engineer

President Trump’s new sky-high visa fees have shaken Silicon Valley’s tech giants as they contemplate a surge in the cost of hiring global talent and a new tactic the White House can use to keep Silicon Valley in line.

The tech industry was already navigating an economy with higher and unpredictable tariffs, when last week the Trump administration threw another curveball aimed directly at its bottom line: a $100,000 fee for the visas used to hire certain skilled foreign workers. The industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program to bring in a wide range of engineers, coders, and other top talent to the United States.

The rollout has sparked confusion among businesses, immigration lawyers and current H-1B visa holders.

Over the weekend, the Trump administration clarified that the new fee will apply to new visas, isn’t annual and doesn’t prevent current H-1B visa holders from traveling in and outside of the country. Companies would have to pay the fee with any new H-1B visa petitions submitted after a specific time on Sept. 21, the White House said.

On Monday, the Trump administration also clarified that certain professions, such as doctors, may be exempt from the fee. Some observers are concerned that a selective application of the fee could be a way the White House can reward its friends and punish its detractors.

Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft have been strengthening their ties with the Trump administration by committing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States.

Still, immigration has long been a contentious issue between the Trump administration and tech executives, some of whom were on a H-1B visa before they co-founded or led some of the world’s largest tech companies.

One of the most vocal supporters of the H-1B visas: Elon Musk, who backed Trump but has publicly sparred with him after he led the federal government’s efforts to slash spending. Musk, who runs multiple companies, including Tesla, SpaceX and xAI, is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in South Africa and has held an H-1B visa.

Tech executives have said the H-1B visa program has been crucial for hiring skilled workers. Competition to attract the world’s best talent has been intensifying since the popularity of OpenAI’s ChatGPT sparked a fierce race to rapidly advance artificial intelligence.

The new fee could slow California’s development and the United States’ position in the AI race by making it tougher for companies — especially startups with less money — to bring in international employees, experts said.

So far this fiscal year, more than 7,500 companies in Californiahave applied forH-1B visas and 61,841 have been approved, data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shows.

Tech companies use the visa program to hire computer scientists and engineers because the U.S. isn’t producing enough workers with the skills needed, said Darrell West, a senior fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution.

Trump “likes to talk tough on immigration, but he fails to recognize how important immigrants are to our economy,” he said. “Companies in technology, agriculture, hotels, restaurants and construction rely heavily on immigrants, and slowing that flow is going to be devastating for companies in those areas.”

In his executive order, the Trump administration noted that some companies, such as information technology firms, have allegedly misused the program, citing mass layoffs in the tech industry and the difficulty young college graduates face in landing jobs.

“President Trump promised to put American workers first, and this commonsense action does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down American wages,” Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.

Economists and tech executives, though, have pointed to other factors affecting hiring, including economic uncertainty from tariffs, a shift in investments and the rise of AI tools that could complete tasks typically filled by entry-level workers.

California’s unemployment rate of 5.5% in August was higher than the U.S. unemployment rate of 4.3%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The rollout of the new changes has been “extremely chaotic,” and while the White House has tried to clear up some of the confusion, tech companies still have a lot of questions about how the fee would work, said Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of the Chamber of Progress, a center-left tech industry policy coalition.

“You never know what you’re gonna end up with the final policy in Trump world,” he said. “Somebody within the administration drives an announcement, there’s blowback, and then they end up modifying their plans.”

Tech companies have been trying to navigate a fine line in their relationship with Trump.

During Trump’s first term, high-profile tech executives, including those from Meta, Amazon, Google and Apple, spoke out about his administration’s order to restrict travel from several majority-Muslim countries. But in his second term, those same executives have cozied up to the Trump administration as they seek to influence AI policy and strike lucrative partnerships with the government.

They’ve contributed to his inauguration fund, appeared at high-profile press events, and attended a White House dinner, where Trump asked them how much they’re investing in the United States.

Microsoft declined to comment. Meta, Google and Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Changes to the H-1B program could also worsen relations with other countries, such as India, that send skilled tech workers to the U.S., experts said.

Indian nationals are the largest beneficiaries of the H-1B visa program, accounting for 71% of approved petitions, followed by those from China, at approximately 12%.

Some Indian venture capitalists and research institutes see a silver lining in this murky future. On social media, some have posted that the uncertainty surrounding H-1B visa rules could encourage talented engineers to return home to build startups, thereby fueling India’s tech sector. That would mean more competition for U.S. tech companies.

Kunal Bahl, an Indian tech investor and entrepreneur, posted “Come, build in India!” on social media. His firm, Titan Capital, launched a seed funding and mentorship program aimed at attracting students and professionals rethinking their future in the U.S. after the visa troubles.

