DETROIT (AP) ' The Environmental Protection Agency announced an end Thursday to credits to automakers who install automatic start-stop ignition systems in their vehicles, a device intended to reduce emissions that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said 'everyone hates.'

In remarks with President Donald Trump on Thursday at the White House, Zeldin called start-stop technology the 'Obama switch' and said it makes vehicles 'die' at every red light and stop sign. He said the credits, which also applied to options like improved air conditioning systems, are now 'over, done, finished.'

Zeldin repeated the generally-debunked claims that start-stop systems ' which are mostly useful for city driving ' are harmful to vehicles, asserting Thursday that 'it kills the battery of your car without any significant benefit to the environment.'

This latest Trump administration move to cut automotive industry efforts to clean up their cars and reduce transportation-driven emissions came as Zeldin and Trump also announced a broader repeal of the scientific finding known as endangerment that has been the central basis for regulating U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Start-stop is a technology that automatically shuts down a vehicles engine when a driver comes to a complete stop, and then automatically restarts the engine when the driver takes their foot off the brake pedal. Developed in response to the 1970s oil crisis, the feature was intended to cut vehicle idling, fuel consumption and emissions.

About two-thirds of vehicles now have it, providing drivers with anywhere from 7% to 26% in fuel economy savings, according to the Society of Automotive Engineers. Start-stop also causes a split-second lag in acceleration, a point of irritation for some consumers and automotive enthusiasts.

Burning gasoline and diesel fuel for transportation is a major contributor to planet-warming gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and more, according to the EPA. By implementing the systems, automakers could earn credits toward meeting federal emissions reduction rules.

'Countless Americans passionately despise the start/stop feature in cars,' Zeldin wrote in a post on X on Tuesday teasing the announcement. 'So many have spoken out against this absurd start-stop-start-stop-start-stop concept.'

The announcement made good on Zeldins promises last year to 'fix' the feature. Start-stop is 'where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy,' Zeldin said in a post on X last May. 'EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so were fixing it,' he wrote at the time.

Zeldins announcement aligns with the administrations broader attacks on cleaner-vehicle efforts. Trump eliminated the Biden administrations target for half of all new vehicle sales in the U.S. to be electric by 2030, and signed Congress tax and spending bill that ended federal tax credits for new and used electric vehicle purchases.

The administration is also weakening rules for how far new vehicles must travel on average on a gallon of gasoline as it undermines the climate regulation at the core of auto tailpipe emissions.

Jeep-maker Stellantis welcomes the deregulatory effort, a spokespersons statement said: 'We remain supportive of a rational, achievable approach on fuel economy standards that preserves our customers freedom of choice.'

A Ford Motor Co. statement said: 'We appreciate the work of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin to address the imbalance between current emissions standards and customer choice.'

General Motors deferred comment to the auto industry group Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

'Ive said it before: Automotive emissions regulations finalized in the previous administration are extremely challenging for automakers to achieve given the current marketplace demand for EVs,' said John Bozzella, president of the alliance. 'The auto industry in America remains focused on preserving vehicle choice for consumers, keeping the industry competitive, and staying on a long-term path of emissions reductions and cleaner vehicles.'

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

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

President Donald Trump has nominated for director of the National Park Service an executive from a hospitality company that holds extensive contracts with the agency he would lead.

The nomination of Scott Socha late Wednesday follows widespread firings within the Park Service as part of efforts by Trumps Republican administration to sharply reduce its size. The administration also has faced blowback for the removal or planned removal of national park exhibits about slavery, climate change and the destruction of Native American culture.

Administration officials have said they are removing 'disparaging' messages under an order last year from Trump. Critics accuse it of trying to whitewash the nations history.

Socha is a president for parks and resorts at Delaware North, which describes itself as one of the worlds largest privately owned hospitality and entertainment companies, with more than $4 billion in revenue in 2022. Delaware North provides hospitality services The company provides services in at least six national parks including Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Shenandoah, said spokesperson Cait Zulewski.

The Buffalo, New York-based company has more than 40,000 employees, according to its website. Socha has been with it since 1999 and will continue in his role there while his nomination is pending, Zulewski said.

