Advanced

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday vetoed legislation that would have narrowed exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act for advanced manufacturing facilities amid pushback from business and industry groups.

Senate Bill 954 from state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) would have rolled back parts of last year’s controversial overhaul of CEQA, which fast-tracked approvals for a broad array of housing and infrastructure projects in an effort to ease new construction in the state.

Critics said the overhaul opened up a path for advanced manufacturing facilities such as strip miners, chemical producers, battery recyclers and semiconductor plants to open in communities without any environmental review. Dozens of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and California Environmental Voters urged the governor to sign the legislation into law, arguing that it would have provided essential protections for communities that already experience the worst pollution from industrial facilities.

In his veto message, Newsom said last year’s CEQA reform was a “long overdue overhaul to get California building again.”

“While I appreciate the author’s stated intent to ensure these reforms do not result in unintended adverse impacts on the environment, this bill does not merely clarify or refine the existing exemption. It repeals the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities,” the governor wrote. “Further, the bill’s numerous new siting, operational, and emissions requirements would make the narrower exemption impractical for many of the projects it was intended to support.”

In a statement, Blakespear said she was “disappointed” in the governor’s decision. While some of the new CEQA exemptions are important to stimulate construction, the recent near-miss chemical disaster in Garden Grove — which prompted thousands of evacuations in May —illustrates the danger that can come from siting advanced manufacturing facilities in communities, she said.

“We should not have to wait for another emergency before recognizing that sweeping — and rushed — exemptions from environmental review need reasonable guardrails,” Blakespear said. “Protecting communities and workers is not an impediment to economic growth; it is part of responsible growth. We need guardrails to these CEQA exemptions to safeguard Californians and ensure the environment isn’t damaged.”

Newsom’s veto came amid pushback from industry groups and prominent business organizations including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. The California Department of Finance also was opposed to the bill, which it described in an analysis as “inconsistent with Administration policy.”

Lance Hastings, chief executive of the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn., said in a statement Friday that the governor’s veto protects “the ability of manufacturers to innovate and create here in California.”

Manufacturing generates $382 billion a year for California and supports 1.24 million jobs, he said.

But opponents said Newsom’s decision will ultimately endanger communities and leave more people exposed to industrial hazards.

“Frontline communities across California continue to face consequences from polluting industries that have damaged our air, and water for the sake of corporate profit,” said Asha Sharma, deputy director at the nonprofit Sierra Club California. “SB 954 was developed to ensure those same mistakes do not continue.”

Blakespear said she will continue working on the issue next year.

The statistics are sobering — so sobering that Defense Department officials refuse to confirm, deny or discuss them.

From Feb. 28 through July, the first five months of the war with Iraq, U.S. forces burned through almost 60% of the nation’s advanced defensive missiles — the Patriot and THAAD interceptors that protect American troops.

When the war began, the Pentagon had almost 2,800 Patriot and THAAD missiles in its worldwide inventory, according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent think tank. By the end of July, that number had dropped to about 1,100, CSIS reported. Almost two-thirds of the Patriots and almost 40% of the longer-range THAAD were gone.

“This is a generational annihilation of our theater missile defense capability,” said Tom Karako, director of CSIS’s Missile Defense Project. “There’s no way you can look at this and not see it’s a setback.”

The White House and the Pentagon have not challenged the CSIS figures, although they have issued sweeping denials that any shortage exists.

“We have far more munitions than anyone in the world, and far more than we need,” President Trump said in July.

That’s true, but misleading. The U.S. military still holds vast inventories of short-range offensive missiles. But the sophisticated defensive missiles that protect U.S. troops no longer are abundant — as even Trump has acknowledged.

“We have certain types of munitions [of which] we have unlimited, virtual unlimited supply,” he said last month. “We have others where it’s a little bit tighter.”

The result is a squeeze that has prompted U.S. commanders to husband Patriot and THAAD interceptors as scarce assets.

For much of August, when a frayed de facto ceasefire was in effect, U.S. forces did not respond with high-end missiles when Iran attacked oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

But when Iran launched rockets against U.S. bases in Jordan last week, Patriots reportedly were used to knock the incoming missiles down. (The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny those reports.)

The U.S. weapons arsenal “no longer has the capacity to deter a Chinese attack against Taiwan,” the Council on Foreign Relations warned in a report last month. Defense planners share the same concern over a potential Russian assault on the Baltic states.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has forecast that the Pentagon’s inventory of missiles would run out “within the first week of a Taiwan conflict.”

In Europe, a U.S. defense official told the Associated Press last month that the shortfall was “beyond critical.” If Russia attacked a NATO country, the official said, U.S. forces in the area would “take punch after punch in the mouth.”

The core question is whether the United States has so few missiles that it cannot credibly deter China or Russia from attacking their neighbors.

