Democratic attorneys general this week filed their 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration, part of a coordinated legal strategy. 

And the attorneys general say they are winning most of their court cases against the administration. Of the 67 cases with court rulings, the Democratic Attorneys General Association says its members have won 55 of those challenges. 

A legal challenge over environmental regulations filed this week is the AGs’ latest effort to oppose the ever-widening power of the executive branch. Since the president’s second term began last January, Democratic-led states have sued the administration on a variety of issues — ranging from the withholding of congressionally approved funds to immigration enforcement to the administration’s tariffs on foreign goods. 

Marking its 100th lawsuit, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said its members were the only group of elected leaders successfully opposing the Trump administration’s “harmful and reckless actions.”

“For too long, Trump has trampled the rule of law,” Sean Rankin, the association president, said in a news release. “And Democratic AGs have held him accountable for the harms he has done to our economy and our democracy.”

On Tuesday, a group of state and local governments sued over the administration’s repeal of limits on emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The coalition argued the rollback was unlawful, saying the federal government has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it or consider the new technologies. The Trump administration has said the move was made “to ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families.” 

While it’s not unusual for states to sue the federal government, it’s one of the few paths Democrats have available to oppose President Donald Trump’s actions, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield has been among the most prolific, suing the administration more than 50 times. Rayfield has said the suits are not political theater — they’re a vital means to checking the president’s overreach.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” he told Stateline earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

State lawsuits represent a slice of the more than 700 lawsuits the Trump administration has faced since last January, according to a New York Times tracker. In more than 400 cases, the courts have let the administration’s policies stay in effect even as they remain in active litigation. But in more than 150 cases, the tracker shows the courts have at least partially halted administration policies. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Democrats sued over President Donald Trump’s executive order clamping down on mail ballots on Wednesday, signaling the start of another fight with the White House over elections.

The order, which would create a national list of voting-age American citizens and directs the U.S. Postal Service to place limits on mail-in ballots, constitutes an extraordinary and illegal attempt by Trump to intervene in the voting process, election experts said.

An array of Democratic groups, including the Democratic National Committee, filed a federal lawsuit against the order in the District of Columbia late Wednesday. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York are also plaintiffs. They are represented by Marc Elias, a prominent progressive voting rights litigator.

The Democrats allege in a 61-page complaint that Trump has tried “again and again” to rewrite election rules for his own advantage. It accuses the president of acting beyond the scope of his authority and unlawfully intruding on the authority of Congress and the states, as well as violating the authority of the U.S. Postal Service.

“The Executive Order’s provisions are convoluted and confusing,” the complaint reads. “What is clear is that it dramatically restricts the ability of Americans to vote by mail, impinging on traditional state authority.”

Several Democratic election officials have also promised to challenge the order. 

“The executive order is unconstitutional and I think it is very likely that it will be struck down,” Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview. She said her state would join litigation against the order.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said he would meet the federal government in court, while Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said “we look forward to our day in court challenging this illegal action.” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said her state was “not going to obey in advance” because the states, not Trump, are in charge of elections.

Advocacy groups also promised lawsuits. The Campaign Legal Center said it would challenge the order with its partners, the Democracy Defenders Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other organizations.

White House calls for passage of SAVE America Act

Ahead of the Democrats’ lawsuit, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that election integrity has always been a top priority for Trump. She also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship to register to vote.

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” Jackson said.

In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen downplayed the possibility of immediate changes to his state’s elections, while praising Trump for prioritizing election integrity. Nebraska will hold a primary on May 12.

“Over the coming months, we will continue to monitor and participate in how the implementation of the executive order might impact the November 3rd general election,” Evnen told the Nebraska Examiner.

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail in federal elections, underscoring the stakes of any major restrictions on voting by mail. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Another elections challenge

Opponents of Trump’s election-related moves have a good track record in court.

Trump’s first order on elections, issued just over a year ago, attempted to require voters to prove their citizenship. While Congress is debating the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar requirements, federal courts found that the president had overstepped his authority when he attempted to impose changes unilaterally.

Nearly 30 states are also fighting U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits seeking to force them to turn over copies of voters containing sensitive personal information on voters. Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Trump administration.

State administration of elections is a fundamental feature of American democracy, spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. States run and regulate elections, but Congress — not the president alone — can override states and set national standards.

At a basic level, critics of Trump’s executive order argue it tramples on state authority and bypasses Congress. 

“Once again, the President is attempting to act beyond his powers and seize control of our elections. Now he is attempting to weaponize the United States Postal Service against the voters. We will not stand for it,” U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

‘This will help a lot’

Trump cast the executive order as a necessary step in support of election integrity when he signed it during an Oval Office event on Tuesday. He acknowledged it would likely face legal challenges but called it “foolproof.”

Trump, who has long called the 2020 election stolen, falsely asserted that elections have been marked by significant fraud, saying the order was aimed at “stopping the massive cheating that’s gone on.” In fact, instances of noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The Trump administration has been encouraging states to run their voter rolls through SAVE to identify potential noncitizens, but some election officials say it wrongly flags Americans as noncitizens. Several voting rights and civic groups have sued over Texas’ use of SAVE.

The Justice Department confirmed last week that it will share voter data it obtains with Homeland Security. At the same time, DOJ lawyers have been adamant in court that the Trump administration isn’t creating a national voter registration list.

“And yet here is an executive order that very overtly and expressly directs DHS to create that national voter database,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Wednesday.

Postal Service involvement questioned

The order directs Postmaster General David Steiner, who was named to the role by USPS’s Board of Governors last year, to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“What the president is doing today is he’s going to make sure mail-in ballots are safe, secure and accurate,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Tuesday.

Trump’s effort to enlist USPS in election administration goes against the agency’s own policies. When the Postal Service updated its rules last year, it noted that it does not establish rules or deadlines for elections, or determine how the mail is utilized for elections.

USPS spokesperson Cathy Purcell said the agency was reviewing the executive order.

The order is a “structural inversion” of how mail voting works, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections. USPS delivers mail and isn’t involved in distributing ballots, she said.

“It is not up to the Postal Service to have this gatekeeping role over ballot delivery,” Smith said.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

States receive minimal federal election security grant funding each year from the Election Assistance Commission. During the 2025 fiscal year, the EAC distributed $15 million total, which can be used for upgrades to voting systems, cybersecurity, training and other needs.