The company referred further questions to the White House, which did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press.

The Senate must confirm Sochas nomination.

Trump last year proposed cutting the Park Services $2.9 billion budget by more than $900 million. Park supporters and former employees said that would effectively gut the agency.

The cuts were blocked by lawmakers in Congress who recently voted to keep the services budget at about the same amount as the last two years. However the parks already have lost almost a quarter of their employees, or more than 4,000 positions, due to firings and other changes since Trump took office, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group.

Association director Theresa Pierno said Thursday it was ready to work with Socha, but he must reverse course on recent policies. The Park Service has gone more than a year without a confirmed director.

'If confirmed, he must put the Park Services mission first, stand up for park staff, fill critical vacancies and halt attacks on our nations history,' Pierno said. 'Given Mr. Sochas years of experience working with the Park Service, we hope he will be that leader.'

A federal judge used part of a court hearing Thursday to read email and social media death threats she received following her ruling blocking the Trump administration from ending temporary immigration protections for Haitians living in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington refused to put that decision on hold. But before adjourning, she also took the unusual step of addressing some of the profane criticism and threats it engendered and defending the work of her judicial colleagues, who she said regularly receive such messages these days.

'We will continue to do our jobs as best as we know how,' she said. 'We will not be intimidated.'

In a ruling last week, Reyes blocked the termination of temporary protected status, or TPS, for Haitians while a lawsuit challenging the Republican administrations effort to end it proceeds. Her decision came one day before that designation for people from the Caribbean island nation had been scheduled to expire.

The Homeland Security secretary may grant TPS if conditions in home countries are deemed unsafe for return due to a natural disaster, political instability or other dangers. TPS recipients are allowed to live and work in the U.S., but the status doesnt provide a legal pathway to citizenship. The U.S. initially gave the protection to Haitians following the catastrophic 2010 earthquake that rocked their homeland, and extended it several times after that.

Roughly 350,000 Haitians are legally living and working in the U.S. under the countrys TPS designation. Haiti is one of several countries that President Donald Trump has sought to strip of such protections as part of his administrations mass deportation effort.

Reyes, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, spent much of Thursdays hearing grilling an attorney for the government about how pausing last weeks decision would impact Haitian TPS recipients.

The administration argued in a court filing that Reyes should issue a stay in part because it was likely to prevail on its claim that she lacked authority to review the decision to end Haitis TPS. Separately, the administration has appealed her decision.

Department of Justice attorney Dhruman Sampat said the administration had no plans to target Haitian TPS holders for removal if the judge paused her order.

Reyes dismissed that claim. Absent her order, the judge said, it was 'likely' that 'law-abiding' Haitian TPS holders 'who have been contributing to our economy' would be picked up by immigration agents and held in detention centers indefinitely.

When Sampat tried to move on from the discussion, Reyes cut him off, saying she wanted people to see what happens when youre dealing with 'human lives in a democratic society.'

Reyes said she was hesitant to share the threats she received following her Feb. 2 ruling and consulted colleagues beforehand. She read directly from two emails, one of which called for her to 'eat a bullet.'

The Biden administration said in 2022 that Reyes, who came to the U.S. from Uruguay, would be the first Hispanic woman and 'openly LGBTQ person' to ever serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Reyes said Thursday she was a federal judge not because she was a 'foreign-born lesbian,' as some people had written. She graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and spent more than 20 years handling high-profile federal litigation at a law firm. She also said she never hidden the fact that she was an immigrant from federal officials.

'People are entitled to their views,' she said. 'I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. But I do feel compelled to clarify a couple of misconceptions.'

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a U.S. Marine and his wife will keep an Afghan orphan they brought home in defiance of a U.S. government decision to reunite her with her Afghan family. The decision likely ends a bitter, yearslong legal battle over the girls fate.

In 2020, a judge in Fluvanna County, Virginia, granted Joshua and Stephanie Mast an adoption of the child, who was then 7,000 miles away in Afghanistan living with a family the Afghan government decided were her relatives.

