SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is readying an army of bureaucrats to defend the state’s nation-leading climate policies against a potential second Trump administration.

Newsom administration officials are keenly aware that deep-blue California is a prime target for former President Donald Trump’s political diatribes and policy rollbacks — and they fully expect he’ll resume his attacks on the Golden State if he wins in November.

Trump campaign officials openly acknowledge that they plan to attack California policies, confirming to POLITICO this week that the state’s electric vehicle programs would be a top target.

“We know the playbook,” said Newsom at the recent signing of a climate change agreement with Sweden. “We’re definitely trying to future-proof California in every way, shape or form.”

What Newsom called future-proofing is effectively Trump-proofing. The latest sign of these preparations came last week with a deal between California and Stellantis, the world’s fourth-largest automaker, which agreed to abide by the state’s emissions rules. With that voluntary commitment, the Chrysler and Dodge manufacturer helped armor California’s climate agenda against lawsuits and a potential federal effort to roll back its more ambitious policies.

While other states and the federal government under President Joe Biden are also taking steps to insulate their progressive values, California would have a particularly distinct clash of policies — and characters — if the MAGA leader returns to the White House. Trump would take office in 2025, the final year of Newsom’s tenure in the governor’s mansion as he looks toward his next chapter. Newsom, a rising star in the Democratic Party with presidential ambitions, would relish a starring role as Trump 2.0’s chief antagonist.

Newsom hasn’t explicitly articulated his strategy this time around, but the state has a well-worn script from Trump’s first term that it’s already turning to again: a mix of legal strategies, voluntary agreements with industry and displays of soft power in the diplomatic arena.

Trump locked horns with California on everything from abortion to gun control during his first term. But the most frequent battleground was the Golden State’s nation-leading environmental policies.

His EPA and Interior Department revoked the state’s authority to set its own tailpipe emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, attempted to increase water deliveries by altering Endangered Species Act protections and opened up thousands of miles of the California coast to oil drilling.

And Trump has frequently taken aim at California in his campaign for a second term. A campaign spokesperson vowed to go after the state’s electric vehicle rules.

“The complete and total ban on gas-powered cars and trucks in California and every other state that follows the California rules will decimate countless U.S. auto jobs,” said Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement. She added that the ban, which ends sales of new gas-powered cars in 2035, would “flood the United States with Chinese-made Electric Vehicles to steal our jobs, and crush working families with the crippling costs and limitations of expensive Electric Vehicles.”

Newsom is well aware of the looming threat.

“Donald Trump is a danger to our kids’ health,” Lindsey Cobia, a political adviser to the governor, said in a statement. “He seeks to invalidate our clean air laws and auction off public lands to the oil industry. He wants to be once again Big Oil’s president.”

The role of the courts

Chief among California’s arsenal is its strategy in the courts. The state sued Trump 136 times under Attorneys Generals Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, according to Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who studies states’ legal tactics. California achieved at least partial wins in more than half of its challenges, Nolette said, but Trump’s defenses sharpened even over his first term — particularly when he replaced former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt with veteran energy lobbyist and congressional staffer Andrew Wheeler.

“We’ve already seen the Trump administration get more sophisticated over time,” he said.

And Republican-led states, emboldened by his attacks on California, are still advancing their cases. A lawsuit from 17 Republican attorneys general, led by Ohio, is challenging California’s unique ability under the Clean Air Act to set stricter-than-federal pollution standards for passenger vehicles, in a case that’s expected to reach the Supreme Court. Seventeen other states are also signed onto California’s rules, making the suit a nationwide red-blue brawl over how the automotive sector will be required to respond to climate change.

This time around, California is trying to set up its legal fortifications in advance. Much of the work is being done at the state’s main air and climate agency, the California Air Resources Board.

CARB attorneys “spend a lot of time trying to think through how to build regulations that are going to be robust in the worst case,” said California Energy Commissioner Patty Monahan. “They’ve been flexing that muscle for a while. And even when we’re in good times they’re still doing pushups.”

A push from Congress

California’s Democratic congressional delegation is also pushing Biden’s EPA to grant all of the Clean Air Act waivers that the state has requested since the beginning of his administration, including for rules to limit pollution from tugboats, lawn mowers, trucks and locomotives.

Trump has made it clear he would again target the approvals to enforce California’s emissions standards.