“Even if it were to come to pass,” Smith said, “I don’t think it would carry much weight as a stick.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday seemed poised to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and instead uphold the country’s long understanding of citizenship by birth on American soil. 

If a majority of Supreme Court justices strikes down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status or temporary immigration statuses like visas, it will be the second recent major blow to the president via the high court. Earlier this year, a majority of justices struck down his use of sweeping tariffs. 

Trump, who signed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship as one of his first acts after his inauguration in 2025, came to the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, a first for a sitting president. 

‘Quirky’ administration argument

A majority of the justices during Wednesday’s oral arguments were skeptical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s arguments that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of newly freed African American slaves, not immigrants. 

Chief Justice John Roberts called one of Sauer’s key arguments “quirky,” and questioned how it could be applied to an entire class of immigrants without legal status. 

Sauer argued that the children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. He cited carve outs in birthright citizenship, such as the children born to foreign diplomats.

“You expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Along with Roberts, the liberal wing of the court and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also did not seem swayed by Sauer’s argument. 

Gorsuch asked Sauer if, under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens “under your test.” 

“Uh, I think so,” Sauer said.

Indigenous people were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1924, but were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because those children were born to parents who were citizens of tribal governments. 

Sauer also contended the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld citizenship based on birth on American soil, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, was wrongly decided. 

He argued that the Wong Kim Ark case did not take into consideration “sojourn travelers,” who are temporary visitors in the U.S. and give birth.   

Sauer also said the Trump administration was not looking for the justices to overturn that case. 

ACLU arguments

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that Sauer’s argument to the court was an effort to create a “revisionist history” of the Wong Kim Ark case. 

“Everyone took Wong Kim Ark to say that, as a result of that, birthright citizenship was the rule,” she said. “And I think everybody has believed that for a long, long time.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang said during oral arguments that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court rejected those efforts.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” said Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. 

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Experts have warned that if the constitutional right to birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people, leaving them without a country to call home.

If the high court determines that Trump violated the Constitution with his executive order, it would be a major block to the president’s goal in defining who is American, as Trump has aimed to reshape the country’s racial and ethnic makeup through limits to migration and an aggressive immigration campaign of mass deportations. 

A decision from the high court on the case, Trump v. Barbara, is likely not going to come until the end of the court term, in late June or early July. If the court decides to uphold the executive order, it would go into effect 30 days after the ruling. 

New world, old Constitution

Sauer argued that birthright citizenship should not be applied to children of temporary visitors, such as foreigners who partake in what opponents call “birth tourism.”

Roberts asked Sauer how much of an issue birth tourism is – the idea that foreign visitors specifically travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their soon-to-be born children.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer said, citing media reports that many Chinese tourists travel to the U.S. and give birth. 

However, China does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship. 

Roberts seemed skeptical that birth tourism should be considered in Sauer’s legal arguments for the purpose of restricting birthright citizenship. He told Sauer that birth tourism “wasn’t an issue in the 19th century.” 

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. “Where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.” 

But Roberts shot back, “Well, it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Other countries

Sauer also argued that the U.S. should fall in line with the citizenship laws of other countries.

“Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations,” he said. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Kavanaugh questioned why the U.S. should worry about the citizenship requirements of other countries. 

“Obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Kavanaugh said. “I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point.”

Shortly after oral arguments ended, Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, where he falsely said the U.S. is the only country to have birthright citizenship. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico are among several countries that have birthright citizenship.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote. 

Trump left Wednesday’s oral arguments after Sauer was finished presenting his argument to the justices, and about a few minutes into arguments from the ACLU’s Wang, according to White House pool reports. Oral arguments lasted for about two-and-a-half hours.

Earlier decision

This is the second time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the justices. 

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court. 

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the ACLU filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said. 

For the first time in years, there are early signs that police killings in the United States may be declining — after deaths reached a record high in 2024 and amid intensified scrutiny of law enforcement tactics nationwide.

The findings come as photos and videos of aggressive law enforcement — particularly involving federal immigration agents — have dominated headlines and social media. The new numbers don’t include deaths during immigration enforcement, and federal agents operate under different authorities and standards than state and local police. Nevertheless, some experts say the heightened visibility has sharpened public attention on the use of force.

New data from Campaign Zero, a research group that advocates for the end of police violence, shows a slight drop in police killings in 2025 compared with 2024.

At least 1,314 people were killed by police in 2025 — the first annual decrease since 2019, according to the group’s report. By comparison, at least 1,383 people were killed by law enforcement in 2024, the highest number recorded since the group began tracking the data.

Some policing experts caution that it’s too early to say whether the drop is the beginning of a longer-term decline.

“You want to have a couple of good years, and you want to begin to gather why we think these things are happening,” said Tracie Keesee, co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity and an associate professor of public safety and justice at the University of Virginia School of Continuing and Professional Studies. Keesee has 25 years of law enforcement experience.

“What do we not know?” she said. “What’s the data not telling us? I think that’s also important.”

Experts point to a range of possible explanations for the decrease in police-related deaths, including ongoing staffing shortages that have resulted in fewer officers on patrol, expanded use of de-escalation training and stricter use-of-force policies, and the uneven rollout of changes adopted by police departments in the years following the 2020 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Lower crime rates nationwide — including a decline in homicides — is another possible factor, some experts say, as it may have reduced the number of high-risk encounters between police and civilians.

The uncertainty reflects long-standing gaps in national policing data. There is no comprehensive federal government database tracking police use of force, leaving the public to rely on independent efforts such as Campaign Zero’s Mapping Police Violence database, which compiles incidents from public records, media reports and other verifiable sources.

Last year, the Trump administration shut down the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, a system that tracked misconduct by federal law enforcement officers.

The available data that is maintained by the federal government is collected by the FBI through its Uniform Crime Reporting system, which began tracking use-of-force incidents in 2019. The data relies on voluntary, self-reported submissions from police departments.

Another widely cited effort, The Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, tracked fatal police shootings between 2015 and 2024, but stopped updating the numbers in 2025.

While the Fatal Force database focused solely on police shootings, the Mapping Police Violence database takes a broader approach, including deaths involving other types of force as well as some accidental deaths — differences that can shape overall counts and complicate comparisons.