Four justices on the Virginia Supreme Court on Thursday signed onto an opinion reversing two lower courts rulings that found the adoption was so flawed it was void from the moment it was issued.

The justices wrote that a Virginia law that cements adoption orders after six months bars the childs Afghan relatives from challenging the court, no matter how flawed its orders and even if the adoption was obtained by fraud.

Three justices issued a scathing dissent, calling what happened in this court 'wrong,' 'cancerous' and 'like a house built on a rotten foundation.'

An attorney for the Masts declined to comment, citing an order from the circuit court not to discuss the details of the case publicly. Lawyers representing the Afghan family said they were not yet prepared to comment.

The child was injured on the battlefield in Afghanistan in September 2019 when U.S. soldiers raided a rural compound. The childs parents and siblings were killed. Soldiers brought her to a hospital at an American military base.

The raid was targeting terrorists who had come into Afghanistan from a neighboring country; some believed she was not Afghan and tried to make a case for bringing her to the U.S. But the State Department, under President Donald Trumps first administration, insisted the U.S. was obligated under international law to work with the Afghan government and the International Committee of the Red Cross to unite the child with her closest surviving relatives.

The Afghan government determined she was Afghan and vetted a man who claimed to be her uncle. The U.S. government agreed and brought her to the family. The uncle chose to give her to his son and his new wife, who raised her for 18 months in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Mast and his wife convinced courts in rural Fluvanna County, Virginia, to grant them custody and then a series of adoption orders, continuing to claim she was the 'stateless' daughter of foreign fighters.

Judge Richard Moore granted them a final adoption in December 2020. When the six-month statute of limitations ran out, the child was still in Afghanistan living with her relatives, who testified they had no idea a judge was giving the girl to another family. Mast contacted them through intermediaries and tried to get them to send the girl to the U.S. for medical treatment but they refused to let her go alone.

When the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban took over, the family agreed to leave and Mast worked his military contacts to get them on an evacuation flight. Mast then took the baby from them at a refugee resettlement center in Virginia, and they havent seen her since.

The Afghans challenged the adoption, claiming the court had no authority over a foreign child and the adoption orders were based on Mast repeatedly misleading the judge.

The Virginia Supreme Court on Thursday wrote that the law prohibiting challenges to an adoption after six months is designed to create permanency, so a child is not bounced from one home to another. The only way to undercut it is to argue that a parents constitutional rights were violated.

The lower courts had found that the Afghan couple had a right to challenge the adoption because they were the girls 'de facto' parents when they came to the United States.

Four of the Supreme Court judges ' D. Arthur Kelsey, Stephen R. McCullough, Teresa M. Chafin, Wesley G. Russell Jr. ' disagreed.

'We find no legal merit' in the argument that 'that they were ‘de facto parents of the child and that no American court could constitutionally sever that relationship,' they wrote. They pointed to Fluvanna County Circuit Court Judge Richard Moores findings that the Afghan couple 'are not and never were parents' of the child, because they had no order from an Afghan court and had not proven any biological relationship to her.

The Afghans had refused DNA testing, saying it could not reliably prove a familial connection between opposite-gender half-cousins. They insisted that it didnt matter, because Afghanistan claimed the girl as its citizen and got to determine her next-of-kin.

The Supreme Court leaned heavily on a 38-page document written by Judge Moore, who granted the adoption, then presided over a dozen hearings after the Afghans challenged it. He wrote that he trusted the Masts more than the Afghans, and believed that Masts motivations were noble while the Afghans were misrepresenting their relationship to the child.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the federal governments long insistence that Trumps first administration had made a foreign policy decision to unite her with her Afghan relatives, and a court in Virginia has no authority to undo it. The government submitted filings in court predicting dire outcomes if the baby was allowed to remain with the Marine: it could be viewed as 'endorsing an act of international child abduction,' threaten international security pacts and be used as propaganda by Islamic extremists ' potentially endangering U.S soldiers overseas.

But the Justice Department in Trumps second administration abruptly changed course.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion that the Justice Department had been granted permission to make arguments in the case, but withdrew its request to do so on the morning of oral arguments last year, saying it 'has now had an opportunity to reevaluate its position in this case.'