“On Day One of the Trump administration, not only will Crooked Joe’s Electric Vehicle mandate be terminated, but any Biden waiver allowing gasoline-powered cars to be outlawed will be immediately revoked,” Leavitt added in her statement.

California officials are hoping to make that harder for him by getting the waivers approved before the May 22 deadline for the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn federal agency rules during a change in administration.

“With the Trump administration’s previous and unlawful attempts to rescind a California waiver, we cannot afford to wait,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

Absent federal permission to enforce state pollution rules, California has a second line of defense: voluntary agreements with industry, based on the state’s sheer size and market-making power.

Industry favors stability

CARB tried different strategies to enforce its rules when its waiver was last under attack, from limiting state agencies to buying vehicles from automakers who were aligned with the state’s rules to boosting incentives to promote electric vehicles.

Perhaps its most effective maneuver, though, was securing commitments from five major automakers — Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo — to comply with its tailpipe emissions rules and zero-emission sales targets regardless of legal challenges.

The Trump administration responded to the agreements by launching an antitrust investigation, threatening to take away the state’s highway funding and attempting to block the agency’s cap-and-trade program’s ability to link with Quebec.

But the automakers held firm — and eventually GM, Toyota, Nissan and other industry heavy hitters agreed to recognize California’s authority after Trump left office.

The gambit worked partly because automakers wanted to stay in the good graces of the nation’s largest auto market, but also because they found it too difficult to predict what Trump would do to existing regulations, said one former top CARB official who was at the agency during the Trump administration.

“The auto industry had originally asked for what they thought were tweaks,” said Craig Segall, a former CARB deputy executive officer who now serves as vice president of the environmental group Evergreen Action. “Trump was like, ‘OK, I’ll take a sledgehammer to 50 years of the program and to all of your many billions of investments in batteries. Would that be cool?’”

Newsom added Stellantis to his side last week with an agreement committing the automaker to California’s rules “even if CARB is unable to enforce its standards as a result of judicial or federal action.” It goes even further than the previous automaker agreements by extending through 2030, rather than 2026.

CARB also signed a pact with truck manufacturers last year when they agreed not to challenge the agency’s rule to transition to 100 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2036 in exchange for weaker smog emissions standards.

“We have a long history of having rules adopted by one administration and implemented by another,” said Jed Mandel, the president of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. “We like certainty, we like stability, we don’t like to see changes once reasonable rules are finalized.”

Still, trucking companies are fighting California’s clean truck rules in the courts. And it’s unsettled whether all the automakers stick to California’s side in the event of a Trump versus Golden State showdown on its rule to require them to stop selling gas passenger cars in the state by 2035.

While some car companies put out statements in support of the final rule, they also pushed Biden to weaken his tailpipe emissions rules as they were being finalized this month. And the Alliance for Automotive Innovation is asking EPA to consider the feasibility of scaling up EV sales in other states that follow California’s clean cars rule as it weighs the state’s waiver request.

Other bulwarks

A looming state budget deficit poses a challenge for increasing EV incentives, as CARB was able to do in 2019. But one thing California could have in its favor is that Inflation Reduction Act investments, though the target of Trump’s public ire, have been politically popular in both blue states and red, which have reaped the biggest rewards from the tax credits.

“I don’t know if it’s politically feasible to undo the Inflation Reduction Act,” said Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment.

Newsom’s also looking at partnerships — not just with industry and other states but also with other countries, to bolster and advance California’s climate leadership. The agreement with Sweden, to promote green innovation and investment, is one of at least ten bilateral climate agreements California has struck with foreign governments in recent months to develop a thread of consistency as national politics around climate change waver.

“You can count on California to be a stable partner and a strong partner on climate change, for all the prevailing winds that shift in Washington, D.C.,” he said on an October trip to China where he signed five climate agreements with local governments and national agencies.

“We saw that during the Trump administration, 100-plus lawsuits we had against the Trump administration — California is a steady partner on that future.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bid to vote on firing Speaker Mike Johnson risks throwing the House back into leaderless paralysis for the second time in six months.

But it also holds real peril for the frustrated conservatives whom she claims to represent — with some worried she could possibly push Johnson into working with Democrats on Ukraine aid.

The Georgia Republican last week introduced a resolution ousting Johnson that she hasn’t said when she will force a vote on, portraying it as an early warning to the speaker after he pushed through a government funding deal that his right flank loathed. Should Greene decide to tee up that vote later next month, after Johnson’s margin shrinks to just one vote, she might need only a single colleague on her side in order to fire him — so long as Democrats unite against saving his job.