“You’ve got to be strong enough to send a clear message that our enemies should not try anything because we’re a credible force,” said Leon Panetta, President Obama’s former defense secretary. “Now we’re losing a lot of that credibility — and that’s dangerous.”

Knowing that U.S. forces have been left without thousands of weapons needed to deter conflict, Karako said, could in itself be provocative. “It could tempt an aggressor to do something, knowing that we have fewer [missiles] to thwart them.”

The obvious remedy is to build more interceptors — a process Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered even before the war began. But ramping up missile production won’t immediately replenish the stockpile.

Before the Iran war, defense contractors were producing only about 620 Patriots and 96 THAAD each year — fewer than half the number expended during a few weeks this spring.

At current production rates, it will take at least three years to return the Patriot inventory to its prewar level, and at least four years for THAAD, CSIS reported.

Defense experts warn that the stocks need to be even larger than they were before the war to credibly deter China or Russia.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and principal author of the CSIS estimates, says most analysts believe it will take years after replenishing the stocks expended in the Persian Gulf to build a credible deterrent against China.

The Pentagon has enough munitions, both offensive and defensive, to continue fighting the campaign against Iran, he added — but some of those less-sophisticated weapons can be used only at shorter ranges, which means placing more troops in harm’s way.

Cancian said the CSIS figures were based on publicly available Pentagon budget and acquisition documents, updated in some cases from recent press reports — but not from leaks of classified information.

The roots of the missile shortage began long before the war with Iran. Trump and Hegseth are not the only ones to blame, although their belief that Iran would quickly capitulate appears to have been a major factor.

Nor did former President Biden cause the shortage, as Trump has claimed Biden gave several hundred Patriots to Ukraine, but the shortfall is far larger than that.

The underlying problem, defense experts say, is that the United States designed its missile defense programs for a world in which only a few major powers like China and Russia posed serious threats.

But the landscape of military technology has changed. Missiles and drones have become cheaper and easier to acquire, and countries like Iran can strike targets at great distances without making a huge investment in weaponry.

That’s a transformational change — and the Pentagon has been behind the curve, argues Michael C. Horowitz, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “This is the kind of situation in which great-power militaries like the United States struggle,” he said.

So the Trump administration faces several challenges. It needs to replenish its depleted stores of advanced defensive missiles — a process that has only just begun, and which Congress has not yet funded. Meanwhile, Horowitz and others argue, it also needs to build less expensive missile and drone systems to fill the multiyear gap before Patriot and THAAD inventories can be restored.

The Pentagon has begun that process, deploying several relatively inexpensive anti-drone missile systems.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year included $7.7 billion for low-cost missile and drone programs, but 13 months later, more than 90% of the money remains unspent, Horowitz said.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The Food and Drug Administration on Friday approved a new, targeted breast cancer drug for patients who become resistant to hormone therapy.

The drug, camizestrant, was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program.

It acts on ESR1 mutations, which are acquired resistances that tumors may develop during treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

“Women living with metastatic breast cancer face an uphill battle as their tumors continuously evolve to escape treatment,” acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas said in a statement. “We owe them every weapon in our arsenal.”

“Today’s approval delivers a win to these patients by granting them a targeted therapy designed specifically to overcome resistance, giving them more time before their disease progresses.”

Dr. Angelo de Claro, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said, “I commend both the FDA and the sponsor for their commitment to advancing cancer care and securing this accelerated approval.”

“This marks the first FDA approval of a cancer therapy guided by the detection of a resistance mutation in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) before imaging tests show that the disease is progressing,” he added.

“But additional evidence is needed to confirm clinical benefit.”

Aug. 26 (UPI) — On Wednesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced its approval of Rasonque, a new treatment option for people with advanced pancreatic cancer.

A tablet taken once a day, the medication targets forms of a protein called RAS, which is a key driver of tumor growth in many patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the most common form of the cancer, the FDA said. This form of cancer develops in cells lining the ducts of the pancreas.

“Today’s approval provides a critical new option for patients facing an extraordinarily difficult and historically hard-to-treat cancer,” said Kyle Diamantas, acting commissioner of the FDA. “It is our fundamental duty to deliver more cures and meaningful treatments to patients as quickly as possible.”

A press release from the FDA said the approval demonstrates the agency’s “commitment to moving with urgency, reducing unnecessary delays and advancing innovative treatments.”

Rasonque has been approved for adults who have metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who have received at one least one prior systemic therapy or those who are not candidates for multiagent systemic therapy.

About 90% to 95% of the new cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed in the United States each year are this form, the FDA said, citing the National Cancer Institute. Johns Hopkins Medicine also said “the vast majority” of pancreatic cancer diagnoses are this form.

In a clinical trial, the new treatment improved median overall survival to 13.2 months from 6.7 months with standard chemotherapy, the FDA said.

“This drug showed unprecedented results in an area of high unmet need,” said Angelo de Claro, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

The agency granted this approval to Revolution Medicines Inc.