The Supreme Court returned repeatedly to Moores finding that giving the girl to the family 'was not a decision the United States initiated, but rather consented to or acquiesced in.'

The three judges who dissented were unsparing in their criticism of both the Masts and the circuit court that granted him the adoption.

'A dispassionate review of this case reveals a scenario suffused with arrogance and privilege. Worse, it appears to have worked,' begins the dissent, written by Justice Thomas P. Mann, and signed by Chief Justice Cleo E. Powell and LeRoy F. Millette, Jr.

A Virginia court never had the right to give the child to the Masts, the dissent said.

They castigated the Masts for 'brazenly' misleading the courts during their quest to adopt the girl.

'We must recognize what an adoption really is: the severance and termination of the rights naturally flowing to an otherwise legitimate claimant to parental authority. Of course, the process must be impeccable. An evolved society could not sanction anything less than that. And here, it was less,' Mann wrote. 'If this process was represented by a straight line, (the Masts) went above it, under it, around it, and then blasted right through it until there was no line at all ' just fragments collapsing into a cavity.'

The build-out of electric vehicle charging in the U.S. has not stopped since President Donald Trump returned to office. But the administration and Congress are continuing to throw up new roadblocks.

Those include the administration withholding charger money to Democratic-controlled states and Congress slicing away at separate infrastructure funding across other states.

And this week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy decreed that chargers must now be fully American-made ' a difficult requirement that is certain to delay them.

Also see: More EV models offer deluxe backup power features for home blackouts

Heres where things stand.

Fast-charging build-out remains hot

Even as EV adoption in the U.S. stayed just about the same last year as it did in 2024, fast-charging installations saw record-breaking growth, according to a year-end report from data firm Paren.

The industry added more than 18,000 new fast-charging ports, amounting to a 30% increase year-over-year.

The expansion of fast charging is especially important for EV drivers taking longer trips or those without alternatives such as home charging, which can be done overnight or over a longer period of time. But charging availability overall remains a concern for U.S. drivers considering an EV purchase.

Slower charging options, known as Level 1 and Level 2 charging, have also grown.

Trump attacks charging

Most recently, the Trump administration is attempting to withhold money for charging infrastructure from Democratic-controlled states, directing the Department of Transportation to cancel funds for California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota.

Representatives for the four governors offices told The Associated Press this week they had not yet received official notice of the cancellations.

Congress, meanwhile, has rescinded more than $800 million in separate, previously appropriated charger money for several other states in its recent budget bill decisions, including Texas and Florida.

And another wrench

This week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that states receiving federal money for EV chargers will have to install ones made entirely with U.S. parts. While yet to be finalized, the requirement was previously for 55% of the parts to be American.

'Now were ensuring that if Congress wants to see these chargers built, we put America First,' Duffy said in a statement. 'Doing so will unleash American manufacturing, protect our national security, and prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing our foreign adversaries.'

But experts say chargers of 100% U.S. parts could be nearly impossible with the current supply chain.

'By creating unreasonable standards and regulatory uncertainty for domestic manufacturers, such actions may cause supply chain disruptions, drive up costs, or cede market share to international competitors,' said Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association.

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senates environment committee, said: 'This administrations message is clear: dont build.'

It all goes back to NEVI

The congressional cuts and Duffys rule hamper the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, born out of the Biden administrations Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that was passed by Congress in 2021.

It gave $5 billion to states over five years in an attempt to fill gaps in the nations public EV charging, focusing on highway corridors and in other areas in need of infrastructure. (Another $2.5 billion was allocated through what is called the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, or CFI.)

Last February, the Trump administration directed states to stop spending the funds for EV charging.

In May, 17 of the states that received program funds sued the administration and challenged the Federal Highway Administration over the money, and a federal judge ruled they must release billions of dollars to 14 of the state recipients.

At the end of last year, 16 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia launched a second lawsuit over the withholding of $2 billion of the funding. In January, the same judge ruled that the administration must also release these funds.

