California regulates everything — except the trial lawyers exploiting it



California has perfected the art of regulating productive industries into oblivion while giving bad actors with the right political connections a free pass.

With more than 395,000 regulatory restrictions, the nation’s eighth-highest corporate tax rate, and an overzealous bureaucracy, Sacramento has driven hundreds of major employers — including Tesla, Oracle, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise — to business-friendly states like Texas.

California was once the crown jewel of American opportunity, but Sacramento’s progressive priorities have turned it into a cautionary tale.

Yet, while Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) micromanages everything from Hollywood film permits to brush-clearing fees, Sacramento looks the other way as an unchecked plaintiffs’ bar undermines local communities and distorts the justice system.

The latest investigative reporting out of Los Angeles County shows how far this racket has gone. Predatory personal-injury law firms have turned an environmental remediation challenge at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill into an unregulated gold rush, illustrating why the Trump administration and federal authorities must step in before those in Sacramento make the situation worse.

For years, the foothill community of Val Verde has dealt with noxious odors caused by an inactive portion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. The landfill operator tried to act as a responsible partner: complying with environmental guidelines, coordinating with multi-agency response teams, and providing nearly $25 million directly to affected local residents through a community relief fund.

Rather than encouraging a constructive resolution, a chaotic web of overlapping state regulators — including South Coast Air Quality Management District, L.A. County Public Works, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board — paralyzed the site with conflicting mandates, ultimately forcing the critical facility to halt waste intake.

Rather than protecting residents, progressive governance turned Val Verde into what locals described as the "Val Verde Hunger Games.” Text messages uncovered in court filings revealed Downtown L.A. Group boasting "PackemRackemStackem" and demanding recruiters "Get em for me ... all of them," leading to thousands of dubious claims that the landfill’s attorneys have flagged as infected with misconduct.

This dynamic is emblematic of California’s broader livability and business environment crisis. Sacramento imposes the nation’s highest income tax and an annual $800 LLC fee on entrepreneurs, yet allows predatory litigation mills to exploit vulnerable, non-English-speaking residents for 40% to 45% contingency fees.

Overregulation does not stop trash from being generated; it merely shifts waste to distant facilities, spikes consumer hauling costs, and enriches opportunistic trial lawyers.

RELATED: ‘Expert witness’ humiliated in $61 million lawsuit after lawyers discover one insane detail

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty Images

When state and local bureaucracy paralyzed debris removal following Southern California’s wildfires, the Trump administration took decisive action. Under Executive Order 14181, federal authorities expedited cleanup operations and completed in just 28 days what state bureaucrats estimated would take over a year.

The Trump administration and the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator Lee Zeldin must apply that same standard of execution to Chiquita Canyon. The EPA must supersede Sacramento’s overlapping alphabet-soup agencies, streamline the process under unified federal oversight, and ensure actual technical remediation takes precedence over regulatory extortion and predatory lawsuits.

California was once the crown jewel of American opportunity, but Sacramento’s progressive priorities have turned it into a cautionary tale where critical infrastructure is strangled and legal grift thrives.

If Sacramento refuses to rein in its rogue plaintiffs’ bar and fix its broken regulatory state, the federal government must remind Californians to restore that which Newsom destroyed: common sense.

Exclusive: 17 state officials ask Trump to slash Biden-era climate rules



Climate change policy might be due for a change itself.

Seventeen state financial officers have signed on to a letter urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to scrap Biden-era climate-related disclosure rules. The rules would require publicly traded companies to undertake costly environmental reviews to report their greenhouse gas emissions and other climate change metrics.

‘Americans want the SEC focused on protecting markets and investors, not turning our capital markets into a vehicle for climate activism.’

Responsible for managing billions of public dollars, the signatories argue that climate disclosure standards are an “unlawful expansion of the administrative state” poised to hamper private sector economic growth. Those standards are also referred to as the “Final Rules.”

