‘No viable path’ to completion: Trump administration plans to end funding to California high-speed rail project

• June 5, 2025

By Michael R. Blood | Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is “no viable path” to complete even a partial section of the line.

Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion.

In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state’s major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for “a 119-mile track to nowhere.”

After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency “has conned the taxpayer … with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,” Feeley wrote.

State officials defended what’s known as the nation’s largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it’s not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it’s withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time.

Carol Dahmen, the state authority’s chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and “do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.”

Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line.

State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033.

The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated.

State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that “commonsense has prevailed” and urged the Legislature’s dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects.

“Let’s stop wasting California’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Strickland said.

There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line.

California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment.

President Donald Trump — who canceled nearly $1 billion in federal dollars for the project in his first term — said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. “That train is the worst cost overrun I’ve ever seen,” Trump told reporters at the time, calling it “totally out of control.”

California Democratic U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff called the administration’s announcement a “devastating” blow for 21st century transportation and an effort to punish a heavily Democratic state that didn’t support the Republican president in the election.

“High-speed rail is the future of transportation with the potential to bring customers to new businesses, businesses to new employees and to connect communities hundreds of miles away with affordable and faster transit,” they said in a joint statement.

​ Orange County Register 

Suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO killing said he ‘had it coming,’ according to prosecutors

• June 5, 2025

By MICHAEL R. SISAK

NEW YORK (AP) — Six weeks before UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down outside a Manhattan hotel in December, suspect Luigi Mangione mused about rebelling against “the deadly, greed fueled health insurance cartel” and said killing the executive “conveys a greedy bastard that had it coming,” prosecutors revealed Wednesday.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office quoted extensively from Mangione’s handwritten diary — highlighting his desire to kill an insurance honcho and praise for Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber — as they fight to uphold his state murder charges. They also cited a confession they say he penned “To the feds,” in which he wrote that “it had to be done.”

Mangione’s lawyers want the state case thrown out, arguing in court papers that those charges and a parallel federal death penalty case amount to double jeopardy.

They also want state terrorism charges dismissed, have asked for the federal case to go first and say prosecutors should be barred from using evidence collected during Mangione’s arrest, including a 9mm handgun, statements to police and the diary.

Manhattan prosecutors contend that there are no double jeopardy issues because neither case has gone to trial and because the state and federal prosecutions involve different legal theories.

His lawyers say that has created a “legal quagmire” that makes it “legally and logistically impossible to defend against them simultaneously.”

The state charges, which carry a maximum of life in prison, allege that Mangione wanted to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” that is, insurance employees and investors. The federal charges allege that Mangione stalked an individual, Thompson, and do not involve terror allegations.

Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty in both cases. No trial dates have been set.

Mangione’s “intentions were obvious from his acts, but his writings serve to make those intentions explicit,” prosecutors said in Wednesday’s filing. The writings, which they sometimes described as a manifesto, “convey one clear message: that the murder of Brian Thompson was intended to bring about revolutionary change to the healthcare industry.”

They quoted excerpts in which Mangione discussed options for the attack, such as bombing UnitedHealthcare’s headquarters, before deciding to target the company’s investor conference in Manhattan. He wrote about plans to “wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention” because it was “targeted, precise and doesn’t risk innocents.”

UnitedHealthcare, the largest U.S. health insurer, “literally extracts human life force for money,” Mangione wrote, envisioning the news headline, “Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference.”

The company has said he was never a client.

Mangione is due back in state court June 26, when Judge Gregory Carro is expected to rule on his request for dismissal.

His lawyers asked Tuesday for his handcuffs and bulletproof vest to be removed during the hearing. They called him a “a model prisoner, a model defendant” and said the security measures would suggest to potential jurors that he is dangerous. Carro has not ruled on that.

Mangione’s next federal court date is Dec. 5, a day after the one-year anniversary of Thompson’s death.

Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting Thompson from behind as he arrived for the conference Dec. 4 at the New York Hilton Midtown. Police say “delay,” “deny” and “depose” were scrawled on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase commonly used to describe how insurers avoid paying claims.