Only a fraction of what was obligated has been spent so far given not all of the funds have been available, according to Loren McDonald, chief analyst at EV data firm Chargeonomics, which tracks the state awards.

Despite the administrations loss in both lawsuits, Congress spending reallocation and Duffys proposed rule means further bumps in the road for NEVI, McDonald said. At the worst, some experts say both could effectively kill the program.

Broader EV stance

Since his first day back in the White House, Trump has targeted several policies friendly to cleaner cars and trucks in favor of those promoting gasoline-powered vehicles.

Trump revoked the Biden administrations target for half of all new vehicle sales in the U.S. to be electric by 2030.

In its tax and spending bill signed into law by Trump last summer, Congress eliminated federal tax credits that saved buyers up to $7,500 off new and used electric vehicle purchases.

The administration has plans to weaken the rules set for how far automakers new vehicles must travel on average on a gallon of gasoline, and is undermining the climate regulation at the core of auto tailpipe emissions.

'We need to do more to make sure that the broader benefits and value proposition for transportation electrification is not just stuck in a climate debate, and really, needs to be re-centered on the future of the auto industry in the U.S. and how were going to compete,' said Ben Prochazka, executive director of the nonprofit Electrification Coalition.

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

“We know that evacuation warnings for the historically Black neighborhood of West Altadena came many hours after these same warnings were sent to the rest of Altadena,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said during a press conference Thursday, Feb. 12, announcing the probe.

“We must let the facts uncovered by our investigation determine what went wrong here, but one thing holds true: The people of West Altadena deserve answers to their questions and deserve institutions that are responsive to their concerns, and institutions they can trust,” Bonta said.

The Eaton fire burned over 14,000 acres, killing at least 19 people and destroying over 9,000 buildings.

The average age of the people who died was 77, according to the attorney general’s office.

Altadena for Accountability, a group representing residents impacted by fire, has long demanded answers.

“Losing my home and seeing my parents lose theirs was devastating. I’m heartened today knowing that we have a real pathway to answers and accountability for what went wrong,” Gina Clayton-Johnson, a member of the group, said in a statement after the investigation was announced.

Shimica Gaskins, another fire survivor, also welcomed the investigation.

“There is a long history of marginalized communities receiving less support during times of crisis,” Gaskins said. “This may be the most consequential act taken by any official in California for accountability since the fires ravaged Los Angeles.”

Local elected officials, too, applauded the news of the probe.

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat who represents the Altadena area, said her constituents deserve answers and accountability.

“In the aftermath of the Eaton Fire, our community has shown remarkable strength, generosity and resiliency,” she said. “My hope is that our recovery continues to move forward with purpose, and that we learn from this tragedy, so no Californian ever endures similar pain and grief.”

The attorney general’s investigation will complement an audit already underway, said Assemblymember John Harabedian, D-Pasadena. That audit, related to the Eaton fire response and evacuations, is slated to conclude in the fall.

“We owe it to our community that every level of government activates to hold those responsible accountable so we may heal and recover from this unprecedented disaster,” Harabedian said.

The attorney general said during a press conference on Thursday that the investigation would focus on systems and structures as it relates to emergency preparations and response.

The Eaton fire broke out on Jan. 7, 2025, just hours after another deadly wildfire erupted in Pacific Palisades. Together, the wildfires are considered the costliest in California history.

This is breaking news. Please check back periodically for updates.

WASHINGTON (AP) ' A shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security appeared certain Thursday as lawmakers in the House and Senate were set to leave Washington for a 10-day break and negotiations with the White House over Democrats demands for new restrictions had stalled.

The White House and Democrats have traded offers in recent days as the Democrats have said they want curbs on President Donald Trumps broad campaign of immigration enforcement. They have demanded better identification for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal law enforcement officers, a new code of conduct for those agencies and more use of judicial warrants, among other requests.

The White House sent its most recent offer late Wednesday, including what Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said were 'concessions' on the part of the Republican administration.

Thune would not say what those concessions were, though, and he acknowledged the sides were 'a long ways toward a solution' even as the Senate is scheduled to vote again on the DHS funding.