Global tech companies might also consider opening more centers abroad where workers can work remotely and not have to move to the U.S., said Phil Fersht, the founder and chief executive of HFS Research.

“The more the U.S. makes itself a less attractive place to bring in talent,” he said, “the more it is going to harm its economy.”

Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday summoned a top United States diplomat in the country to discuss intelligence reports that US citizens have secretly tried to influence people in Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory coveted by US President Donald Trump, to oppose Danish rule.

Here is what Denmark has accused the US of doing and why Trump has ambitions to acquire Greenland.

What has Denmark accused the US of?

Denmark summoned Mark Stroh, the US charge d’affaires in Denmark, after the Danish public broadcaster, DR, reported on Wednesday that at least three Americans with links to Trump had been carrying out covert operations that sought to encourage Greenland to break away from Denmark and instead join the US. DR cited unnamed sources.

Greenland, which is situated between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean, is the world’s largest island and is geographically part of North America.

The three American individuals, who DR reported were being closely watched by Danish authorities, were not named by the broadcaster. Their alleged activities include compiling lists of Greenlanders who support Trump and gathering information about tensions between Denmark and Greenland.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said: “Any interference in internal affairs in the kingdom of Denmark, and Greenlandic democracy, is unacceptable.”

“I note that the Americans have not clearly rejected the DR report today, and that is of course serious,” Fredriksen told Danish television.

Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Lokke Rasmussen also told AFP that he was aware of the “foreign actors” interested in Greenland’s position within Denmark.

Christine Nissen, chief analyst at Copenhagen-based think tank Europa, told Al Jazeera that Denmark’s summoning of a US diplomat was a “very rare” event.

“Summoning the US charge d’affaires for a formal protest is something Denmark only does in exceptional circumstances, and it signals just how seriously Copenhagen views the situation. It is clearly not routine diplomacy but a strong signal of protest,” said Nissen.

“Denmark has only done this once before in recent years – and notably over the same issue, when it summoned the US ambassador in response to a Wall Street Journal report suggesting that US intelligence agencies had been tasked with investigating Greenland’s independence movement and resource potential.”

In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that US intelligence agencies had been instructed by several high-ranking intelligence officials under US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to collect information about Greenland’s independence movement and local views on the US gaining access to Greenland’s natural resources.

The WSJ, which quoted two unnamed sources familiar with the issue, reported that the intelligence agencies had been tasked specifically with identifying Greenlanders and people from Denmark who supported US objectives for Greenland.

In May, when this report was published, Fredriksen told The Associated Press that the report was “rumours”, adding: “You cannot spy against an ally.”

After that report was published, Gabbard’s office released a statement, saying: “The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of aiding deep state actors who seek to undermine the President by politicising and leaking classified information … Those who leak classified information will be found and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

How has the US responded?

The US State Department released a statement confirming that the charge d’affaires and deputy chief of the US mission in Copenhagen, Mark Stroh, had met with officials from the Danish Foreign Ministry.

Stroh had “a productive conversation and reaffirmed the strong ties among the Government of Greenland, the United States, and Denmark”, the statement said. It added that the US respects “the right of the people of Greenland to determine their own future”.

However, the US State Department did not comment on the claims about the actions of US citizens. “The US government does not control or direct the actions of private citizens,” it stated.

What has Trump said about Greenland?

Greenland is home to about 56,000 people, most of whom are from the Indigenous Inuit community.

Since Trump’s first term, the US president has expressed an interest in Greenland’s accession to the US. Back then, Trump cancelled a trip to Copenhagen after Denmark refused to sell Greenland to the US.

During his second term as president, Trump has stepped up his interest in Greenland. In late December 2024, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that “the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity”.

In response to this, Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede said in a written statement: “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”

In January, ahead of his son Donald Trump Jr’s trip to Greenland, Trump again wrote on Truth Social: “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation.”

After this, Frederiksen said: “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” Rasmussen emphasised that Greenland did not want to become a part of the US.

Trump once again raised his ambitions to acquire Greenland in March, ahead of US Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the island. “We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark,” Trump told reporters at the White House, adding that the US will go “as far as we have to go” to make it happen.

“I have to say that it is unacceptable pressure being placed on Greenland and Denmark in this situation. And it is pressure that we will resist,” Frederiksen told Danish media at the time.

While Vance was initially slated to visit multiple towns, he cut his itinerary short to one day after news of his visit was met with anger in Europe. He ended up visiting the US Pituffik military base, which Greenland hosts.

During his trip, Vance took aim at Denmark, saying: “You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. You have underinvested in the people of Greenland and you have underinvested in the security of this incredible, beautiful landmass.”

What is so important about Greenland?