Researchers say these gaps are not just a data problem but also a barrier to understanding use of force itself. The gaps make it difficult to study when and why force is used and to evaluate which policies — whether legislative or within police departments — are the most effective in reducing it.

“There really is a significant misconception about what use of force looks like, and it’s largely because of the fact that we just don’t know what leads to use-of-force incidents,” said Logan Kennedy, an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at East Carolina University. “There’s not data out there.”

Variation across states

State-level data from Campaign Zero shows wide variation not only in how often police kill civilians, but also in the types of encounters that turn fatal.

Some states consistently had far lower rates of police killings than others. Rhode Island was the only state that had no police killings in 2025, according to the report.

New Jersey had the second-lowest rate in the country in 2025, with 0.08 police killings per 100,000 people. That’s a 48% decrease from the state’s average of the previous 12 years, according to the report.

By contrast, New Mexico had the highest rate of police killings per capita, with 1.36 police killings per 100,000 people, according to the report.

The types of incidents that lead to deadly force also vary. In some places, fatal encounters are more likely to stem from reported violent crimes, while in others they more often begin with routine traffic stops or calls related to mental health crises or welfare checks, according to Stateline’s analysis of the data.

Some researchers and policing experts say those differences may reflect a mix of factors, including training standards, department policies and whether states have invested in alternatives to traditional policing — such as crisis response teams that handle mental health calls.

Since 2021, every officer in New Jersey has been required to undergo de-escalation training known as ICAT, or Integrating Communication, Assessment and Tactics.

ICAT training teaches patrol officers how to handle tense situations — especially those involving people in crisis — by slowing encounters down, communicating clearly and using safer alternatives to force. The program was developed by the Police Executive Research Forum, a national nonprofit focused on policing standards, about a decade ago.

“In the last 10 years, we have seen the evolution of police training, especially as it relates to de-escalation,” said Chuck Wexler, the group’s executive director.

ICAT has been implemented in roughly 1,500 law enforcement agencies nationwide, Wexler said. He added that it may have contributed to New Jersey’s significant decline in use-of-force deaths in 2025, though he acknowledged it would not have been the sole factor.

At least 12 cities with populations over 250,000 had zero police killings in 2025, according to the report. Departments in two of those cities, Long Beach, California, and Minneapolis, have received ICAT training, Wexler said. Police in Roanoke, Virginia, and Spokane, Washington, reported no officer-involved shootings in 2025, and were also trained under ICAT.

“If you don’t change your training and your tactics and how you communicate with people, you’re not going to see the change in the areas that you can,” Wexler said.

Some states, including California and Washington, have adopted stricter use-of-force laws in recent years, allowing officers to use deadly force only as a last resort. Others have expanded certain programs aimed at reducing police involvement in nonviolent situations, such as when someone is in the midst of a mental health crisis and might be better helped by a specially trained social worker than a responding law enforcement officer.

The report’s authors found no single policy directly linked to lower rates of police killings.

The variation, some policing experts say, highlights how uneven changes to policing standards and procedures have been implemented since Floyd’s death.

Some states and localities have pursued sweeping changes, while others have taken a more limited approach. Some experts say it can take years for a policy or training change to be implemented, take hold and begin to shift broader trends.

It’s also unclear whether the momentum behind policing policy changes has been sustained across much of the country — and to what extent states and localities have maintained those changes or rolled them back, experts say.

“Years later, we don’t really know. Did those reforms actually go into effect?” said Kennedy, of East Carolina University. “Asking questions about whether or not they’re persisting or eroding –– it makes a significant difference.”

Disparities persist

The impact of police violence also remains deeply uneven — both nationally and within states.

Black Americans continue to be killed by police at disproportionately high rates compared with white Americans, a disparity that holds across nearly every state analyzed, according to the report. Nationwide, Black people are killed at more than twice the rate of white people, the report found, with even wider gaps in some states.

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Hispanic people were also more likely than white people to be killed by police in 2025, according to the report.

Even if 2025 does mark the start of a new downward trend in police-involved killings, some experts say national figures can obscure what’s happening on the ground.

The decline does not mean all communities are experiencing the same level of change, according to Keesee, of the Center for Policing Equity.

“The question I always ask (is), ‘Police killings are down for who?’” Keesee said. “When you still have racial disparities, that means it might not be perceived that killings are down, especially if you’re in communities where a lot of these things seem to take place.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

In her campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez announced a child care plan Tuesday that includes capping families’ child care costs, raising wages for child care workers and investing to support child care services where they’re hard to come by.

“I’ve been to all 72 counties almost four times now, and everywhere I go, parents tell me the same thing: Child care costs more than their rent, more than their mortgage, more than groceries and utilities combined,” Rodriguez said at a news conference in her Madison campaign headquarters. “I’ve met parents paying $2,000 a month for child care, for one child. They’re being forced to make an impossible choice — Do I keep working or does it make more financial sense to stay at home?”

Her proposal includes establishing “reliable, long-term funding for child care,” Rodriguez said, with possible tax changes as well as partnerships with private businesses. “Investing in affordable, accessible child care is one of the smartest economic development strategies we can pursue,” Rodriguez said.

Every Democrat vying for the party’s nomination has included child care as a policy priority, and they all mention the subject on their campaign websites. Several have toured child care centers to emphasize their commitment to addressing child care access and affordability.

Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., was the first of the seven Democratic hopefuls to spell out details of her campaign’s child care proposal.

Hughes’ plan, released Feb. 26, frames child care affordability as part of a broader policy theme focusing on the Wisconsin economy. It includes provisions to expand child care subsidies to more families and raise child care wages as well.

“Making childcare affordable will not only help families, but it will unlock parts of the economy that are stalled because of workforce shortages,” Hughes said in announcing her proposal.

The Hughes plan includes expanding the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy program so that all families up to Wisconsin’s median household income would be eligible in the first year, and to include households with up to twice the median income in the second year. (Wisconsin’s median household income in 2024 was $82,560, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)

The plan outlines a series of child care workforce proposals including raising wages and instituting training programs, as well as ideas to lower providers’ overhead costs.

Support widespread; details to come

Others in the race have painted in broader brushstrokes, with details yet to come. At a forum in January convened by Main Street Alliance, a small business organizing group that backs stronger government support for child care, all seven Democrats participating endorsed the concept.