Democrats did not respond publicly to the White House offer, but Democratic senators voted against a funding bill for the department before leaving town, meaning the funding will expire Saturday without further action. The bill was rejected, 52-47, short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

Lawmakers in both chambers were on notice to return to Washington if the two sides struck a deal to end the expected shutdown. But for now, Democrats say they need to see real changes before they will support DHS funding.

Americans want accountability and 'an end to the chaos,' Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday before the vote. 'The White House and congressional Republicans must listen and deliver.'

Schumer said it was not enough that the administration had announced an end to the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that led to thousands of arrests and the fatal shootings of two protesters.

'We need legislation to rein in ICE and end the violence,' Schumer said, or the actions of the administration 'could be reversed tomorrow on a whim.'

Judicial warrants a sticking point

Democrats made the demands for new restrictions on ICE and other federal law enforcement after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, Some Republicans suggested that new restrictions were necessary. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

Thune, who has urged Democrats and the White House to work together, indicated that one sticking point is the Democratic request for more judicial warrants.

'The issue of warrants is going to be very hard for the White House or for Republicans,' Thune said. 'But I think there are a lot of other areas where there has been give, and progress.'

In a list of demands they sent to the White House last week, Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said DHS officers should not be able to enter private property without a judicial warrant and that warrant procedures and standards should be improved. They have said they want an end to 'roving patrols' of agents who are targeting people in the streets and in their homes.

Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants. Those are internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific person but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent. Traditionally, only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.

But an internal ICE memo obtained by The Associated Press last month authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections.

White House silence

Congress is trying to renegotiate the DHS spending bill after Trump agreed to a Democratic request that it be separated from a larger spending measure that became law last week. That package extended homeland security funding at current levels only through Friday.

Schumer and Jeffries have said they want immigration officers to remove their masks, to show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

Democrats also say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests and require that before a person can be detained, authorities have verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

Republicans have been largely opposed to most of the items on Democrats list. But Trump has remained relatively silent about the talks.

Impact of a shutdown

Republicans tried to temporarily extend the funding, but Democrats blocked that bill as well.

'We will not support an extension of the status quo,' Schumer said.

The impact of a DHS shutdown is likely to be minimal at first. It would not likely block any of the immigration enforcement operations, as Trumps tax and spending cut bill passed last year gave ICE about $75 billion to expand detention capacity and bolster enforcement operations.

But the other agencies in the department ' including the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard ' could take a bigger hit over time.

Gregg Phillips, an associate administrator at FEMA, said at a hearing this week that its disaster relief fund has sufficient balances to continue emergency response activities during a shutdown, but would become seriously strained in the event of a catastrophic disaster.

Phillips said that while the agency continues to respond to threats like flooding and winter storms, long-term planning and coordination with state and local partners is 'irrevocably impacted.'

Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim and Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) ' Attorneys for detainees at a state-run immigration detention facility in the Florida Everglades said Thursday that they are still facing hurdles in getting access to their clients, despite state claims that those barriers have been removed.

Two attorneys filed statements with a federal court in Fort Myers, Florida, saying their clients were unable to call them using staff cellphones, and the attorneys were unable to make unannounced visits to the facility.

A state contractor late last month testified that both options were available to detainees and attorneys during a hearing over whether detainees at the facility were getting adequate access to their lawyers. U.S. District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell has yet to rule on whether to grant the detainees request that they get the same access to their attorneys as detainees do at federally-run detention centers.

The Florida Department of Emergency Management, the state agency overseeing the detention center, didnt respond to an e-mailed inquiry on Thursday. The Everglades facility was built last summer at a remote airstrip by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis administration to support President Donald Trumps immigration policies. Florida also has built a second immigration detention center in north Florida.

The former Everglades detainees lawsuit claims that their First Amendment rights were violated. They say their attorneys have to make an appointment to visit three days in advance, unlike at other immigration detention facilities where lawyers can just show up during visiting hours; that detainees often are transferred to other facilities before their attorneys appointments to see them; and that scheduling delays have been so lengthy that detainees were unable to meet with attorneys before key deadlines.