Greenland is rich in minerals, including rare earth minerals essential for manufacturing batteries and high-tech products. A 2023 survey found that Greenland contains 25 out of 34 minerals designated as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission.

However, Greenland does not extract oil and gas since mining is opposed by the Indigenous communities there. The island’s economy relies primarily on its fishing industry.

The island is also strategically important to the US because it sits on the shortest route from North America to Europe, potentially providing the US with a strategic advantage in military operations and its ballistic missile early-warning system.

How have Denmark and Europe responded to Trump’s ambitions to acquire Greenland?

Officials from Denmark and Greenland have rebuked Trump and repeatedly stated that Greenland is “not for sale”.

In December, Denmark announced it would boost defence spending in Greenland by $1.5bn after Trump expressed his desire to take over the autonomous island.

European leaders have expressed solidarity with Denmark.

In January, after Trump refused to rule out military force to take Greenland, European leaders warned Trump against threatening “sovereign borders”.

“Borders must not be moved by force. This principle applies to every country, whether in the East or the West,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz wrote in an X post. France’s foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said that Greenland was “European territory” and there was “no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be … attack its sovereign borders”.

Although Greenland is not a member of the European Union, it is included on the EU’s list of Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs).

In June, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Greenland in a show of solidarity.

“It’s important to show that Denmark and Europe are committed to this territory, which has very high strategic stakes and whose territorial integrity must be respected,” Macron said during his visit.

Prior to his visit, Macron said during a United Nations Ocean Conference that Greenland and the deep seas were not “up for grabs”.

Are there other points of tension between the US and Denmark?

Tension between the US and Denmark emerged recently after the Trump administration stopped work on a nearly complete wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island in the US by Orsted, one of Denmark’s largest companies.

The Revolution Wind project was about 80 percent complete when it received the stop order on August 23. The stop order cited a need to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests” without providing further details. On Monday, Orsted shares plunged 17 percent, hitting an all-time low.

In January, research by polling agency YouGov, shared with British newspaper The Guardian, showed that 46 percent of people surveyed in Denmark saw the US as either a “fairly big threat” or a “very big threat” to Denmark.

The US and Denmark are both founding members of NATO, and Denmark fought alongside the US in its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

How does Greenland feel about the US and Denmark?

Greenland was ruled by Denmark from the early 1700s until 1979, when it became a self-governing territory. Since 2009, Greenland has had the legal right to declare independence if its people choose to do so through a referendum.

All three major parties in Greenland support independence for the island, but have different ideas about the timeline for this and want Greenlanders to decide for themselves. Prime Minister Egede’s Inuit Ataqatigiit party supports independence but does not want to rush the process.

According to a poll conducted in January by pollster Verian, commissioned by the Danish newspaper Berlingske, 56 percent of Greenlanders would vote for independence if a referendum was held. Seventeen percent of Greenlanders responded saying they “don’t know” whether or not they would vote for Greenland to become an independent state.

Yet there is scant evidence that even those who want independence from Denmark want to join the US.

Meanwhile, tensions with Denmark exist, too.

The Danish government forcefully separated Inuit children from their families in 1951 and forced contraception upon 4,500 Inuit women – at least half of fertile Inuit females – during the 1960s and 1970s.

On Wednesday, Fredriksen apologised to the Inuit women who were forced to wear an intrauterine device (IUD) without their consent.

“We cannot change what has happened. But we can take responsibility. Therefore, on behalf of Denmark, I would like to say: I am sorry,” she said in a statement.

Famine in Gaza from Israel’s deliberate starvation policy has pushed more than half a million people into immediate danger.

Yet Israel is intensifying its war, backed by the United States and other Western allies.

How can an engineered famine be allowed happen in the 21st century?

Presenter:

Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Dr Tarek Loubani – Emergency physician and medical director at the Glia Project

Tess Ingram – Spokesperson for the UN children’s agency, UNICEF

Michael Fakhri – UN special rapporteur on the right to food

About ten times each day, giant freight trains pass along a narrow section of track along the Sacramento River in far northern California where engineers on the locomotives regularly tense up with stress.

“Every single time, it’s a near miss” of a train hitting a person, said Ryan Snow, the California State Chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. “Multiple near misses, every single run. My nightmare is that a family that isn’t paying attention gets hit.”

This particular stretch of track, which wends north from the town of Dunsmuir, is a renegade route for hikers to one of northern California’s most enchanting natural sights, Mossbrae Falls. Fed from glaciers on Mount Shasta, the water pours out of lava tubes and down mossy cliffs, forming a verdant and ethereal cascade into a calm, shaded swimming hole.