In his December visit to a Waunakee child care center, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said child care and preschool should be universally available, likening them to public school for children age 6 and older. Barnes hasn’t yet fully rolled out his policy, according to his campaign.

On March 26 Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley announced his agenda for his first 30 days if he’s elected governor, which includes passing “universal Pre-K and childcare utilizing the existing providers already serving Wisconsin families.” Neither the agenda nor the campaign website laid out the details or the game plan for reaching that objective.

A feature in The Guardian published in January led off with a short anecdote about Rep. Francesca Hong, who has embraced universal child care as part of her platform. Hong’s campaign website cites plans in New Mexico and Vermont — both of which have enacted universal child care programs. She says her plan is for families “to access affordable, high-quality childcare with either no out-of-pocket costs, subsidies, or strictly capped prices.”

At a meeting with voters in Madison March 24, Joel Brennan listed child care costs, as well as housing costs and health care costs, as among top concerns for voters and his campaign, but didn’t go into details. State Sen. Kelda Roys has also endorsed child care support and headlined legislative proposals to boost Wisconsin’s investment in child care.

None of the Democratic hopefuls have outlined specifics of how their versions of state support for child care would be funded.

Rodriguez’s plan

Rodriguez said her plan calls for holding child care costs to 7% of a family’s income for all families with incomes up to $500,000 a year. The state would cover the rest through “child care affordability grants,” Rodriguez said.

According to calculations from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, fewer than 5% of Wisconsin households have incomes of more than $500,000.

In outlining her proposal for reporters Tuesday, Rodriguez enumerated its features but declined to offer an overall price tag.

“Right now we know that if we invest $1 in child care, we will get $7 to $13 back in economic return,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said her plan calls for letting families choose the child care setting of their preference — center, home-based providers and private and faith-based providers would all be eligible.

The plan also calls for child care providers that receive state support to pay their workers at least $18 an hour, “with clear pathways to higher wages and professional development,” she said. “When we treat early educators like the professionals that they are, we retain workers, stabilize programs, and open more slots for families.”

To bring child care services to areas of the state where they aren’t available, especially in rural communities, the plan includes a low-interest loan and grant program to expand, renovate and build new child care facilities.

Two child care providers, Heather Murray of Waunakee and Brooke Legler of New Glarus, joined Rodriguez’s press conference Tuesday and offered their endorsement of the plan.

“When I think about being able to pay my teachers what they actually deserve, enough that they can build careers here, not just work until something better comes along, that changes everything,” Murray said. “When I think about families being able to afford care without sacrificing everything else, that’s transformative.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

General Motors had a terrible first quarter, but Kia was triumphant as sales climbed 4.1% to reach a new record of 207,015 vehicles. The company said the result underscores their “steady growth despite uncertain market conditions.”

The redesigned Telluride is proving to be a key asset as it helped Q1 sales climb 16.9% to 35,928 units. The company went on to note that’s the “highest quarterly result in the vehicle’s history.”

More: Kia Is Finally Brings An Affordable EV To America With New EV3

Other big gainers were the K5 and Seltos, which were up 19.4% and 29.2%, respectively. The Sportage climbed 8.2%, while the Carnival bucked minivan stereotypes to post a 27.8% increase in the first quarter. It’s also worth noting the K4 was the brand’s second best-selling vehicle and sales were up 0.6%.

EVs Struggle, While Hybrids Soar

It wasn’t all good news as EVs continue to struggle following the elimination of the federal tax credit. EV6 sales fell 45.8% in the first quarter, while the EV9 was down 27.1%. On the bright side, sales of the three-row crossover did climb 7.1% in March. However, that only equates to an additional 83 vehicles.

While consumers turned their backs on EVs, they embraced hybrids. Sales skyrocketed 73% to achieve a new quarterly record. Kia can also expect a boost from the 2027 Seltos, which recently debuted with a new hybridized 1.6-liter engine.

Putting electrification aside, the Sorento is having a difficult time as the model was off 14.4% in the quarter. Sales also took a hit from the discontinuation of the Soul, although some dealers still have inventory in stock.

2026 Kia US March And Q1 Sales

Not satisfied with only building an all-electric sedan with the performance to match multi-million-dollar hypercars, Chinese tech giant Xiaomi is finalizing development of a high-performance, GT-branded version of the YU7 SUV. It has the potential to lay the smackdown on Porsche.

We’ve seen Xiaomi testing the YU7 GT in the past, but this is our first time seeing it without any camouflage. These photos were snapped as Xiaomi conducted an official photoshoot for the SUV near the Nurburgring. It looks just as extreme as the SU7 Ultra and appears ready to conquer race tracks and drag strips around the world.

Read: This Ferrari SUV Lookalike From China Makes More Power Than The Real One

A host of design changes have been made to the SUV, ensuring it stands out from the regular model. The alterations start at the front-end, where Xiaomi has redesigned the lower front grille of the SUV and added a new splitter to it.

Beefed Up And Aggressive

Baldauf

We can also see the company’s designers have crafted dramatic flared fenders for the YU7 GT, allowing for the fitment of wider wheels and tires. Hiding behind these new wheels are enlarged brakes, including absolutely gargantuan red calipers. Plenty of changes have also been made to the rear, including a more aggressive diffuser and a different bumper.

This prototype has also been equipped with a silver, motorsport-inspired livery, including silver racing stripes running over it.

Power To Match

Recent Chinese filings have revealed how much performance the new EV will pack. Whereas the SU7 Ultra uses three high-powered electric motors to deliver 1,548 hp and 1,305 lb-ft (1,770 Nm) of torque, this model doesn’t use Ultra branding and isn’t quite as extreme. With that being said, it will still deliver 990 hp from its twin-motor setup, enough to reach an 186 mph (300 km/h) top speed.

These comprehensive tests at the Nurburgring indicate that Xiaomi is also serious about delivering phenomenal on-track performance. However, whether it can match this performance with driving thrills remains to be seen.

Prices have yet to be announced, but rumors point towards it costing between 450,000 yuan and 500,000 yuan, or between $65,000 and $73,000.