State officials who are defendants in the lawsuit have denied restricting the detainees access to their attorneys and cited security and staffing reasons for any challenges. Federal officials who also are defendants denied that detainees First Amendment rights were violated.

Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social.

West Monroe, Louisiana, has experienced some of the nastiest weather in the US of late, but Keith McGrew, who has lived in the rural area for all of his 46 years, was ready.

On the third day of a recent blackout, while his neighbors were struggling to find gas for their generators, McGrew was powering almost all of his house with his Ford F-150 Lightning pickup truck.

McGrew was even able to fire up his oven to satisfy a pizza craving. 'We were like ‘Screw it,' he explained. 'We got electricity and we can run all day long.'

As ice, snow and bitter cold stressed Americas power infrastructure in recent weeks, electric vehicles have filled in as emergency power sources, shifting from transportation to 6,000-pound backup batteries for a growing share of drivers.

US drivers have now bought about 630,000 electric cars and trucks capable of discharging electricity ' whats known as bidirectional charging ' at levels strong enough to power a home or apartment, according to Cox Automotive and company sales reports. That figure is rising quickly, too.

One in five EVs purchased in the past quarter had so-called V2H ' or vehicle-to-home capabilities ' and analysts say the feature will soon be table stakes for those hoping to sell an electric car.

At the moment, about 14 of the 70 or so EV models available in the US offer bidirectional charging. Every auto in the General Motors Co. product line can now power a home in a pinch, as will high-end models from Hyundai Motor Co., Kia Corp. and Volvo Car AB.

That share is likely to climb in coming months. BMW Group has promised bidirectional charging in its new iX3, a pledge echoed by Tesla Inc. for its next Model Y and Rivian Automotive Inc. regarding its R2 SUV expected to hit the market in the next few months.

And although Ford has pulled the plug on its Lightning pickup, there are roughly 101,000 of them in US driveways, many of which have served as tiny power plants during this winters brutal weather.

Ford sells a system that connects its vehicles to a homes electrical panel ' a product CEO Jim Farley has crowed about on LinkedIn. The systems, which detect outages and switch power automatically, kick on about four times a year, on average, but last week, as outages hit different parts of the country, Ford said usage quadrupled.

John Halkias was another Lightning owner who was sanguine as more than 18 inches of snow fell on his home in North Canton, Ohio. His 2024 model was fully charged and plugged into his homes critical systems: the refrigerator, bedroom heaters and the electric dog fence that keeps Ginnie and Bernie, the familys two doodle mixes, on site.

'Its a great peace of mind,' Halkias said. 'I would say we could keep things going for a minimum of five to seven days with the truck alone.'

To be sure, weathering a storm in an EV takes some planning. It helps to charge in advance and cold weather can slowly sap a battery. Still, in places like rural Louisiana, finding gas in an extended storm can be a challenge, too.

Even the millions of EVs that arent capable of powering an entire house are still proving  useful. Many contemporary EVs have so-called vehicle-to-load capabilities, which essentially turns the vehicles charging port into an electrical outlet. A few years ago, a doctor in Texas famously used his Rivian to power surgical tools for a vasectomy.

Kim Mestre, a remote worker in Alexandria, Virginia, has simpler needs. Last week, she was planning to use her 2025 Hyundai Ioniq to grind coffee beans and get the electric kettle boiling. 'I dont care about the TV and the food we could put outside,' she said. 'For me, it was: Charge my phone and give me coffee, thats all I really need in life.'

In coming weeks, stories about electric cars keeping lights and heaters on will help unblock some of the hesitation around EVs, said Albert Cabanes, a spokesman for Wallbox NV, which, like Ford, makes chargers that can send power in both directions. 'Beyond mobility, the car becomes the largest battery most households will ever own,' he said.

None of this is lost on utility executives and grid operators, who are drawing up plans to tap EVs en masse to shore up power supply on an American grid increasingly stressed by data center demand and extreme weather exacerbated by climate change. GM says these so-called vehicle-to-grid pilot programs are 'the future of energy resilience.' Wallbox, in turn, envisions a world where millions of connected EVs take the place of a nuclear power plant.