It appears magical. It is also inaccessible —unless visitors trespass more than a mile on on the tracks or wade across the river. Accidents have happened. Two people have been struck by trains in the last few years (although both survived.) In May a Southern California woman drowned after trying to reach the falls via the river. But the tourists keep coming. Drawn by Instagram and Tiktok, increasing numbers of people have taken to visiting the falls — nearly 30,000 according to a city study, the majority of them by trespassing up the train tracks.

For years, outdoor enthusiasts in and around Dunsmuir have pushed Union Pacific Railroad, which owns the tracks, to work with the city to create a safe, accessible, legal path. But the effort has been dogged by delays.

This week, the train workers union decided to enter the fray, issuing a press release decrying the slow progress and calling on Union Pacific to do more to make the long-held dream of a trail a reality.

“Each month that goes by without a real construction timeline, lives are put at risk,” Snow said in a statement. The statement also accused Union Pacific of “slow-walking” the project, saying railroad officials have called for meeting after meeting, but has never produced a right-of-way commitment or a clear construction timeline.

Many engineers, Snow said, are frustrated and feel the delay “unfairly endangers both railroad personnel and the public.”

In a statement, Union Pacific said that the railroad had “approved the concept of a trail into Mossbrae Falls years ago, and we have been working with the City of Dunsmuir and the Mount Shasta Trail Association to find solutions that address everyone’s safety concerns.”

Earlier this summer, Dunsmuir city officials held a “summit” with Union Pacific officials to tour the falls and talk about the proposed trail connection.

City officials said the summit, which included representatives from local elected officials offices as well as railroad officials from Omaha and Denver, marked “a new milestone in the slow but steady process.” A city press release noted that “key Union Pacific officials had the opportunity to see the falls for the first time, recognizing the importance of building public access to this beautiful natural resource.”

But some longtime trail advocates said they were not convinced that the dream is any closer. John Harch, a retired surgeon with the Mount Shasta Trail Assn. and has been working with others for years on public access, said he still didn’t see evidence of concrete progress.

“Here we sit, as before, while people risk their lives to see the falls,” he wrote in an email.

Snow said he hopes the public can put pressure on the parties to make concrete progress.

“We’ve been lucky that we haven’t had any fatalities caused by a trespasser strike,” he said. “The worst thing an engineer can do is hit somebody. It’s stressful.”

Meanwhile, he said, the route is only becoming more popular. “It’s in hiking magazines, and on the internet everywhere. It’s attracting more and more people.”

He added: “I can’t blame them. It’s beautiful.”

CHILLING new audio reveals the moment OceanGate’s founder fired the company’s operations director who voiced safety concerns about the ill-fated Titan sub.

The audio clip was obtained by Netflix and has been used in its documentary Titan: The OceanGate Disaster.

9

9

9

9

9

American businessman Stockton Rush, who would go on to be one of the victims of the Titan disaster, can be heard David Lochridge in the clip.

Lochridge had raised concerns around the safety of the submersible ahead of its doomed voyage.

Rush tells him: “I don’t want anybody in this company who is uncomfortable with what we are doing. 

“We’re doing weird s*** here. I’m definitely out of the mold, I am doing things that are completely non-standard.

“I’m sure the industry thinks I’m a f****** idiot.

“That’s fine, they’ve been doing that for years. And I’m going to continue on the way I am doing.”

A woman can be heard saying: “We need David on this crew, in my opinion we need him here.”

Lochridge says Rush’s remarks left him “a tad let down” and “pretty gutted”. 

 “This is the first time on paper I’ve ever put any health and safety concerns,” he adds.

“You know every expedition we have had, we’ve had issues.”

Rush concedes the point, and Lochridge asks him: “Do you now want to let me go?”

But Rush bluntly replies: “I don’t see we have a choice.”

Rush would later die on board the Titan alongside Hamish Harding, Shahzada Dawood, Suleman Dawood and Paul-Henri Nargeolet.  

The vessel imploded during a June 2023 expedition that initially prompted a major rescue operation.

9

9

9

9

Speaking to filmmakers, Lochridge said: “To me it was just sheer arrogance.

“I didn’t know what to say, but I was blown away that at this point they were willing to play Russian roulette.”

Lochridge was fired back in 2018 after he had worked at the firm for three years.

In one email to an associate, he expressed fears that Rush would be killed, the MailOnline has reported.

“I don’t want to be seen as a tattle tale but I’m so worried he kills himself and others in the quest to boost his ego,” he said.

“I would consider myself pretty ballsy when it comes to doing things that are dangerous, but that sub is an accident waiting to happen.”

Lochridge would go on to inform the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of Titan’s safety issues after he was fired.

He reportedly got a settlement and release agreement from OceanGate’s lawyers after flagging these concerns with OSHA.

