Francisco may be far smaller than New York City, but its challenges – rising costs, a decreasing tax base, middle- and upper-class population declines – are eerily similar. Five years after Covid decimated both cities' business bases, mayor Lurie appears to understand that fixing San Francisco requires, above all else, public safety and a robust private-sector. Zohran Mandani should pay attention. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