“As stewards of public pension and treasury assets, we are acutely sensitive to costs borne by the companies in which public funds invest — costs ultimately passed to shareholders, including the beneficiaries we serve,” the signatories wrote. “The Commission’s own economic analysis estimates that rescinding the Final Rules could generate annualized savings of approximately $4.9 billion, and a total cost savings on the order of $7.9 billion.”

The SEC adopted the climate disclosure rules in March 2024. Opponents launched numerous legal challenges which were consolidated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The agency itself stayed the rules in April 2024 awaiting legal resolution, but President Donald Trump’s election resulted in the stay becoming permanent. The SEC under Acting Chairman Mark Uyeda declined to defend the rule in March 2025.

Though never enforced, the rules remain on the books.

RELATED: Texas slams breaks on data center projects as Abbott orders sweeping industry audit

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The rules wouldn’t just be expensive to implement. They might also be illegal to enforce.

“The Trump SEC is right to rescind the climate disclosure rule and refocus the agency on its fundamental responsibility of protecting investors and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets,” Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks told Blaze News. “For years, the ESG movement sought to use the SEC to advance a climate agenda through disclosure mandates that went beyond material financial information and imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and investors. Rescinding this rule returns the SEC to its proper role as a neutral financial regulator focused on protecting investors and facilitating markets.”

Environmental, social, and governance standards are investment criteria used to assess a private company’s adherence to climate mandates and emissions regulations.

The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

If successful, the rescission would be the latest in a long string of regulatory rollbacks during Trump’s second term. The Environmental Protection Agency under Lee Zeldin nixed the Obama-era endangerment finding in February.

As the law of the land since 2009, the ruling categorized carbon emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act and subjected them to federal regulation.

“The financial officers are right to support the Trump Administration’s efforts to rescind the Biden-era climate disclosure rules,” American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac told Blaze News. “Washington bureaucrats shouldn’t be weaponizing financial regulations to pressure companies into advancing far-left ESG policies that Congress never approved.”

“Americans want the SEC focused on protecting markets and investors, not turning our capital markets into a vehicle for climate activism,” Isaac added.

The letter was submitted ahead of the August 3 comment deadline regarding the rule’s potential rescission.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

EPA ‘Considering’ Possible SCOTUS Appeal In Battle To Ax Billions In ‘Climate’ Grants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is “considering” whether to ask the Supreme Court to pause a lower court injunction blocking its bid to ax “climate” grants for nongovernmental groups. In a statement to The Federalist, an EPA representative said that the agency is “reviewing” a Tuesday decision by the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of […]

Supreme Court Blocks Monsanto Cancer Lawsuits

'Favor of foreign chemical companies.'

‘Government shouldn’t subsidize poor journalism’: Politico axes key news brand after losing millions in federal subscriptions



Just over a year after President Donald Trump’s administration instructed the federal government to cancel several media outlet subscriptions, Politico announced that it is sunsetting one of its news brands.

The federal government spent over $8 million in 2024 on Politico-related subscriptions.

‘The government shouldn’t subsidize poor journalism.’

In Feb. 2025, the White House directed the General Services Administration to “pull all contracts” for Politico and its stand-alone energy and environment brand, E&E News. Other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Veterans Affairs, also canceled their subscriptions to Politico’s services.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last year that he had terminated over $1 million in annual media subscriptions, including nearly $460,000 for the EPA’s membership to Politico and E&E News.

“Best $458,919 we ever saved on behalf of taxpayers,” an EPA spokesperson told Blaze News. “The government shouldn’t subsidize poor journalism, and it’s a stinging indictment of the previous administration that they wasted so many hard-earned American tax dollars keeping this outlet afloat.”

RELATED: Veterans affairs secretary says department discovered high-priced contract with Politico — and canceled it

Robert Alexander/Getty Images

Politico pushed back against criticism that the federal government was subsidizing the media through subscriptions. The outlet released a statement in 2025 insisting that it has “never received any government funding” in the form of subsidies, grants, or “handouts.” It noted that “most” of Politico Pro and E&E News subscribers are in the private sector.

Despite insisting that Politico has “no financial dependence on the government,” the outlet laid off 3% of its staff, including E&E News journalists, in Jan. 2026, according to Semafor.