How the Titan tragedy unfolded

By Katie Davis, Chief Foreign Reporter (Digital)

FIVE men plunged beneath the surface of the North Atlantic in a homemade sub in a bid to explore the Titanic wreckage.

Four passengers paid £195,000 each to go on the sub, with the fifth member of the trip being a crew member.

But what was supposed to be a short trip spiralled into days of agony as the doomed Titan vanished without a trace on June 18, 2023.

The daring mission had been months in the making – and almost didn’t happen at the hands of harsh weather conditions in Newfoundland, Canada.

In a now chilling Facebook post, passenger Hamish Harding wrote: “Due to the worst winter in Newfoundland in 40 years, this mission is likely to be the first and only manned mission to the Titanic in 2023.

“A weather window has just opened up and we are going to attempt a dive tomorrow.”

It would be his final Facebook post.

The following morning, he and four others – led by Stockton Rush – began the 12,5000ft descent towards the bottom of the Atlantic.

But as it made its way down into the depths, the vessel lost all contact with its mother ship on the surface, the Polar Prince.

It sparked a frantic four-day search for signs of life, with the hunt gripping the entire world.

There was hope that by some miracle, the crew was alive and desperately waiting to be saved.

But that sparked fears rescue teams faced a race against time as the passengers only had a 96-hour oxygen supply when they set out, which would be quickly dwindling.

Then, when audio of banging sounds was detected under the water, it inspired hope that the victims were trapped and signalling to be rescued.

It heartbreakingly turned out that the banging noises were likely either ocean noises or from other search ships, the US Navy determined.

Countries around the world deployed their resources to aid the search, and within days the Odysseus remote-operated vehicle (ROV) was sent down to where the ghostly wreck of the Titanic sits.

The plan was for the ROV to hook onto the sub and bring it up 10,000ft, where it would meet another ROV before heading to the surface.

But any hopes of a phenomenal rescue were dashed when Odysseus came across a piece of debris from the sub around 1,600ft from the Titanic.

The rescue mission tragically turned into a salvage task, and the heartbroken families of those on board were told the devastating news.

It was confirmed by the US Coast Guard that the sub had suffered a “catastrophic implosion”.

At the top of a hill in a sprawling Santa Clarita industrial park in the shadow of Magic Mountain’s roller coasters, a significant chapter in the history of motorsports was written.

But the story isn’t finished yet.

From the outside, the building is nothing special. Behind its walls, however, Honda Racing Corporation has designed, tested and built the engines that have won 14 of the last 21 IndyCar championships and all five IndyCar races this season. In Sunday’s Indianapolis 500, a race Honda has won 15 times since 2004, four of the top six starters will have Honda engines, including two-time winner Takuma Sato, who qualified second.

It’s a level of dominance unmatched in IndyCar history — in a series Honda probably helped save.

A technician works on an engine at Honda Racing Corporation. All of Honda’s engines for North American racing series are built in Santa Clarita.

(Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

Amid the open-wheel civil war between Championship Auto Racing Teams and the Indy Racing League, Honda was prepared to walk away. Robert Clarke, who started Honda Performance Development (before it was renamed HRC in 2024) and made it a cutting-edge research and development facility, convinced American Honda president Koichi Amemiya to supply engines to IRL teams in 2003 after Honda left CART in 2002.

“It just was not Honda’s image of what a race car should be. That’s why Honda initially didn’t want to be involved,” Clarke said. “In my discussion with the president it was ‘OK, we developed all these skills and know-how. Are we just going to give that up and just walk away?’ That’s crazy.

”We invested literally billions of dollars. And we’ve seen the success.”

Chevrolet and Toyota eventually did quit, leaving Honda as the only IndyCar engine manufacturer for six seasons. Amemiya then doubled down, funding Honda’s move to its 123,000-square-foot home while expanding its workforce to 250 from an original staff of fewer than 10.

Honda hasn’t looked in the rearview mirror since.

Clarke, 75, left Honda in 2008 though he’s still something of an executive emeritus, one who wears the brand on his sleeve and often refers to the company with the collective pronoun “we.”

Robert Clarke, left, speaks to IndyCar driver Dario Franchitti at Mid-Ohio Race Course in July 2007.

(Jay LaPrete / Associated Press)

He was 10 when his father took him to his first race to watch a friend run in an amateur open-wheel event. When young Robert was invited into the garage and allowed to work on the car “I was hooked,” he said. “My bedroom walls were covered with pictures of Formula One cars and all kinds of racing.”

He took the long road to Honda racing, though, studying architecture and art/industrial design in college, then teaching for five years at Notre Dame. His first job at Honda was in the motorcycle accessory and product planning departments but when the company announced it was going to enter open-wheel racing, Clarke volunteered and he was soon tasked with building the program from the ground up.