Baldauf

Buick was on a roll as the affordable Envista was bringing new customers into showrooms, while the redesigned Enclave proved popular. Then, seemingly overnight, the brand decided to roll over and play dead.

The automaker hasn’t issued a proper press release in nearly two years and many people associated with their marketing efforts fled for greener pastures at Stellantis. If that wasn’t bad enough, GM basically abandoned Buick’s electrification plans in the United States.

More: Buick Delays Plan To Launch First EV In America

Thanks to these and other issues, sales are tanking – hard. In the first quarter, deliveries plunged 32.6% to a mere 41,654 units. The big loser was the Chinese-built Envision, which received a $3,000 price hike for 2026 as the model is getting hammered by tariffs.

The decline doesn’t appear to be an availability issue as dealers have more than 9,000 Envisions in stock. That’s roughly six months of supply, suggesting demand is lacking.

If losers love company, Buick had a lot to celebrate as the Encore GX was off by 36%, while the Envista was down 9.7%. Even the Enclave struggled as sales dropped 3.3%.

Cadillac’s Big Bet On EVs Is Having Mixed Results

When the electric vehicle tax credit was eliminated last year, sales plummeted. That continues and has put Cadillac in a tough spot as they have an EV-laden lineup.

Lyriq sales fell 21.6%, while the Escalade IQ dropped 26.8%. However, the Optiq soared 65.9% thanks to significant powertrain updates as well as the addition of the Optiq-V. The three-row Vistiq also seems to be doing okay as the company moved 1,902 units in the first quarter.

On the gas side of the equation, the outgoing CT4 saw sales surge 27.4%, but that only equates to an additional 333 vehicles. Elsewhere in the lineup, the CT5 was down 13.3% while the Escalade was off 28.5%. The XT4, XT5, and XT6 are all dead or almost dead, so we’ll skip them like buyers did.

Given all of this, it’s hardly surprising that overall Cadillac sales dropped 25.5%.

Chevrolet Had A Rough Quarter

Over in bowtie land, it’s an EV bloodbath. The Blazer EV plummeted 82.6% to a mere 1,077 units. The Equinox EV was off 7.2%, while the Silverado EV fell 41%.

Even the resurrected Bolt seems like a failure as the company only moved 791 units. That’s less than 270 per month and it seems like the model’s death and rebirth was a giant waste of time, effort, and resources.

The only bright spot was the deceased Brightdrop vans, which saw sales soar 81%. However, this was likely driven by a fire sale with six figure discounts.

Putting EVs aside, overall sales fell 8.1% as numerous models struggled including the Blazer (-26.3%), Colorado (-16.5%), Corvette (-8.2%), Equinox (-13.5%), Trailblazer (-6.3%), Tahoe (-10.0%), and Suburban (-14.0%). Traverse sales climbed 33.6% and the Silverado 1500 was up 7.9%, but they couldn’t offset the overall decline.

GMC Did Okay

GMC had the best performance as sales were only down 0.2%. The Acadia tied last year’s result as the company once again sold 13,257 crossovers. The Colorado was up 21.2%, while the Terrain soared 35.2%. Even the Sierra EV saw a slight 3.1% improvement, but that only equates to an additional 39 pickups as sales were terrible to begin with.

Speaking of EVs, the Hummer lineup plunged 52.5% despite a handful of updates for the 2026 model year. Sierra 1500, 2500, and 3500 sales also fell as did those for the Yukon.

A Bad Quarter Overall

Zooming out even further, GM’s total sales fell 9.7% to 626,429 units. The automaker tried to put a positive spin on things as they said “momentum in March helped results partially recover from a slower January and February, when winter storms impacted the market.” GM added they’re leading in U.S. sales and gained an additional 50,000 Super Cruise subscribers.

2026 GM Q1 Sales

Hyundai didn’t have the only surprise at the New York Auto Show as Kia used the event to unveil the PV5 WAV New York Taxi and Rideshare concept. It was introduced alongside the redesigned Seltos as well as the new EV3.

Created in collaboration with BraunAbility, the concept is a wheelchair accessible vehicle that is fully compliant with the Americans with Disability Act. It’s designed to demonstrate the electric van’s potential as a wheelchair-accessible taxi and rideshare vehicle.

More: The PV5 Is Kia’s Idea Of An Electric Minivan

The companies said little about the “production-ready” concept and have only released one low-resolution image as of this writing. That doesn’t exactly scream commitment, but we can see the concept features a classic yellow and black livery with numerous wheelchair graphics.

More importantly, the PV5’s liftgate opens to reveal a wheelchair ramp that deploys from the back of the vehicle. Kia also mentioned the model has “integrated tiedowns and occupant restraints” as well as a low step height that is “well-suited to everyday taxi operations and entry for wheelchair users.”

The companies said the concept was “created with real-world production feasibility in mind” and will be evaluated in New York, which is one of the largest taxi and rideshare markets in the world. As part of this process, they’ll “engage government agencies, fleet operators, disability advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders to gather additional input and refine the vehicle based on their feedback.”

While little is known about the concept, the PV5 offers Passenger, Cargo, and Chassis Cab configurations as well as 43.3, 51.5, and 71.2 kWh battery packs. The model rides on the fleet-focused E-GMP.S platform and sports a front-mounted motor developing 161 hp (120 kW / 163 PS) and 184 lb-ft (250 Nm) of torque.

Despite the lack of details, Kia offers a PV5 WAV Taxi in Korea. It starts at $33,768 (₩ 51,100,000) and offers a range of up to 214 miles (345 km). However, that model has a side-mounted wheelchair ramp.

Electric vehicles have dominated the World Car Awards as they’ve won every single category this year. This is hardly surprising as many of the finalists were EVs, but it likely won’t alleviate criticism.

Top honors went to the BMW iX3 which was named 2026 World Car of the Year as well as World Electric Vehicle. In the former category, it beat out the redesigned Hyundai Palisade and Nissan Leaf. The Leaf was also up for being named World Electric Vehicle, but it and the Mercedes CLA lost to the German crossover.

More: Ford Won North American Truck Of The Year With A Trim

Speaking of luxury brands, the Lucid Gravity was named World Luxury Car. The electric crossover, which offers up to 450 miles (724 km) of range, bested the Cadillac Vistiq and Volvo ES90.