Politico acquired E&E News in Dec. 2020, aiming to “reach a large new audience of subscribers.” Yet, approximately 16 months after the Trump administration began canceling media subscriptions, Politico announced it is closing the stand-alone brand.

RELATED: Trump orders another federal agency to axe media contracts amid Politico controversy: Report

KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty Images

Politico framed the sunsetting of E&E News as a strategic restructuring move that consolidated its U.S. Politico Energy and E&E teams “into a single powerhouse.” The announcement did not mention any revenue pressure, but framed the changes as a “new chapter.”

“Beginning in September, we are modernizing how we deliver our energy and environmental policy journalism and launching a more focused, high-impact portfolio of daily news and intelligence products,” Politico wrote.

“As part of this shift, E&E News will no longer operate as a separate brand. Its journalism and expertise will be fully integrated into POLITICO’s energy and environment portfolio of stories, briefs, analysis, and newsletters,” it continued.

Politico did not respond to a request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SCOTUS Has The Chance To Deliver Decisive Blow To The EPA’s Unconstitutional Overreach

Until the Court addresses the flawed and non-textual nondelegation doctrine, federal agencies will continue to make laws — and pick winners and losers.

'Frankenscience!' Google plans to release millions of modified mosquitoes into these 3 states



In the same week that a potential New World screwworm outbreak threatens Texas cattle, prompting a major response from the Department of Agriculture, Google has become the object of public ire as it attempts to move forward with a new mosquito experiment in a couple of states across the country.

As part of the project to "stop bad bugs with good bugs," Google's Debug program aims to release millions of sterile mosquitoes in order to combat and eradicate disease-carrying mosquitoes, the "deadliest animal on the planet."

'We do not consent to this experiment. Do not release the modified mosquitoes in our State.'

While the thought of fighting mosquitoes by releasing millions more mosquitoes may seem counterintuitive, the Sterile Insect Technique, as it is called, has proven effective in other bug species, including the aforementioned screwworm.

A singular species of mosquito, the Aedes aegypti, is responsible for most of the cases of diseases like dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and chikungunya. The program seeks to target this particular species in the hopes of drastically reducing the population of disease-carrying mosquitoes.

RELATED: Flesh-eating parasite found in Texas cattle has USDA on high alert

Michael Rakim/Washington Post/Getty Images

The technique is simple: Scientists will infect male mosquitoes, which cannot bite, with a naturally occurring bacteria called Wolbachia. The infection makes it impossible for the male mosquitoes to breed with wild female mosquitoes, though they will still seek them out and attempt to mate. The female will still lay eggs, but they will not hatch.

Scientists believe that this will cause a generational decline in this species of mosquito, thus reducing the risk of disease spreading to humans.

Google also says that this is more effective than spraying pesticides because the male mosquitoes can find them "in places that pesticides could never reach." They are also building technology and monitoring systems to more efficiently target the invasive populations.

Google's plan, however, has been met with significant pushback from the public during its approval process with the Environmental Protection Agency, particularly this week.

Google filed an experimental use permit application dated from December 2025 for permission to use the Wolbachia bacteria in male mosquitoes. This particular application seeks a trial period of two years in Florida and California. Google would release 16 million sterile mosquitoes infected with the bacteria into each state in year one, and 16 million more mosquitoes in each state in year two.

This particular application targets the species Culex quinquefasciatus, as opposed to Aedes aegypti, the species identified on the Debug website. It is important to note that Aedes aegypti is targeted in Debug's international projects, while the domestic work in America targets different species.

The EPA published a notice in early May after deeming the application to have "regional and national significance." The deadline for submitting a public comment is Friday. Readers can submit a comment to the EPA here.

The public has taken notice as hundreds of comments have flooded in the days and weeks leading up to the deadline. The comments have been overwhelmingly negative, with some begging to stop Google from moving forward.

"We do not consent to this experiment. Do not release the modified mosquitoes in our State," one anonymous commenter said.