That was in 1993. By the time Clarke left Honda 15 years later, the company’s place as a major force in IndyCar racing was secure and Honda’s two-story hilltop headquarters became his legacy.

The focus of work in the building now is mainly on supporting Honda teams in IndyCar and the IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship. As such, it has become a one-stop shop for racing teams, housing comprehensive engine research and development operations; prototype and production parts manufacturing; engine preparation and rebuilding; a material analysis facilities; more than a half-dozen engine dynamometer test cells; a machine shop; electronics lab; parts center; multiple conference rooms; and administrative offices.

A view of the machine shop at the at the Honda Racing Corporation in Santa Clarita.

(Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

Next year it will provide support for Honda’s effort to supply Formula One engines to Aston Martin.

Mostly the building is a maze of quiet office space where engineers sketch out their designs on computer screens, well-lit assembly bays where mechanics assemble the prototypes, and the noisy high-tech dyno rooms where those prototypes are tested. Every stage of a racing engine, from conception and construction to being shipped to the track, is managed at the facility.

“We develop the technology quickly,” said David Salters, the British-born engineer who heads HRC. “We try them. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t work and you try again. The point of having a racing facility inside your company is you can be agile. You can try stuff. You can train the people.

“The people are the most important thing of all this.”

The whole process is more NASA than NASCAR in that there’s not a speck of grease or oil on the bright, white vinyl flooring and everybody’s hands are clean.

David Salters, president of Honda Racing Corporation.

(Michael L. Levitt / LAT Images via American Honda Motor Co.)

“This is a world-class facility. It needs to be clinical and professional in the processes and systems we have here,” said Salters, who was head of engine development for the Ferrari F1 team and held a similar position at Mercedes-Benz before joining Honda a decade ago.

“It’s like an operating theater. We’re basically dealing with engines or electrical systems, which are like jewelry. They cannot tolerate dirt or anything like that. Everything has to be spotless and clean and well-organized. This is aerospace.”

And when the engines don’t work, they’re brought back to HRC and the engineering process is repeated in reverse in search of flaws. As for why they’re doing all that in a sleepy bedroom community better known for its paved bike paths and rustic hiking trails than for its motorsports history, that’s easy: Location, location, location.

Clarke originally expected to recruit engineers from Indianapolis and Charlotte, N.C., the heartland of American racing, while Honda insisted on keeping its operations near its corporate offices in Torrance. Clarke feared dropping people from the Midwest and South into L.A.’s traffic-clogged sprawl would be such a culture shock, he’d lose his best engineers.

So he chose Santa Clarita, which was isolated enough to not feel like L.A., but close enough to Torrance to be accessible. And the building came with an “Only in L.A.” feature: It shares a driveway with the studio where the popular TV series “NCIS” is filmed.

“Every so often a helicopter will land in the car park and we’re all told we can’t go outside in case we get swept away,” Salters said with a chuckle. “There was some ‘Star Trek’ thing where they decided our foyer could be useful. So for a few weeks we had a movie set in our foyer; we rented it out.

“You’ve got to look at business opportunities.”

Adi Susilo, chief engineer of powertrain at Honda Racing Corporation, looks over large monitors before the start of the 12 Hours of Sebring in March.

(Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

It’s early on a chilly Saturday in March and HRC’s headquarters is mostly empty save for one corner on the building’s second floor where nearly a dozen people, some wearing headphones, have gathered behind computer screens facing six giant TV monitors.

A continent away, in central Florida, more than 50 cars are lined up for the 12 hours of Sebring. Each driver with a Honda engine has an engineer monitoring their car’s performance.

Before the pandemic, engineers would travel and work with race teams on site. But for the last four years the engineers have been working mostly at HRC, monitoring in-car telemetry that provides real-time information about everything from engine status and tire pressure to suspension behavior.

“Data is king,” said Adi Susilo, one of the HRC engineers. “Humans make mistakes. Data rarely does.”

F1 teams have monitored telemetry remotely for years, but it didn’t become common in IndyCar racing until 2023. Now it’s a vital part of every major racing series, including NASCAR.

Powertrain chief engineer Adi Susilo looks at a full-size mock up of an IMSA prototype at Honda Racing Corporation.

(Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

Engineers work out of what looks like a college classroom, only quieter. When the sound of a disembodied voice does cackle out of a headphone, it sounds like NASA Mission Control, the tone flat and unemotional, the conversation short and to the point.

“It’s better for solving problems,” said Susilo about working away from the track. “If there’s a problem, you just walk downstairs and talk to the guy who built the engine.”