Mangione was arrested Dec. 9 at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) to the west, and he is being held in a federal jail in Brooklyn.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has called the ambush “a killing that was intended to evoke terror.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in April that she was directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for “an act of political violence” and a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.”

The killing and ensuing search for Mangione rattled the business community while galvanizing health insurance critics who rallied around him as a stand-in for frustrations over coverage denials and hefty bills. Supporters have flocked to his court appearances and flooded him with mail.

Mangione “demonstrated in his manifesto that he was a revolutionary anarchist who would usher in a better healthcare system by killing the CEO” of one of the biggest U.S. companies, prosecutors wrote. “This brutal, cowardly murder was the mechanism that defendant chose to bring on that revolution.”

​ Orange County Register 

Jury deliberations begin in Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes retrial

• June 5, 2025

By JENNIFER PELTZ and CEDAR ATTANASIO

NEW YORK (AP) — Jurors started deliberating Thursday in Harvey Weinstein ’s New York sex crimes retrial, tasked with deciding — again — a case that encapsulated the #MeToo movement.

The seven-woman, five-man jury is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape, each relating to a different accuser and a different date. In this case, the criminal sex act charge is the higher-degree felony. The jury got the case after a juror was replaced by an alternate after she couldn’t come to court due to illness.

Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty.

Nearly eight years ago, a series of sexual misconduct allegations against the Oscar-winning movie producer propelled the #MeToo movement. Some of those accusations later generated criminal charges and convictions in New York and California.

The New York conviction from 2020 was subsequently overturned, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge.

Jurors heard more than five weeks of testimony, including lengthy and sometimes fiery questioning of Weinstein’s three accusers in the case.

Jessica Mann said he raped her in 2013, when she was trying to build an acting career. Miriam Haley accused him of forcibly performing oral sex on her in 2006, when she was looking for work in entertainment production.

Kaja Sokola, who wasn’t involved in Weinstein’s first trial, told jurors that he forced oral sex on her, too, during 2006. At the time, she was a teenage fashion model trying to break into acting.

“They all had dreams of pursuing careers in the defendant’s world, the entertainment industry,” prosecutor Nicole Blumberg told jurors in her closing argument Tuesday. She contended that Weinstein let the women think he was interested in their careers when what actually interested him were their bodies, and “he was going to have their bodies and touch their bodies whether they wanted him to or not.”

Weinstein chose not to testify. His defense called other witnesses, including some former friends of Sokola’s and Mann’s.

Weinstein’s attorneys argued that all three accusers consented to Weinstein’s advances because they wanted help with their Hollywood aims. All three stayed on friendly terms with him afterward, a point the defense emphasized.

“It’s transactional, folks. Yes, he wants to fool around with them, and yes, they want something from him,” defense lawyer Arthur Aidala said in his summation Tuesday.

The Associated Press generally does not identify people without their permission if they say they have been sexually assaulted. Sokola, Mann and Haley have agreed to be named.

​ Orange County Register 

Governments scramble to understand Trump’s latest travel ban before it takes effect Monday

• June 5, 2025

By CHRIS MEGERIAN and FARNOUSH AMIRI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Governments of 12 countries whose citizens will be banned from visiting the United States beginning next week scrambled Thursday to understand President Donald Trump’s latest move to resurrect a hallmark policy of his first term.

The ban that Trump announced Wednesday takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signaled plans for a new ban upon taking office again in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him.

Some of the 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in the Republican president’s first term. The new ban targets Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. North Korea and Syria, which were on the banned list in the first Trump administration, were spared this time.

While many of the banned and restricted countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years.

Trump tied the new ban to Sunday’s terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect, who is accused of turning a makeshift flamethrower on a group of people, is from Egypt, which is not on Trump’s restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa.

The travel ban results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.

Visa overstays

Trump said some countries had “deficient” screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of those remaining after their visas expired.

Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump’s proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries.

While Trump’s list captures many of the most egregious offenders, it omits others. Djibouti, for example, had a 23..9% overstay rate among business visitors and tourists in the 12-month period through September 2023, higher than seven countries on the banned list and six countries on the restricted list.