“You should take her very seriously,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker last year but said he “isn’t there yet” on joining Greene’s anti-Johnson push.

“Marjorie is playing chess, not checkers. She’s looking at the long game, and she’s holding all the cards on this one,” Burchett added. “And I think it’s an attempt on her part to move the Republican party to a more conservative area — where our base is.”

Yet as Johnson increasingly looks to Democrats to help pass major bills, including a $1.2 trillion spending plan that most of his conference opposed, Greene’s latest chess move could backfire spectacularly. There’s no guarantee any Republicans will join her in ousting Johnson, since even many conservatives are disinterested in firing another speaker. Still, some haven’t ruled it out — and Johnson has no room to maneuver in his thin majority.

So the speaker could end up answering her threat by giving Democrats floor time for Ukraine, as the Louisiana Republican actively decides a path forward on the foreign aid package. That may well be enough to lock in a few Democratic votes for saving his job.

One House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, summed up the fear: Greene’s move could “deliver aid to Ukraine” by giving Johnson no choice but to seek common cause with Democrats. “Wouldn’t that be rich,” that member added sarcastically.

Interviews with more than a dozen GOP members and aides point to a clear division between Johnson’s allies and his critics on the right. The speaker’s supporters dismiss Greene, arguing that there’s little appetite within the conference to relive another divisive leadership fight that would plunge the House into chaos during an election year.

A smaller number of conservatives, like Burchett, warn that Greene’s move poses real danger to Johnson as he approaches two big policy fights next month — one on foreign aid and the other on renewing contentious government spy powers. Both of those issues promise to drive a wedge through the already fractured GOP conference.

But for now, even some of the Republican rebels who had no qualms about ousting McCarthy are swatting down Greene.

“She’s on the McCarthy revenge tour,” House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.), one of the eight GOP lawmakers who voted to remove McCarthy, said at a campaign stop Tuesday. “We don’t talk about removing the speaker. We’re trying to influence him to do the right thing.”

Another House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly about Greene, described her Johnson ouster push as “the narcissist wanting more attention.”

Besides Good, five of the other six Republicans currently in office who booted McCarthy from the speakership are either presently opposed to or holding out on any moves against Johnson.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a chief McCarthy foe, recalled during the campaign event with Good that he had told Johnson he’s “increasingly disappointed in his performance as speaker.” But, Biggs added of ousting the Louisianan, “I don’t think it’s going to happen, regardless of whether we want it to.”

Greene, however, has claimed she has silent supporters. Conservatives have soured on Johnson’s leadership in growing numbers, believing he’s either getting bad advice or that he isn’t willing to fight for their priorities the way they’d hoped when they helped elect him.

Johnson’s relationship with his right flank is notably different from McCarthy’s, however, which could help his chances of survival. Several hardliners have said they saw McCarthy as willing to lie to them — unlike Johnson, whom they generally like as a person.

And much of the private chatter from Johnson’s biggest critics has focused on next year’s leadership slate, including floating speaker alternatives if the GOP holds the majority in November.

Still, some could be staying strategically quiet to see how Johnson navigates the foreign aid debate in particular. The Georgia firebrand moved up her own timetable for filing a so-called motion to vacate the speaker’s chair, at first saying she would do so if Johnson took up a Ukraine bill — and then moving her goalposts after the spending deal passed.

Once Greene seeks to attach “privilege” to her resolution ousting Johnson, should she make good on her vow last week to do so, GOP leaders will have 48 legislative hours to bring it up on the floor. Greene has declined to say when she will trigger a vote, saying that she wants to give her conference time to come up with alternatives and avoid the weeks of chaos that followed McCarthy’s ouster.

But whenever that might happen, Johnson could get help from Democrats, who refused to lend the same hand to McCarthy.

That’s because, while the conservative speaker doesn’t have much ideological overlap with Democrats, a sizable number of people in the House minority are loath to repeat the frenetic vacuum of the post-McCarthy period. Some in the party are also watching what Johnson does with the long-awaited foreign aid package and are likely to vote to protect him if it gets a floor vote.

‘We’re going to get a Republican speaker anyway. And I figure, why would you want to go through that nightmare we went through before because they can’t get their act together?” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). He urged Republicans to change the one-person threshold to force a vote on ousting the speaker, because it is “affecting all of us.”