Back in rural Louisiana, however, McGrews Ford remains one of the only EVs in the area. While he has no interest in 'saving the planet,' McGrew found himself thinking about solar panels as he fielded texts from his boss, whose diesel generator had run dry, on the fifth day of the power outage.

'Im feeling smarter every day,' McGrew said, 'This afternoon we might go try to wire my truck up to his house.'

WASHINGTON (AP) ' The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, the most aggressive move by the president to roll back climate regulations.

The rule finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency rescinds a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

The endangerment finding by the Obama administration is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.

President Donald Trump called the move 'the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far' while EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the endangerment finding 'the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.'

Trump said he was pleased to repeal 'a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers.”

The endangerment finding 'had no basis in fact, had none whatsoever, and it had no basis in law,' Trump said at a White House ceremony. “On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world.”

Legal challenges are certain for an action that repeals all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks, and could unleash a broader undoing of climate regulations on stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities, experts say. Overturning the finding will 'raise more havoc” than other actions by the Trump administration to roll back environmental rules, said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the UCLA School of Law.

Environmental groups described the move as the single biggest attack in U.S. history against federal authority to address climate change. Evidence backing up the endangerment finding has only grown stronger in the 17 years since it was approved, they said.

The EPA also said it will propose a two-year delay to a Biden-era rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions by cars and light trucks.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who was tapped by Trump to lead EPA last year, has criticized his predecessors in Democratic administrations, saying that in the name of tackling climate change, they were “willing to bankrupt the country.'

The endangerment finding 'led to trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry,' Zeldin said. 'The Obama and Biden administrations used it to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish list of costly climate policies, electric vehicle mandates and other requirements that assaulted consumer choice and affordability.'

The endangerment finding and the regulations based on it 'didnt just regulate emissions, it regulated and targeted the American dream. And now the endangerment finding is hereby eliminated,' Zeldin said.

Supreme Court has upheld endangerment finding

The Supreme Court ruled in a 2007 case that planet-warming greenhouse gases, caused by burning of oil and other fossil fuels, are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Since the high courts decision, in a case known as Massachusetts v. EPA, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the endangerment finding, including a 2023 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The endangerment finding is widely considered the legal foundation that underpins a series of regulations intended to protect against threats made increasingly severe by climate change. That includes deadly floods, extreme heat waves, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters in the United States and around the world.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who served as White House climate adviser in the Biden administration, called the Trump administration’s actions reckless. “This EPA would rather spend its time in court working for the fossil fuel industry than protecting us from pollution and the escalating impacts of climate change,' she said.

EPA has a clear scientific and legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gases, McCarthy said, adding that the health and environmental hazards of climate change have “become impossible to ignore.'

David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Trump and Zeldin are trying to use repeal of the finding as a 'kill shot that would allow the administration to make nearly all climate regulations invalid. The repeal could erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to address global warming.

The EPA action follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report on “the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans have long sought to undo what they consider overly restrictive and economically damaging rules to limit greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Tailpipe emission limits targeted

Zeldin and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have moved to drastically scale back limits on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Rules imposed under Democratic President Joe Biden were intended to encourage U.S. automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

The Trump administration announced a proposal in December to weaken vehicle mileage rules for the auto industry, loosening regulatory pressure on automakers to control pollution from gasoline-powered cars and trucks. The EPA said its two-year delay to a Biden-era rule on greenhouse gas emissions by cars and light trucks will give the agency time to develop a plan that better reflects the reality of slower EV sales, while promoting consumer choice and lowering prices.

The mileage plan would significantly reduce requirements that set rules on how far new vehicles need to travel on a gallon of gasoline. Trump said the rule change will lower the price of new cars and increase Americans access to the full range of gasoline vehicles they need and can afford.

Environmental groups said the plan would keep polluting, gas-burning cars and trucks on U.S. roads for years to come, threatening the health of millions of Americans, particularly children and the elderly.

Biden-era standards for clean cars and trucks are among the most important and effective protections to address climate pollution, advocates say.