"I am vehemently opposed to any tech corporation releasing any mosquitoes in Florida or California, this is not to be taken lightly. This is not without serious possible consequences, and should not be done by [a] huge corporation, without consent and prior knowledge of the populations most affected. This is Frankenscience!!" another commenter said.

"I believe allowing corporations to recklessly tamper with my local Florida ecosystem (lifelong Floridian) is dangerous and frankly unconstitutional. This decision has not been put forth to the residents of Florida and California, and will be done against our wills. I urge the EPA to reject this proposal and create regulations banning corporations from doing similar actions in the future. Thank you," a third commenter wrote.

As of this writing, this federal register filing received 377 comments. A similar application from Google targeting a different species with the same bacteria and whose public comment period closed on May 20 received only six comments.

This second application seeks approval for use in California, Florida, and New Jersey as well.

Debug announced last month that it expanded its research and development operation to Singapore in the first international expansion of the program's capabilities.

Both federal register applications are awaiting EPA approval.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The EPA just proved it can lower gas prices overnight — so why wait for a crisis?



Washington finally did something that actually helps drivers at the pump — but only halfway.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a temporary waiver allowing broader sales of E15 gasoline and suspending summer-blend fuel requirements.

The contradiction is hard to ignore: Rules designed to manage emissions are now being suspended to manage affordability.

The move is meant to offset rising gas prices tied to global instability, including tensions involving Iran — but it also exposes our own role in keeping gas prices high.

Summertime blues

For years, drivers have been paying more at the pump because of a patchwork of seasonal fuel mandates that make gasoline more expensive to produce and harder to distribute. Every spring, refiners switch to “summer blend” gasoline, designed to reduce evaporative emissions in warmer weather.

That switch isn’t free — it tightens supply, raises refining costs, and, like clockwork, pushes prices higher just as summer driving season begins.

Now, with prices climbing again, the same government that created the problem is stepping in with a temporary waiver to ease it. This has been happening for decades.

The 20-day waiver, which begins May 1, allows broader sales of E15 — gasoline with 15% ethanol — bypassing restrictions that normally block it in the summer months. The goal is simple: Increase supply, give consumers more flexibility, and bring prices down.

Even modest estimates suggest savings of a few cents per gallon, with some projections reaching as high as 40 cents in certain markets. That raises an obvious question: If removing these restrictions lowers prices now, why are they in place at all?

Fuelish games

Summer blends are tied to EPA regulations around fuel volatility — specifically Reid Vapor Pressure — intended to reduce smog during hotter months. The goal sounds reasonable, but the real-world trade-offs are harder to ignore.

Today’s engines run cleaner than ever, yet the fuel system has become more fragmented. Different regions require different blends, limiting how gasoline can be transported and sold. When supply tightens, that lack of flexibility drives prices higher.

Instead of a national fuel market that can respond efficiently, we have a regulatory maze that raises costs before fuel even reaches your tank. Then, when global disruptions hit — whether it’s instability in the Middle East or supply shocks — the system becomes strained faster than it should.

So regulators waive the rules again.

This has become routine: temporary fixes replacing long-term solutions, while drivers pay the price in the meantime.

End the blend

Industry groups like the Renewable Fuels Association and the American Petroleum Institute support expanding E15 access, and they’re right to push for consistency — but even that debate misses the larger issue.

The real solution is simpler: Eliminate seasonal blend mandates altogether.

If removing the summer blend lowers prices during a crisis, it will lower prices when there isn’t one. It would streamline production, stabilize supply, and eliminate one of the most predictable annual price spikes — because fewer constraints mean more efficiency, and more efficiency means lower costs.

RELATED: Why gas prices won’t be dropping — and how you can minimize the pain

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Pain at the pump

There’s also another lever Washington could pull: the federal gas tax.

Suspending or reducing it — even temporarily — would provide immediate, visible relief at the pump. It’s direct, measurable, and doesn’t depend on regulatory work-arounds.

States are unlikely to follow. Fuel taxes are a major source of revenue, and few are willing to give that up, which puts the pressure squarely on the federal government.