That brings us to the most controversial award, which is World Performance Car. Here, the Hyundai Ioniq 6 N beat the BMW M2 CS and Chevrolet Corvette E-Ray.

While a 641 hp (478 kW / 650 PS) Hyundai is certainly impressive, is it really more of a performance car than a 523 hp (390 kW / 530 PS) coupe that accelerates from 0-60 mph (0-96 km/h) in 3.7 seconds and laps the Nordschleife in 7:25.534? The E-Ray, on the other hand, has all-wheel drive, an EV-only mode, and a combined output of 655 hp (488 kW / 664 PS).

Since you’re probably still stewing over that, we’ll finish up with the two categories little care about. World Urban Car went to the Nio Firefly, which beat out the Hyundai Venue as well as the Baojun Yep Plus / Chevrolet Spark EUV.

There’s also World Car Design of the Year, which was apparently decided by Mr. Magoo. The Mazda 6e / EZ-6 took home the prize as it won over the Kia PV5 and Volvo ES90. None of them are particularly pretty, but the 6e isn’t too shabby and the finalists were chosen by a design panel of people you’ve probably never heard of before.

2026 World Car Awards

It’s been a couple of weeks since Honda pulled the plug on plans to build the 0 Saloon, 0 SUV, and Acura RSX EVs in the US. However, not all of that investment is going to waste, as the smaller 0 α SUV has now been confirmed for production in India, with exports planned for other markets as well.

Last month, Honda began testing the all-electric SUV in India for the first time, putting it through a wide range of driving conditions. Engineers are also evaluating performance in extreme heat and monsoon environments, alongside testing its charging capabilities.

Read: New Honda 0 SUV Gets Real With Production Design

Deciding on Indian production is an obvious move for Honda. Having already poured billions of dollars investing too heavily in EVs, Honda will be eager to make the most of lower labor costs in India. It’s revealed that not only will the 0 α SUV be built and sold in India, but it will also be exported to its home market of Japan, among other “key markets”, though Honda won’t say which ones at this stage.

Deciding on Indian production is a logical move. After pouring billions into EV development with limited return, Honda will be keen to capitalize on lower labor costs. The plan now is for the 0 α SUV to be built and sold in India, while also being exported to Japan and other “key markets”, though the company has yet to specify which ones.

This Isn’t The American Model

The Honda 0 α SUV was unveiled as a concept in late 2025 and looks almost identical to the 0 SUV that had been destined for the US. However, the 0 α is smaller and designed to be more affordable. In a world where lots of SUVs look the same, the 0 α stands apart, largely due to its unusually tall rear end. Whether buyers will embrace the design remains an open question.

Developed under Honda’s new ‘Thin, Light, and Wise,’ approach, the Honda 0 α SUV will hit the market with a thin and lightweight battery pack, although capacity details are not yet known. Honda has also committed to mounting the batteries and power units as low as possible to reduce the center of gravity.

Honda says the new 0 α SUV will be introduced during the 2026-2027 financial year, likely launching first in India and Japan before expanding to other regions.

According to Honda, “The start of pan-India Public Road Verification testing is a key milestone in our electrification journey. India has unique driving and climate conditions, and it is important for us to test our electric vehicle thoroughly in real-world environments. This programme reflects Honda’s global engineering strengths combined with a strong focus on local customer needs, as we prepare to introduce an electric SUV that offers reliability, comfort, and ease of use.”

Chinese-brand cars now account for one in 10 new cars sold in Europe, but you won’t find a BYD or Xiaomi on sale in the US, and one Ohio senator is determined to maintain that situation. He wants to make absolutely sure Chinese car brands never make it to America in the form of auto imports, partnerships, or even just lines of code buried in software.

Senator Bernie Moreno is preparing legislation that goes beyond the current restrictions introduced in early 2025 by the Biden administration. Those rules already shut out Chinese passenger cars over concerns they could harvest sensitive driver data. Moreno’s proposal aims to slam every remaining door, then double lock them just in case.

More: Toyota Is Selling A New EV In China For Less Than A 15-Year-Old Used Corolla

Speaking at an automotive event ahead of the New York International Auto Show, he didn’t exactly hold back, as Reuters reported.

“We don’t allow Huawei to come into our telecommunications infrastructure,” Moreno said, referencing the US block on the Asian tech giant. “We’re not going to allow Chinese automakers into this market. We’re going to prevent the cancer from coming into our market, and we’re going to need the other countries to do chemotherapy.”

Appealing To Other Nations

Subtle? Not exactly. Effective at grabbing attention? Absolutely. The plan isn’t just about imports. Moreno wants to block anything with Chinese ties, including software integrations and joint ventures. In other words, even a hint of Chinese involvement could be enough to disqualify a vehicle from US roads under his vision. He also hopes Mexico, Latin America, Canada and even Europe will follow suit.

Unsurprisingly, American automakers and industry groups are on board. They’ve been lobbying hard to keep the barriers high, arguing it protects both national security and domestic jobs. It also conveniently keeps a wave of competitively priced EVs from shaking up the market.

An Attack On Fair Trade

China, for its part, isn’t thrilled. Officials have pushed back, calling the approach protectionist and accusing the US of stacking the deck against fair competition. That tension adds another layer to an already delicate economic relationship between the two countries.

And there’s an added complication here. Donald Trump has previously said he’d welcome Chinese automakers building factories in the US, as long as they hire American workers.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Senator Bernie Moreno (@berniemorenoforohio)

Demand for GM’s electric vehicles in the US is so poor that the carmaker has revealed Factory Zero in Detroit, its all-electric vehicle hub, will be idled until April 13. Production at the site has already been paused since March 16, so it’ll be offline for almost an entire month.

Due to the production pause, roughly 1,300 workers will be temporarily laid off by the car manufacturer. This news is just the latest blow for those who work at the site, as output at Factory Zero was already cut by almost 50 percent in January when it moved to a single-shift operation. This prompted GM to put 1,200 workers on indefinite layoff.

Read: GM Is Boosting Production Of Its Biggest Gas Guzzlers, Fuel Prices Be Damned

The plant handles production of models including the Chevrolet Silverado EV and Hummer EV, but sales have slowed since the US government axed the $7,500 federal EV tax credit.