The findings are “based on sketchy data and a misguided concept of collective punishment,” said Doug Rand, a former Biden administration official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Reactions

Venezuela’s government had already warned its citizens against traveling to the U.S. A video released last week by the foreign ministry told Venezuelans the U.S. “is a dangerous country where human rights of immigrants are nonexistent.”

“If you are thinking about traveling, cancel your plans immediately,” it urged.

But the decision is a significant blow to Venezuelans, who were already limited in their U.S. travel plans since the governments broke off diplomatic relations in 2019.

The announcement stunned the family of María Aldana, who has long worked multiple jobs in Caracas to support her brother’s dream to study engineering in the U.S. The family has spent more than $6,000 to finance his goals.

Aldana, 24, said her distraught brother, who enrolled at a Southern California university two years ago, called the family crying.

“We did it all legally,” Aldana said.

The African Union Commission, meanwhile, appealed to the United States to reconsider “in a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing partnership between the United States and Africa.”

International aid groups and refugee resettlement organizations took a harsher tone: “This latest proclamation is an attempt to further eviscerate lawful immigration pathways under the false guise of national security,” said Sarah Mehta, the American Civil Liberties Union’s deputy director of policy and government affairs for immigration.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell University Law School professor and expert in immigration law, said the ban is likely to withstand legal challenges, noting the Supreme Court eventually allowed a ban to take effect in Trump’s first term. Trump’s invocation this week of national security, along with exceptions for green-card holders, athletes and others, could also help the ban stand up in court.

Shock in Iran

The news came as a shock to many in Iran despite the decades of enmity between the two countries. Reports suggest thousands of university students each year travel to America to study, and others have extended families living in America, some of whom fled after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the shah.

“My elder daughter got a bachelor’s degree from a top Iranian university and planned to continue in the U.S., but now she is badly distressed,” Nasrin Lajvardi said.

Tensions also remain high because negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have yet to reach any agreement, but Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump’s decision.

“Those who have family members in the U.S., it’s their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,” he said.

‘America has to cancel it’

Outside the former U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, a Taliban guard expressed his disappointment.

“America has to cancel it,” Ilias Kakal said.

Travel agents there said the ban would have little practical effect as Afghan passport holders have faced problems for years getting U.S. visas.

Since the Taliban took over the country in 2021, only Afghans with foreign passports or green cards were able to travel to the United States with any ease, they said, while even those applying for special visas due to their work with U.S. forces in Afghanistan were facing problems.

First term ban

During his first term, Trump issued an executive order banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency.

The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban,” was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.

Amiri reported from the United Nations. Associated Press writers Regina Garcia Cano, Rebecca Santana, Jon Gambrell, Ellen Knickmeyer, Omar Farouk, Nasser Karimi, Elliot Spagat, Elena Becatoros and Danica Coto contributed to this report.

​ Orange County Register 

Trump’s EPA targets environmental rules projected to save billions — and many thousands of lives

• June 5, 2025

By SETH BORENSTEIN, M.K. WILDEMAN, MELINA WALLING, JOSHUA A. BICKEL and MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press

When the head of the Environmental Protection Agency announced a wide-ranging rollback of environmental regulations, he said it would put a “dagger through the heart of climate-change religion” and introduce a “Golden Age” for the American economy.

What Lee Zeldin didn’t mention: how ending the rules could have devastating consequences to human health.

The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency’s own prior assessments as well as a wide range of other research.

It’s by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated; they can’t be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification.

But experts say the numbers are conservative and that even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth’s warming to deadlier levels.

“More people will die,” said Cory Zigler, a professor of biostatistics at Brown University who has studied air pollution deaths from coal-fired power plants. “More of this type of pollution that we know kills people will be in the air.”

What went into AP’s examination of the pollution rules

The AP set out to look at what could happen if all the rules were eliminated, by first examining exhaustive assessments the EPA was required to produce before the rules were approved. Though the agency’s priorities can change as presidential administrations change, the methods for the assessments have been largely standard since Ronald Reagan’s presidency and are deeply rooted in peer-reviewed scientific research.