That won’t be the case Sunday. For the Indy 500, Susilo said it’s all hands on deck, so most of Honda’s race-day engineers are in Indianapolis where the telemetry will be broadcast to their work stations in trailers at the track.

“A few of the IndyCar races are run that way,” he said, “but the 500 is almost always run that way just because everyone’s out here for the event. We’re also testing a new, hopefully more robust, telemetry streaming as it’s much harder to make sure we get 15 car’s worth of data.”

At first, the idea of having engineers looming electronically over the timing stand was a hard sell. Trusting someone with clean fingernails watching the race on monitors thousands of miles away wasn’t easy for some crew chiefs.

“What happens for people like me is that you have to erase the old-school way of thinking,” said Mike Hull, a former mechanic and driver who is now the managing director for Chip Ganassi Racing and chief strategist for driver Scott Dixon, a six-time IndyCar champion. “You’re electronically shoulder to shoulder with them.

“If you don’t listen to what somebody has to say, it stifles free thinking. Free thinking sends you down a path that you may not have originally been on, but makes you stronger at what you’re doing.”

1

2

3

4

1. Race engines being assembled at Honda Racing Corporation. 2. A technician in the HRC machine shop works on an engine. 3. Engineers monitor data during the 12 Hours of Sebring in March. 4. A engineer monitors telemetry remotely from HRC headquarters. (Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

Dixon, the 2008 Indy 500 champion who will start Sunday’s race in the second row, agrees. Which is he why he’s made several trips to HRC to personally thank the engineers who design his engines and those who help direct his races.

“You always feel like there’s a big group behind you,” he said. “You just don’t get to see all them in one place but you know the machine is there, working pretty hard.”

One drawback, Dixon said, is you have to be careful what you say on the radio during races because you never know who’s listening.

“Twenty people at home, just on the team side, will be listening just on that one car,” he said. “So the communication is very wide open. You definitely have to watch your Ps and Qs.”

Two years later race teams have grown so comfortable with people looking over their shoulders, the engineers have become as much a part of the team as the cars. So when a nearby wildfire forced the evacuation of the building, Honda rented rooms at a nearby hotel, set up their TVs, computer monitors and a coffee machine in a conference room and worked from there.

“We’re pretty blind without it. The race teams are pretty competitive,” Susilo said. “They feel that instinct still does work. But it’s more data-driven.”

Honda powertain engineer Jake Marthaler monitors data during the 12 Hours of Sebring in March.

(Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

Given the investment, the pressure can be intense.

“Every two weeks we want to have the latest development. We want to have made progress,” Salters said. “Every two weeks you have a deadline and the deadline does not move. It’s not like they’re going to say ‘OK, we’ll just delay the race a week.’ The flag drops, you’ve got to be ready.

“It’s sort of an engineering sport isn’t it? It’s like a true sport; the best team will win.”

If the IndyCar-Honda marriage has mostly been good for both sides, it has recently hit a rocky patch.

Honda’s supply contract with IndyCar ends next year and the company hasn’t hid its distaste over the cheating scandals that have recently tarnished the series. Last week Team Penske drivers Josef Newgarden, the two-time defending Indy 500 champion, and Will Power were forced to the back of the field for the start of Sunday’s race after illegally modified parts were found on their cars. Team Penske, which uses Chevrolet engines, was also caught cheating at the beginning of the 2024 season.

On Wednesday, the team fired three of its top racing executives. IndyCar, which is owned by Roger Penske (also the owner of Team Penske) said it is exploring the creation of an independent governing body absent of Penske employees.

Scott Dixon drives into the first turn during practice for the Indianapolis 500 on Friday.

(Michael Conroy / Associated Press)

That may not be enough to restore trust in the series. Honda, which supplies engines to 13 full-season IndyCar entries and three Indy 500-only cars, has declined to comment on the rules violations, but confirmed its continued participation in the series beyond 2026 may depend on Penske’s ability to separate himself from policing the series he owns and also competes in.

Honda said in a written statement Thursday that it has many concerns, among them “the relatively high overall cost to participate as an engine supplier” and “the potential (perceived or real) conflict of interest which may exist” with Penske’s ownership of the racing series, three of the cars competing in the series and his “significant stake” in Ilmor Engineering, which designs and manufactures engines for Chevrolet, Honda’s biggest competitor.

“Honda continues to have ongoing negotiations with IndyCar’s management and technical teams regarding our future as an engine supplier for the series,” said Chuck Chayefsky, manager of Honda & Acura Motorsports.

Whatever road Honda takes with IndyCar, it’s unlikely to change most of the day-to-day work at HRC, which is heavily involved with IMSA and will soon be working on F1 power-unit development.

So while the cars may change, the racing will never stop.