In the last quarter of 2025, Chevy sold 1,896 Silverado EVs, down 12.9 percent from the 2,176 in 2024. Interestingly, total 2025 sales reached 11,275, which was 51.8 percent higher than 2024.

GMC Hummer EV Collapse

The GMC Hummer EV is starting to feel the effects of shifting government policy. Sales dropped 49.8 percent in the final quarter of 2025, falling from 5,091 units to 2,555. That slide carried straight into 2026, with just 1,653 units moved in Q1, down 52.5 percent from the 3,479 sold a year earlier.

The GMC Sierra EV, meanwhile, managed to buck the trend. It posted 1,288 deliveries in Q1 2026, narrowly beating the 1,249 units from the same period in 2025. In a tough stretch for Factory Zero, that modest gain stands out as one of the few positives.

Like some of the competition, GM is pulling back from its EV commitments, confirming it will take $7.6 billion in charges for scaling back its EV spending. While GM boss Mary Barra still refers to EVs as the company’s “end game,” The General is making changes in the meantime. This includes working on several plug-in hybrid models, details of which still remain thin on the ground.

GM also recently announced it’s boosting production of some of its biggest gas guzzlers, namely the Chevrolet Silverado 2500 and 3500, in addition to the GMC Sierra 2500 and 3500.

Subaru has spent the past few years dabbling in EVs, but the Solterra always felt more like a compliance exercise than a serious attempt to challenge segment leaders. The new Trailseeker and Uncharted take the brand to new heights. Now, the Getaway, another EV built in partnership with Toyota, wants to add more passengers to the mix.

Read: Subaru Finally Connects Its Two Best Ideas In One Vehicle

Revealed at the New York Auto Show, the Getaway is Subaru’s first three-row EV and easily its boldest electric model yet. It’s also the most powerful production Subaru ever built, with dual electric motors producing a combined 420 hp (313 kW), which is a lot more than the Highlander’s 388 horses.

According to Subaru, that’s enough to send the family hauler from 0-60 mph in under five seconds, which means it’ll outrun plenty of sports sedans while carrying six or seven people and all of their luggage.

Three-Row Space And Practicality

From a design standpoint, it’s easy to see the clear ties to Toyota’s new Highlander EV, which, like the Getaway, will debut later this year. Subaru says its new three-row SUV offers 45.6 cubic feet of cargo room behind the second row.

That’s more than Kia’s EV9 manages. There’s also 15.9 cubic feet of space behind the third row, captain’s chairs or a bench seat in the second row, depending on trim, and allegedly enough headroom and legroom for six-foot adults in all three rows.

Inside, the Getaway gets a standard 14-inch infotainment display, a 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, USB-C ports in every row, and available luxuries including ventilated seats, heated rear seats (including the third row), and a panoramic roof.

Also: Kia Finally Brings An Affordable EV To America, Fake Gears And All

Every Getaway comes standard with all-wheel drive, 8.3 inches of ground clearance, and the brand’s X-Mode system. The SUV can tow up to 3,500 pounds (1,588 kg). Power comes from a 95.8 kWh battery pack that Subaru says will deliver over 300 miles (483 km) of range. In 2027, a “standard-range” version will arrive with a 77 kWh battery pack, but Subaru didn’t release a range estimate for it.

The Getaway comes with a NACS charging point, which means that owners will have access to Tesla’s Supercharger network. The Getaway has a maximum charging speed of 150 kW, which is not very quick compared to most new EVs, but Subaru says it’ll go from 10 to 80 percent in around half an hour.

Expected Pricing Range

The biggest question at this point is what will pricing look like? For now, expect it to start at around the low-to-mid $50,000 range. That’s right in line with the Kia EV9 and a few thousand cheaper than the Hyundai Ioniq 9. Likely, the Getaway will also undercut the new Toyota Highlander by roughly the same margin.

Either way, we’ll know later this year, and Subaru will find out how big an appetite its fans have for what is likely the heaviest and somehow fastest production car it’s ever made.

The all-new 2027 Kia EV3 has officially debuted in the US at the New York Auto Show, and it’s about time. This compact electric SUV, positioned above the smaller EV2 in Kia’s global lineup, has already built momentum in overseas markets. Now it’s finally set to take on American buyers, with an estimated starting price in the low-to-mid $30,000 range.

More: Kia Gives The 2027 Seltos Something It’s Never Had In The US Before

Positioned as the most attainable EV in the brand’s North American lineup, the EV3 opens the possibility of electric Kia ownership to a very different audience. A 105.5-inch (2,680 mm) wheelbase means it’s smaller than the EV5 Kia offered in Canada, though not the US, and tiny compared to the three-row EV9. But it doesn’t look or feel like a stripped-down option, or a copycat one.

Under the skin, it rides on the same dedicated E-GMP EV architecture as its bigger relatives like the EV9, but with 400- rather than 800-volt electrics. Buyers get a choice of two battery packs, starting with a 58.3 kWh unit available only on the entry-grade Light trim, delivering up to 220 miles (354 km) of EPA range. Step up to the 81.4 kWh battery on Wind and Land trims, and that climbs to an estimated 320 miles (515 km) in front-wheel drive form.

All-wheel drive is available with the larger battery as an option on Wind and Land, and comes standard on the GT-Line and GT, giving the EV3 a bit more scope for distance work. Charging is quick enough to keep things convenient, with a 10 to 80 percent top-up taking around 29 minutes on the smaller pack, which is only available on single-motor models, and just over 30 minutes on the larger one that gets you the choice of front- or all-wheel drive

Performance depends on trim, and though Kia in the US doesn’t quote an output for the single-motor powertrain, it rates it at 201 hp (204 PS / 150 kW) in Europe. If it’s the same setup, expect mid-seven-second zero to 60 mph (97 km/h) times and enough kick to handle most city sorties.

GT Should Eat GTIs

Dual-motor all-wheel drive models are confirmed to offer 261 hp (265 PS / 195 kW), and the range-topping GT gets a further lift to 288 hp (292 PS / 215 kW). That ought to be enough to drop the 60 mph time to 5.5 seconds, judging by the Euro numbers for the same model. No match for Volvo’s EX30, which goes a second quicker, true, but since Volvo’s just axed it in the US, Kia can breathe easy.