The AP used those and eight different government and private group databases for its estimate of financial costs, some death estimates and analysis of pollution trends. AP performed additional analysis of potential deaths by drawing on peer-reviewed formulas and scientific research on the impacts of increased heat and pollution. And AP vetted its work with multiple outside health experts, who said it is scientifically justified, but likely an undercount.

Multiple experts say the science behind the rules is strong, and they pointed to the rigorous process that must be followed to change them, including requirements for public comment.

Zeldin acknowledged as much last month.

“I’m not going to prejudge outcomes with what will be a lot of rulemaking,” Zeldin said in April.

Virtually all the benefits from the rules come from restricting the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The fossil fuel industry was a heavy contributor to President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and Republicans overall. In announcing the proposed changes, the EPA repeatedly cited the costs of the rules and omitted the benefits in all but one instance.

Calculating costs and benefits is contentious

Asked for comment on the AP findings, an EPA spokesperson said the agency’s plans would “roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden ‘taxes’ on U.S. families.”

“Unlike the Biden EPA attempts to regulate whole sectors of our economy out of existence, the Trump EPA understands that we do not have to choose between protecting our precious environment and growing our economy,” spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said.

Scott Segal, an attorney at Bracewell LLP who represents energy and manufacturing interests, suggested that EPA analyses under the Biden administration emphasized worst-case scenarios, inflated health benefit claims and missed the big-picture economic benefits of booming industry.

“If you only count lives saved by regulation, not lives harmed by regulation, the math will always favor more regulation,” Segal said. “This framing misses the larger point: public health isn’t just about air quality — it’s also about job security, housing, access to medical care, and heating in the winter.”

The EPA regulatory analyses are immense documents that numerous health and environment researchers and former officials say are grounded in science, not politics. For example, in January 2024, the EPA produced a 445-page analysis of tightening standards on dangerous particle pollution that cited more than 90 different scientific publications, along with scores of other documents. The Biden EPA presented four different regulatory scenarios and ultimately chose one of the middle options.

Two experts who reviewed AP’s work said the EPA documents that underpinned the analysis were themselves conservative in their estimates. University of Washington health and environment professors Kristi Ebi and Howard Frumkin said that’s because EPA looked at added heat deaths and air pollution mortality, but did not include climate change’s expected deaths from increased infectious disease, flooding and other disaster factors.

“This is a rigorous, compelling and much-needed analysis,” said Frumkin, who was appointed director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health during George W. Bush’s administration. ”It makes clear that regulatory rollbacks by the Trump administration will have major, direct consequences for health and well-being. Because of these regulatory rollbacks and funding cuts, Americans will die needlessly.”

That’s a sentiment echoed by two former Republican EPA administrators, William Reilly and Christine Todd Whitman, who served in the George Bush and George W. Bush administrations respectively.

“This administration is endangering all of our lives — ours, our children, our grandchildren,” said Whitman, who led EPA under George W. Bush.

How regulations helped clear the air

A visit to Evansville, Indiana, helps show how EPA regulations have made a difference.

The city of about 115,000 lies where the state’s southwest tip meets Kentucky at the curving Ohio River. Industry lines the banks and coal barges float past carrying loads destined to fuel power plants.

Kirt Ethridge, 30, grew up in Evansville and still lives there. As a child, he recalls looking down from high ground into the bowl-shaped valley where the heart of the city lies and seeing a haze of pollution atop it. He thought that was normal.

He didn’t think much of the looming smokestacks of the coal-fired power plants and factories that ringed the city, nor the line of inhalers waiting on a bench before he and his classmates ran the mile. He suffered asthma attacks in class, sometimes more than once a week, that sent him to the nurse’s office. Once, he was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance.

“It’s a very scary feeling, particularly as a kid, to not be able to get enough air in your lungs,” he said, describing it as like “breathing through a straw.”

In southwestern Indiana, coal-fired power plants were to blame for between 19,000 and nearly 23,000 deaths from 1999 to 2020, according to work by Zigler published in the journal Science that examined death rates among Medicare recipients and modeled where plants’ pollution would spread.

Nationally, he and his team found a sharp decline in air pollution deaths from coal-fired power plants after the mid-2000s, from an average of 43,000 a year to just 1,600 a year in 2020, with a similar cut in particle pollution. That’s when two different forces came into play: Cheaper and less polluting natural gas pushed aside dirtier and costlier coal, while at the same time stricter regulations required more pollution control devices such as scrubbers.