What makes this moment different is that drivers are seeing the impact in real time. Prices have surged quickly, pushing toward $4 per gallon nationally — a direct hit to household budgets, small businesses, and anyone who depends on transportation to make a living.

And yet instead of fixing the underlying problem, Washington keeps relying on temporary waivers.

The contradiction is hard to ignore: Rules designed to manage emissions are now being suspended to manage affordability. That alone should prompt a serious reassessment of whether the system is working — not just environmentally, but economically.

Right now, it isn’t.

Drivers don’t need another short-term fix that expires in a few weeks. They need a stable fuel market that doesn’t artificially drive up prices every summer.

Permanent relief

Eliminating seasonal fuel blends would be a strong start. Expanding access to E15 year-round would help. Reducing federal gas taxes would provide immediate relief.

None of these ideas are radical.

What’s radical is continuing to defend a system that clearly isn’t working for consumers.

The EPA has already shown that loosening these rules lowers costs. The question is whether Washington is willing to make that relief permanent — or if drivers will once again be stuck waiting for the next “emergency” to get a break.

Because drivers are tired of the same problem getting a temporary fix every time prices spike.

Waiting to exhale? Trump’s EPA just made it possible.



The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding for gases such as carbon dioxide. You may now exhale without worrying that the carbon dioxide in your breath will contribute to global warming.

After all, with 8.3 billion people on the planet exhaling an average of 2.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day, roughly 9.5 million tons of CO2 are respired into the atmosphere daily. That is a lot of hot air — literally.

If you have been holding your breath while waiting for more sensible environmental regulations that focus on both people and the planet, you may now breathe easier.

Fortunately, plants use the air we exhale. It is part of the life cycle that sustains a healthy biosphere. Add the full carbon cycle — in which carbon is sequestered and released throughout the living and nonliving components of the global ecosystem — and a natural balance is generally maintained.

The serious question has been whether human activity, especially the increasing use of fossil fuels since the late 1800s, has tipped that balance.

The major “consensus science” conclusions tied to the endangerment finding include the confident assertion that modern climate change can be attributed to people burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to one professional organization, these human-caused changes “are larger and faster than any humanity is known to have endured over the last 10,000 years.” The same view also holds that many harmful impacts already under way will intensify and outweigh any benefits.

Yet another perspective deserves consideration. One of the greatest forces lifting people out of poverty has been the burning of fossil fuels. The progression from coal to oil to natural gas — along with advances in pollution controls — has helped produce dramatically higher living standards in societies that use their energy resources well.

Arguably, the human-caused improvements in comfort, productivity, and longevity made possible by fossil fuels are also “larger and faster than any humanity is known to have [enjoyed] over the last 10,000 years.”

As for harmful impacts, the rhetorical pattern often looks familiar: find an extraordinary weather event and blame it on anthropogenic global warming. Extreme heat? Human activity. Extreme cold — as the United States recently experienced? Human activity again.

At least most scientists acknowledge that positive effects exist. These include substantial increases in global vegetation and the advantages of warmer temperatures over colder ones for human well-being and development.

RELATED: 5 truths the climate cult can’t bury any more

Khanchit Khirisutchalual via iStock/Getty Images

Any honest assessment of climate change and its effects on people, infrastructure, and the natural world should weigh both benefits and harms. Complex systems demand that kind of accounting.

The current retraction of the endangerment finding will be a particular breath of fresh air for the auto industry. In essence, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that it “lacks statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to prescribe standards for [greenhouse gas] emissions” from “new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines.”

According to the EPA:

As a result of these changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of [greenhouse gas] emissions for any highway engine and vehicle, including model years manufactured prior to this final rule. This final action is only related to [greenhouse gas] emissions and does not affect regulations on any traditional air pollutants. Rather, this action realigns EPA’s regulatory framework with the best reading of the CAA, which does not authorize EPA to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions from new motor vehicles.

As the agency notes, traditional health-based air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, lead, and carbon monoxide — not CO2 — are unaffected by this EPA action.

So if you have been holding your breath while waiting for more sensible environmental regulations that focus on both people and the planet, you may now breathe easier.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.