A high-stakes clash between California and the Trump administration escalated Thursday as President Donald Trump directed federal environmental officials to overturn the state’s landmark green energy policies championed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The move delivers a significant setback to California’s radical left-wing climate agenda, which includes a mandate for the entire state to reach net-zero emissions by 2045—the most ambitious timeline in the country. Central to that plan was a ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035. That policy was formally reversed by Trump through the signing of three congressional resolutions passed last month, which nullify state-level efforts to prohibit gas-powered cars and trucks. The targeted bans aimed to reduce tailpipe emissions and nitrogen oxide pollution from diesel vehicles. During the signing ceremony, Trump dismissed Newsom’s law as “crazy.” “No autopens allowed,” joked Trump, a reference to the controversy surrounding executive orders issued by former President Joe Biden. “Lower prices, better cars, and choice,” he added. “It’s been a disaster for this country.” The resolutions signed Thursday halt the enforcement of a California law that aimed to ban the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks, while also restricting emissions from existing models sold before 2035. In his remarks, Trump voiced skepticism about electric vehicles becoming the dominant form of transportation. However, he made a point to praise Tesla—a symbolic gesture suggesting he may be moving toward reconciliation with Elon Musk, who issued a public apology on Wednesday. Trump also used his remarks to hammer the reliability of windmills, which he claimed are “killing the country,” and floated the possibility of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank versus being eaten by a shark. “I’ll take electrocution every single day,” the president joked. The current car market, he added, allows Americans to pick and choose what kind of car they want to buy. “If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric,” he told reporters in the East Wing. Bill Kent, the owner of California-based Kent Kwik convenience stores, attended the ceremony and spoke positively about the effect that Trump’s three orders would have on his business. “What this does is it gives us freedom,” Kent said, saying he can now avoid being forced to install “infrastructure that, frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn’t give you any return.”

on

Trump Secures Legal Win as Federal Appeals Court Rules Tariffs Stay, For Now [WATCH] By LifeZette News Staff June 11, 2025 Image Credit: Evan El-Amin – Shutterstock.com ShareTweetShareCommentPrint A federal appeals court on Tuesday evening issued a stay on portions of President Donald Trump’s tariff program, allowing the administration to continue collecting certain tariffs while the appeals process moves forward. The ruling temporarily blocks the implementation of a lower court decision that struck down key parts of the policy. Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money? MORE NEWS: Anti-ICE Protester Hilariously Roasted Over Her Homemade Tactical Suit, Including Leaf Blower [WATCH] The U.S. Court of International Trade had previously invalidated most of the tariffs enacted under President Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade initiative, ruling that the administration had exceeded its statutory authority. This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year Do you think President Trump’s decision to send troops to LA to control the riots was a good idea? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you’ve read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement. Results Vote That ruling specifically challenged the legal basis for imposing a 10% global baseline tariff, along with targeted tariffs against China and several other countries. However, in the latest development, the appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay while the case proceeds. The ruling does not affect Trump’s sector-specific tariffs, such as those on aluminum and steel, which remain in place. The decision allows the continuation of the contested tariffs until the full court can hear the case and issue a final ruling. MORE NEWS: Dem Senator Murphy Calls for Nationwide Protests Like the Ones in Los Angeles [WATCH] “Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits,” the appeals panel wrote in its decision, as reported by CNN. “Having considered the traditional stay factors… the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances.” The appeals court also expedited the case, ordering both parties to prepare for oral arguments scheduled for July 31. The court emphasized the significance of the matter, writing, “The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance.” The “Liberation Day” tariffs were part of President Trump’s broader trade policy strategy, aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit, addressing what the administration described as unfair foreign trade practices, and restoring manufacturing strength in the United States. The 10% global tariff was introduced as a baseline measure, with additional tariffs layered on nations accused of violating trade norms or harming U.S. industries through subsidies, dumping, or intellectual property theft. MORE NEWS: The ‘Globalist of all Globalists’: Alex Soros is ‘One of the Most Dangerous Men in the Entire World’ [WATCH] The legal challenge to the tariffs originated from a coalition of importers and trade associations who argued that the executive branch had exceeded its authority under existing trade laws. Plaintiffs in the case claimed the tariffs disrupted international supply chains and violated provisions of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Trump administration has defended its authority to implement the tariffs under existing federal law, citing national economic security and systemic trade imbalances. Government attorneys argued that the executive branch maintains broad discretion to take action in matters of international trade, especially in response to persistent violations by foreign governments. Tuesday’s order now places the enforcement of the challenged tariffs on hold, pending further review. The expedited timeline signals that the court recognizes the broader implications of the case, both for the authority of the executive branch and for U.S. trade relations with key global partners. The outcome of the case could impact future administrations’ ability to unilaterally impose tariffs in response to trade violations or economic threats. MORE NEWS: Hamas Agrees to Unconditional Surrender if Europe Takes Greta Thunberg Back [SATIRE] Both parties are expected to submit briefs in the coming weeks ahead of the July 31 hearing.

on