Duke Energy operates its biggest power plant near Evansville — Gibson Station, which can power about 2.5 million homes. Emissions have declined significantly as the company installed scrubbers that pull unwanted chemicals out of smokestacks, along with other pollution control technology. Duke Energy spokeswoman Angeline Protegere said the scrubbers were a response to “regulations over the years as well as market factors.”

Put simply, the air got cleaner around places like Evansville. Vanderburgh County and neighboring counties violated national annual air standards for fine particles from 2005 to 2010, but no longer do, even as standards have tightened.

The same is true across the United States. The amount of tiny airborne particles in the last 10 years nationwide is one-third lower than 2000-2009, EPA statistics show. Smog pollution is down nearly 15% and sulfur dioxide has plunged 80%.

“The Clean Air Act, the EPA’s founding legislation, has been a powerful engine for improving public health as our air has grown visibly clearer and cleaner,” said Gina McCarthy, who headed the EPA under President Barack Obama and served as Biden’s White House climate adviser. “Millions of Americans have avoided illnesses, hospital visits, and premature deaths thanks to EPA’s cleaner car and truck standards in concert with rules that limit industrial pollution.”

Five rules saving more than $200 billion a year

Five rules together were estimated to have more than $200 billion a year in net benefits, based on EPA documents that estimated reduced illnesses and deaths and the costs for companies to comply.

Three rules dealt with cars and trucks. The “clean car rule” is a tightening of EPA emission standards for vehicles that was supposed to take effect for 2027 model years and eventually have annual net benefits of more than $100 billion a year, according to the agency’s 884-page regulatory analysis. The EPA estimated that over the next three decades this rule alone would prevent 7.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, 8,700 tons of particulate matter and 36,000 tons of nitrogen oxides.

Two other proposed rules — one that deals with car models from 2023 to 2027 and another aimed at heavy trucks and buses — are estimated to save nearly $38 billion a year combined through reduced health problems from air pollution, according to EPA’s own detailed calculations.

EPA plays up costs, plays down benefits of targeted rules

Almost none of those benefits are to be found in 10 fact sheets the EPA produced in conjunction with Zeldin’s announcement. Nine make no mention of benefits from the rules, while eight mention the costs.

In 17 of the 20 rules with explicit cost-benefit analyses, AP found that estimated benefits are larger than the costs — and sometimes far larger.

For example, Biden’s proposed power plant rule was designed to save more than $24 billion a year, prevent about 3,700 annual premature deaths and 3 million asthma incidents from fossil fuel-powered plants, according to EPA documents last year and work by the Environmental Protection Network. Under Trump, the EPA’s fact sheet on that rule notes nearly $1 billion in costs but nothing about the far higher estimated benefits.

Another rule the EPA updated last year sets standards for pollution permitted in the air, called National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The update, required by the Clean Air Act, cuts allowable soot particles by 25% to reflect new science on the harms from such pollution. The EPA in Biden’s time calculated the change would annually save as much as $46 billion, 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 asthma incidents.

But the new EPA fact sheet only mentions the estimated costs of the change — about $614 million — and not benefits estimated at 76 times that amount.

“The human body count and human health toll of particulate matter alone is just absolutely massive,” said K. Sabeel Rahman, a Cornell law professor who was a top federal regulatory officer from 2021 to 2023. “Literally tens of thousands of people will lose their lives” if the standard is rolled back, he said.

A penguin-shaped nebulizer

In southwest Indiana, many people have noticed a positive difference from the EPA regulations. And they’re concerned about changes.

In Bloomfield, Jessica Blazier’s 11-year-old son Julian has multiple health conditions that make him more sensitive to air quality, including nonallergic rhinitis, which inflames his nasal passage and makes breathing “feel like a knife sometimes,” in his words. Jessica Blazier said the proposed EPA rule rollbacks are “almost adding insult to injury in our particular circumstance.”