The car Ryan Hunter-Reay drove to victory for Andretti Autosport in the 2014 Indianapolis 500 sits on display at Honda Racing Corporation in Santa Clarita.

(Robert Hanashiro / For the Times)

“Thirty years ago our sole purpose in life was to look after racing in North America for Honda and Acura,” Salters said before last week’s events in Indianapolis. “Last year we changed that. We’re now part of a global racing organization. That’s another opportunity for associates here.”

“The automotive world, it’s pivoting,” he continued. “We are trying some new stuff. We’ll see how it goes.”

One chapter has been written. But the story isn’t finished.

The Trump administration’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is a serious challenge to the 14th Amendment, which enshrined a radical principle of our democratic experiment: that anyone born here is an American. But the order will most affect average Americans — whose own citizenship, until this point, has been presumed and assured — rather than the intended target, illegal immigrants. The irony is hiding in plain sight.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, birthright citizenship is not entirely settled U.S. law. The executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and it is very narrowly drafted to exploit this uncertainty by rejecting citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents. Federal law and practice has recognized American citizenship to anyone born here since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. But that case did not specifically protect the birthright of children born in the United States to noncitizen, nonresident aliens.

This is a massive blind spot that states are sleep-walking into. They are depending on weak legal precedent, federal code, policy and hair-splitting over the meaning of “subject of the jurisdiction thereto.” In a brief, the states argue that the “understanding of birthright citizenship has permeated executive agency guidance for decades — and no prior administration has deviated from it.” But that won’t matter to this Supreme Court, which has demonstrated a certain glee in dismantling precedent. There is a clear risk that the justices could fundamentally restrict the definition of birthright citizenship and overturn the 1898 ruling.

The executive order directs the federal government not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born to parents unlawfully present here — but also to parents who are here legally but temporarily. This second group is a potentially vast population (the State Department issued 14.2 million nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2024) that includes students, artists, models, executives, investors, laborers, engineers, academics, tourists, temporary protected status groups, ship and plane crews, engineers, asylees, refugees and humanitarian parolees.

A limited change targeting a specific population — nonresident aliens — will have huge effects on those who will least expect it: American citizen parents giving birth to children in the United States. Until this point, a valid, state-issued birth certificate established prima facie evidence of U.S. citizenship to every child born in the country. That would no longer be the case if citizenship depended on verifying certain facts about every U.S.-born child’s parents. With that presumption removed by executive order, citizenship must be adjudicated by a federal official.

I know what that adjudication involves. I was a U.S. consular officer in Latin America, and both of my children were born overseas to married U.S. citizen parents carrying diplomatic passports. But because they did not have the presumption of citizenship conferred by an American birth certificate, we had to go to the U.S. Consulate for adjudication of transmission to demonstrate to the U.S. government that our children were American citizens.

This was document-intensive and time-consuming. Each time, we filled out forms. We photographed the baby in triplicate. We swore an oath before the consular officer. We brandished our passports. We presented the baby to the consular officer. We surrendered the local birth certificate. We demonstrated our hospital stay. Only then did we receive a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and only with that report could we apply for U.S. passports for our children. Without the report or a passport, our children could neither leave the country of their birth nor enter the United States.

That is an evidentiary and bureaucratic burden that all natural-born American citizens have until now not had to bear. The Trump administration’s change, if allowed by courts, will require those same parents to prove their own citizenship to the federal government. Good luck, because showing your birth certificate wouldn’t be sufficient in the new regime: The government would require proof not only that you were born in the U.S., but also that at least one of your parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. (Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over this “practical question” during oral arguments last week.)

Americans several generations removed from their immigrant forebears — even those whose ancestors came to North America 10,000 years ago — will suddenly be treated like the unlawfully present parents they thought this rule was designed to exclude.

This rule will lead to chaos, even danger. The federal bureaucracy will have to expand drastically to adjudicate the 3.5 million children born here every year. (For comparison, 1 million people are issued permanent residency status each year and 800,000 become naturalized citizens. This population is typically much better documented than a newborn.) Fearing immigration enforcement, undocumented parents will avoid hospitals for childbirth, dramatically escalating medical risk for mother and baby. Because hospitals also generate birth certificates — as Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted last week — those babies will form a large, new and entirely avoidable population of stateless children.

It is a truism in some communities that ancestors and family members came to this country legally. But the administration is prepared to dismantle the presumption of citizenship that has been a literal birthright for 125 years. U.S. citizenship is on the brink of becoming a privilege rather than a right, bestowed on those who can afford protracted bureaucratic struggles. Most of the burden will fall on those who least expected it: American parents themselves.

James Thomas Snyder is a former U.S. consular officer and NATO International Staff member.