Yet Peters’ prediction that the House will keep a Republican speaker regardless isn’t ironclad. And House Democrats are unlikely to get ahead of their own leaders on an anti-Johnson vote; the caucus is expected to hold a conversation before deciding on any course of action.

If Democrats hang together and withhold any support from Johnson after his margin shrinks to one vote, Greene’s push could even result in a speaker from their party or a coalition government.

It’s an outcome clearly identified by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who was initially noncommittal about Greene’s effort before ruling out a Johnson ouster.

“I don’t agree with what Marjorie did. We got a one-seat majority … If you want to put [House Minority Leader] Hakeem Jeffries in, then do just what she’s doing,” Norman said in an interview.

Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — A panel of federal judges upheld Florida’s congressional map, turning away a challenge that alleged it was discriminatory against Black voters after the district held by former Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, was dismantled.

The decision is a substantial victory for Republicans and Gov. Ron DeSantis, who muscled the map through Florida’s GOP-controlled Legislature. The congressional map his administration crafted ultimately resulted in Republicans gaining four seats, helping the GOP flip the U.S. House during the 2022 midterm elections.

The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that those who challenged the map did not prove that Republican legislators discriminated against Black voters by adopting the map that was shaped by the DeSantis administration. Instead, the judges pointed out lawmakers initially resisted the governor’s plan only to then “run out of steam” and bow to the governor’s wishes.

“Consequently, whatever might be said about the Legislature’s decision to give up the fight for preserving a Black-performing district in North Florida, it did not amount to ratification of racial animus in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,” the opinion read.

The ruling can be directly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if it is, any appeal would be unlikely to resolve ahead of this year’s elections. A separate legal challenge against the map is also pending before the Florida Supreme Court.

Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.

DeSantis upended Florida’s once-a-decade redistricting process when he insisted on coming up with his own congressional map. The governor repeatedly argued that Lawson’s North Florida district — which stretched from Jacksonville to Tallahassee — was unconstitutional and an illegal race-based gerrymander, although there have not been court rulings that reinforce DeSantis’ assertions.

The governor in 2022 vetoed a map drawn by the Legislature, even though the lawmakers’ plan would have created a much smaller district centered around Jacksonville that could have allowed Black voters to elect a candidate of their choosing. After DeSantis’ veto, GOP legislative leaders relented and agreed to pass a map drawn up by the DeSantis administration.

Lawson, who is from Tallahassee, tried to run for another term under the revamped map that placed him in the same district as Panama City Republican Rep. Neal Dunn, but he lost by nearly 20 percentage points.

Voting-rights and civil rights organizations — including the Florida branch of the NAACP and Common Cause — as well as individual voters that sued contended DeSantis intentionally discriminated against Black voters. They argued his decision to veto the Legislature’s initial map bolstered their case as well.

“He did not act for some lofty race neutral reason,” attorneys for the group suing the governor wrote in a November brief. “Only an illegal desire to prevent North Florida’s Black voters from electing their candidate of choice can explain the Governor’s otherwise incoherent — yet, insistent — string of arguments and actions.”

U.S. appeals court Judge Adalberto Jordan, in a concurring opinion, wrote that while he supported the decision he added that the evidence presented at trial “convinces me that the governor did, in fact, act with race as a motivating factor.”

Attorneys representing the governor and Florida’s top elections official argued in their own post-trial brief that those who challenged the map lacked the proof to back up their allegations.

“Plaintiffs have failed to muster the necessary evidence to overcome the presumption of good faith to which the entitled map is entitled,” they argued. “There’s also no evidence of racial animus. Far from it. The map drawer from the governor’s office … drew the congressional districts at issue with compactness and adherence to geographic and political boundaries as his guideposts.”

The battle over Florida’s congressional map is now expected to shift back to the state courts. The case now pending before the Florida Supreme Court, while focusing on different legal arguments, also centers on Lawson’s dismantled seat. In the state case, a Florida circuit judge ruled that the redrawn district violated voter-approved redistricting standards enshrined in Florida’s constitution and he ordered the Legislature to redraw it.

But the 1st District Court of Appeal — in an unusual move where the entire court decided the case — contended that the judges were not bound by the previous state Supreme Court ruling that created the initial district held by Lawson. That court also asserted that not enough evidence was presented to show that Black voters were harmed by the new maps.