In Evansville, Ethridge is now raising kids of his own, including a 5-year-old daughter who was born early and doesn’t tolerate respiratory illnesses well. Whenever Eliza gets sick, she uses a children’s nebulizer that is shaped like a penguin and stored in an igloo-shaped case.

“I want to raise my kids in Evansville,” he said. “I don’t want to raise my kids in a bowl of pollution.”

Borenstein and Daly reported from Washington, Walling and Bickel from Evansville, Indiana, and Wildeman from Hartford, Connecticut.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

​ Orange County Register 

Trump speaks with Xi amid stalled talks between the US and China over tariffs

• June 5, 2025

By WILL WEISSERT and CHRIS MEGERIAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke on Thursday at a time when stalled tariff negotiations between their two countries have roiled global trade.

The conversation was confirmed by the Chinese foreign ministry, which said Trump initiated the call. The White House did not immediately comment.

Trump had declared one day earlier that it was difficult to reach a deal with Xi.

“I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” Trump posted Wednesday on his social media site.

Trade negotiations between the United States and China stalled shortly after a May 12 agreement between the two countries to reduce their tariff rates while talks played out. Behind the gridlock has been the continued competition for an economic edge.

The U.S. accuses China of not exporting critical minerals, and the Chinese government objects to America restricting its sale of advanced chips and its access to student visas for college and graduate students.

Trump has lowered his 145% tariffs on Chinese goods to 30% for 90 days to allow for talks. China also reduced its taxes on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%. The back and forth has caused sharp swings in global markets and threatens to hamper trade between the two countries.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had suggested that only a conversation between Trump and Xi could resolve these differences so that talks could restart in earnest. The underlying tension between the two countries may still persist, though.

Even if negotiations resume, Trump wants to lessen America’s reliance on Chinese factories and reindustrialize the U.S., whereas China wants the ability to continue its push into technologies such as electric vehicles and artificial intelligence that could be crucial to securing its economic future.

The United States ran a trade imbalance of $295 billion with China in 2024, according to the Census Bureau. While the Chinese government’s focus on manufacturing has turned it into a major economic and geopolitical power, China has been muddling through a slowing economy after a real estate crisis and coronavirus pandemic lockdowns weakened consumer spending.

Trump and Xi had last spoken in January, three days before Inauguration Day. The pair discussed trade then, as well as Trump’s demands that China do more to prevent the synthetic opioid fentanyl from entering the United States.

Trump had long expressed optimism about the prospects for a major deal, before his post suggesting Xi was making that difficult. Last week, Trump went further, posting, “The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” Trump posted. “So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”

​ Orange County Register 

Disneyland contributes $16.1 billion annually to Southern California economy, study finds

• June 5, 2025

A new economic study commissioned by Disney says Disneyland and Disney World had an economic impact of nearly $67 billion nationwide that supported more than 400,000 jobs across the United States.

The Oxford Economics report analyzed the economic impacts of the Disneyland resort in Anaheim in 2023 and the Walt Disney World resort in Orlando, Florida, in 2022, to come up with the overall Disney Parks impact on the American economy.

Related: How millions flocking to Epic Universe help and hurt Disney World

Disney has conducted studies over the past two decades on how Disneyland and Disney World have impacted the local economies in Orange County and Central Florida, respectively.

The Disney Parks Impact on the American Economy study marks the first time Disney has combined the total economic impact and job creation at the California and Florida theme park resorts for a nationwide look at the U.S. economy..

The Disneyland resort had an annual economic impact of $16.1 billion in Southern California that directly and indirectly supported more than 102,000 jobs in the region in 2023, according to the report.

Nearly 75% of the Disneyland-related jobs were in Orange County. Just over a third of those jobs were at the Disneyland resort, the largest employer in Orange County with 36,000 workers. Nearly 1 out of every 20 jobs in Orange County can be attributed to Disneyland, the report found. Those could be jobs at area hotels and restaurants, among a number of other related businesses.

The vast majority of jobs at the Disneyland resort are unionized. One of the largest union groups representing 14,000 Disneyland employees negotiated a stepped wage increase in 2024 that will rise to $26 an hour in 2026.

Disneyland generated $2.6 billion in total tax revenues in 2023, according to the report. On the local level, Disneyland generated $279 million in tax revenues for the city of Anaheim in the same year.