Also: Kia’s Cheapest Electric SUV Drops A Seat To Hit Its Price

Besides, you get more than an extra 17 hp when you step up to the GT. Kia also throws in sport-tuned suspension and steering, plus the option to equip your EV3 with the same kind of Virtual Gear Shift (VGS) and Active Sound Design (ASD) noise generator that’s already won heaps of praise on other Hyundai Group cars like the Ioniq 5 N.

Netflix or Disney?

The EV3 is similar in size to the second-generation Seltos, which Kia is debuting alongside it at New York, and there are more parallels inside the cabin. You get a variation on the same conjoined display setup used on most new Kias, which means dual 12.3-inch screens and a 5-inch climate display sandwiched between them.

The Navigation Cockpit (ccNC), which we first met on the EV9, lets you stream Netflix and YouTube as well as view content from the likes of Disney, Marvel and National Geographic. Want to make the most of those movie jump scares? Select the available Harman Kardon audio system, one of several tasty options you’ll find on the configurator alongside a panoramic roof, a Digital Key for your smartphone, a power liftgate, and a 360-degree camera.

Arrives Late 2026

Full trim details will be announced along with prices closer to the end-of-year on-sale date, but we know GT-Line cars get a three-spoke steering wheel, metal pedals, and off-white dual-tone seats. Splash for the true GT and you bag 19-inch wheels with green brake calipers, plus matching flashes of green on the seatbelts, steering wheel, and other interior trim.

The EV3 was meant to be one of an army of smaller, affordable electric Kias heading stateside, but the brand decided not to bring the EV4 hatch and sedan, or EV5 SUV, after all. That means a lot is riding on this little utility, which we know from our UK drive is a great EV, but one that arrives in the US when EV sales are falling. How do you rate its chances?

Kia

The Prologue hasn’t been the success that Honda would have liked, and pricing has been a big part of the problem. It was already on the expensive side, and the loss of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit under the Trump administration only made things harder to justify. Honda appears to have taken the hint.

For 2026, it’s cutting $7,500 across the entire Prologue lineup, effectively replacing the missing incentive and bringing the model within reach of a much wider pool of buyers.

The 2026 Prologue range goes unchanged, meaning it continues to be offered in single-motor and dual-motor EX, Touring, and Elite configurations. Importantly, the price cuts won’t just apply to newly-built models from April 1, but also 2026 models already in Honda’s inventory.

Read: That Strange Clicking Noise In Honda’s Prologue Is Now A Lawsuit

Sitting at the base of the range is the single-motor EX, now priced at $41,395, including a $1,495 destination charge, down from $48,895 for the 2025 model. Positioned above this model is the EX dual motor, now starting at $43,495. The 2026 Prologue continues to be sold in Touring guises, starting at $46,695 for the single-motor and $48,495 for the dual-motor.

2026 Honda Prologue

Whereas the front-wheel drive models have 220 hp, 243 lb-ft (329 Nm) of torque, and an EPA range of 308 miles (496 km), the dual-motor versions deliver 300 hp and 355 lb-ft (481 Nm) of torque. The added power comes at the cost of range, which is reduced to 294 miles (473 km) in the dual-motor EX and Touring.

Continue to sit at the top of the range is the dual-motor Elite with a reduced range of 283 miles (455 km). For 2026, it starts at $51,895, including destination, down from $59,395.

The long-term future of the Honda Prologue remains unclear. Following the removal of the federal EV tax credit, sales have plunged through the early part of this year, prompting Honda to cut production in half. This also prompted recent speculation that the Prologue will be killed after production ends in December, with no successor on the agenda. However, Honda has denied these reports.

In the world of electric cars, efficiency is one of the most important priorities. The further you can drive, the less charging is required, so it’s hardly a surprise that so many carmakers are fixated on improving aerodynamics, ensuring their EVs can slice through the air with as little resistance as possible. Tires also play a crucial role in efficiency, and Michelin looks to have made a major step forward with EV-specific tires.

The French company has just unveiled its new Michelin Primacy 5 Energy and Michelin Pilot Sport 5 Energy, two summer tires that will be available in a number of different sizes, making them ideal for a broad spectrum of EVs.

Read: AMG Hyper EV Circles The Globe In Seven Days And Smashes 25 Records

Those fixated on efficiency will be most interested in the Primacy 5 Energy. It is rated A for rolling resistance and, when fitted to an EV, is said to boost the range by up to 10 percent, adding up to 43 miles (70 km) of driving range. On an ICE model, it can improve fuel efficiency by as much as 6 percent, or 0.3 l/100 km.

When tested for longevity on a VW ID.3, the tire outperformed the Bridgestone Turanza 6, Continental PremiumContact 7, Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2, and Pirelli Cinturato P7C3.

Michelin hasn’t sacrificed performance, either. Compared to its predecessor, braking distances are improved by up to 8 percent, both when fresh off the shelf and when it has just 2 mm of tread remaining. Aiding in the tire’s improved performance are functionalized elastomers, new resins, and an improved tread architecture. The tire is available in 33 sizes from 16 to 19 inches.

An Efficient Pilot Sport

Car owners looking for a more performance-focused tire, yet one that is still efficient, would be wise to check out the new Pilot Sport 5 Energy. It includes a new Energy Passive compound on the shoulders to reduce rolling resistance and is the same tire Mercedes-AMG used with its record-breaking GT XX Concept.

When tested on a Tesla Model Y, this tire performed better in wet and dry braking than the Hankook iON Evo SUV and Pirelli P Zero E, while also outperforming those two options in longevity. With electric vehicle adoption being on the rise, it’s good to see that tire companies are tailoring their products to match the specific needs of EVs.

Journalist Beth Gardiner says the fossil fuel industry is increasingly reliant upon plastic products. Her book is Plastic Inc.: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil's Biggest Bet.

After four years of growth, U.S. coal exports decreased by 16 million short tons (MMst) in 2025, according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau. Exports totaled 93 MMst in 2025, compared with 108 MMst in 2024. Thermal coal exports fell by 18%, and metallurgical coal exports fell by 11%.

Colorectal cancer may carry a unique microbial “fingerprint,” setting it apart from other cancers and opening a new frontier in diagnosis and treatment. By analyzing DNA from over 9,000 patients, researchers discovered that only colorectal tumors consistently host distinct microbial communities—challenging the long-held belief that all cancers have their own microbial signatures.