The Disney World resort had an annual economic impact of $40.3 billion in Florida that supported 263,000 jobs in the state in 2022, according to the report.

Disney World generated $6.6 billion in total tax revenues in 2022.

Nearly 1 out of every 8 jobs in Central Florida and 1 out of every 32 jobs throughout the state can be attributed to Disney World, the report says.

Related: Hurricanes cost Disney World $677 million since 1999

Disneyland and Disney World generated an additional $10.2 billion in economic activity that supported 38,000 jobs across the rest of the United States, according to the report.

Combined, Disneyland and Disney World had an economic impact of $66.6 billion nationwide that supported 403,000 jobs across the United States.

The Oxford Economics report calculated direct, indirect and induced spending associated with Disneyland and Disney World.

Direct economic activity included spending associated with theme park visitors on things such as admission tickets, air travel, rental cars, hotels and restaurants.

Indirect supply-side activity included business purchases by the parks from vendors and service companies. Induced activity involved Disney and other tourism-related employees spending their salaries and wages in the regional economy.

​ Orange County Register 

The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits last week rises to highest level in eight months

• June 5, 2025

By MATT OTT, Associated Press Business Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Filings for U.S. unemployment benefits rose to their highest level in eight months last week but remain historically low despite growing uncertainty about how tariffs could impact the broader economy.

New applications for jobless benefits rose by 8,000 to 247,000 for the week ending May 31, the Labor Department said Thursday. That’s the most since early October. Analysts had forecast 237,000 new applications.

Weekly applications for jobless benefits are considered representative of U.S. layoffs and have mostly bounced around a historically healthy range between 200,000 and 250,000 since COVID-19 throttled the economy five years ago, wiping out millions of jobs.

In reporting their latest earnings, many companies have either lowered their sales and profit expectations for 2025 or not issued guidance at all, often citing President Donald Trump’s dizzying rollout of tariff announcements.

Though Trump has paused or dialed down many of his tariff threats, concerns remain that a tariff-induced global economic slowdown could upend what’s been a robust U.S. labor market.

In early May, the Federal Reserve held its benchmark lending rate at 4.3% for the third straight meeting after cutting it three times at the end of last year.

Fed chair Jerome Powell said the potential for both higher unemployment and inflation are elevated, an unusual combination that complicates the central bank’s dual mandate of controlling prices and keeping unemployment low. Powell said that tariffs have dampened consumer and business sentiment.

Earlier this week, the government reported that U.S. job openings rose unexpectedly in April, but other data suggested that Americans are less optimistic about the labor market.

Tuesday’s report showed that the number of Americans quitting their jobs — a sign of confidence in their prospects — fell, while layoffs ticked higher. And in another sign the job market has cooled from the hiring boom of 2021-2023, the Labor Department reported one job every unemployed person. As recently as December 2022, there were two vacancies for every jobless American.

The Labor Department’s more comprehensive monthly employment report comes out Friday, with analysts expecting that U.S. employers added a slim 130,000 jobs in May, down from 177,000 in April.

The government has estimated that the U.S. economy shrank at a 0.2% annual pace in the first quarter of 2025, a slight upgrade from its first estimate. Growth was slowed by a surge in imports as companies in the U.S. tried to bring in foreign goods before Trump’s massive tariffs went into effect.

Trump is attempting to reshape the global economy by dramatically increasing import taxes to rejuvenate the U.S. manufacturing sector. The president has also tried to drastically downsize the federal government workforce, but many of those cuts are being challenged in the courts and Congress.

In a regulatory filing early Thursday, the packaged consumer goods company Procter & Gamble said it expected to cut 7,000 jobs — about 15% of its nonmanufacturing workforce — as part of a two-year restructuring plan.

Other companies that have announced job cuts this year include Workday, Dow, CNN, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft and Facebook parent company Meta.

The four-week average of jobless claims, which evens out some of the week-to-week gyrations during more volatile stretches, rose by 4,500 to 235,000, the most since late October.

The total number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits for the week of May 24 inched down by 3,000 to 1.9 million.

​ Orange County Register