woes

Gas prices are high. Diesel prices are higher — about $8 a gallon in California, $2 more than the national average.

For truckers, that’s a crisis. Their big rigs get about a paltry six miles to the gallon and filling their tanks in the Golden State now costs up to $2,500 a pop. For the guys who own a single truck or the small companies (which is the majority of trucking businesses), it can be hard to pass along those extra fuel costs to customers — which, as my colleague Nilesh Christoper wrote about, is causing a lot of pain in the industry.

Truckers everywhere are stomping mad, and it’s a problem for President Trump and Republicans heading into the midterms. Eventually, higher diesel prices are going to mean higher prices on the goods those trucks are transporting, and that’s an even bigger problem.

Trump has been throwing spaghetti at the wall trying out one limp solution after another to bring prices down — cutting taxes, brokering deals with Russia, telling us it’s just not a problem. But of course, it is.

Truck drivers fill they diesel tanks at United Oil in Long Beach on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

One Southern California energy expert has spent recent days in Washington, D.C., trying to convince the administration that the solution lies in California, in the vast oil reserves under our cities and farms that we largely leave untapped for environmental reasons. Environment aside, it’s a long-running and compelling (to some, anyway) argument that may have found its moment, meaning California might become Trump’s next solution — or at least scapegoat — to a costly problem.

More on that, but first, a recap of where we are.

The red dye ploy

Three thousand years ago in Trump time, but which I mean earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that allowed truckers to use red dye diesel as a way to lower costs.

Red dye diesel is, you guessed it, my genius readers, diesel that has been dyed red — to differentiate it from the stuff at truck stops. Farmers and other agricultural types are allowed to buy red dye diesel without certain taxes to use in tractors and other equipment that doesn’t run on our roads.

The Trump order allows truckers to buy red dye and defer paying the roughly 25-cent-per-gallon federal tax on it. So it’s not really saving them money, just delaying payment.

“It’s a small step, but nonetheless, it’s a positive step,” said Michael Mische, a professor at the USC Marshall School of Business whose conservative-leaning take on energy policy has often raised the ire of the Newsom administration.

President Trump signs an executive order to lower the cost of diesel fuel during a campaign rally on Oct. 5, 2026, in Grand Island, Neb.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

But there’s a problem with Trump’s red dye plan. States have their own laws about red dye diesel, and the feds can’t change them. So even if truckers could find a place to buy red dye diesel (again, not sold at regular gas stations), and even if the incentive of paying taxes later made the search seem worthwhile, they would often be breaking state laws.

Eric Sauer, chief executive of the California Trucking Assn., a trade group that advocates for the industry, said his group has been advising members not to use the crimson fuel until it’s clear that states are going to change their rules. Some, like Missouri, have. California has not.

Either way, Sauer said, allowing truckers to use diesel dyed red really doesn’t increase the overall supply, just shifts it around — which is unlikely to bring prices down.

“It’s still the same supply of diesel fuel out there,” Sauer said.

Global supply

The global supply of crude oil, has been, shall we say, negatively affected by our war with Iran. Despite Trump’s assurances that the conflict is winding down, two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked this week, highlighting that perhaps Iran is unaware the war is over. Fears of that conflict and others sent energy prices soaring even higher.

Faced with that unpleasant reality, Trump this week also announced he was lifting sanctions on diesel exports from Russia, a move that shocked his own party and most of the world.

The PCK petroleum refinery stands illuminated at twilight on April 28, 2026, in Schwedt, Germany. The refinery, which produces gasoline, diesel, kerosene and bitumen, receives 20% of its oil from Kazakhstan through the Russian Druzhba pipeline.

(Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

That deal could bring 36 million barrels of Russian diesel, at most, to American shores, which sounds like a lot until you realize we use about 4 million barrels of the stuff every day. So Trump essentially sold out Ukraine and demolished what was left of our European standing for nine days of diesel — an amount unlikely to lower prices.

In California, that’s especially true because, as UC Berkeley professor Aaron Smith points out, about 70% of our diesel “is actually not made from crude oil and coming from oil refineries. It’s made from vegetable oils and animal fats.”

Yes, the Golden State relies heavily on so-called renewable diesel that, Smith says, “introduces, I think, another wrinkle” when trying to lower costs.

California’s fault

But let’s get back to Mische, the USC professor. For years, he’s been arguing that California’s refusal to pump more oil should be viewed as a national security concern.

California actually imports the majority of its crude oil, more than 60% from other countries, and our refineries for a number of debated reasons have been closing. Our imports have been growing in recent years. We also have no pipelines connecting us to the rest of the U.S., unlike many other states. That means we can’t easily get oil except what’s shipped in through our ports.

At the same time, the West Coast with its many military installations is undeniably pivotal to national security. Mische argues that without adequate fuel reserves for a shortage — like during a war — our military readiness could be jeopardized. He wants to see California not only pump more, but for the federal government to store more of that California crude.

A train of tank cars enters the Chevron EL Segundo refinery, one of the largest petroleum processing facilities in California, on April 8, 2026. California imports approximately 75% of its crude oil, with nearly one-third of the crude supplied from the Middle East. Prices at the pump in the state are averaging $5.93 per gallon today amid the war in Iran.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

These arguments haven’t gained much traction in our heavily Democratic state, which has moved forcefully away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources in recent years and which has little interest in increasing drilling. But Mische and his colleagues may have found their moment.

Earlier this year, they wrote draft executive orders about California’s oil industry that he says the Trump administration is considering — one would attempt to force California to pump more oil using the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Trump has used that wartime act several times in the last few months, and Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance announced it would be used to expand production at a Texas oil refinery.

Mische said he spent last week in conversations with the administration on the proposed orders and is “confident” Trump will “issue additional executive orders under the Defense Production Act for California” by the end of the year.

Beyond the national security argument, such orders could please Trump because they do two things. First, if California pumps its own oil, it could free up some imported oil for other states, which could lower prices — though it would certainly take time and require more refinery capacity.

Second, and likely of more interest to the White House, it makes California — and Newsom — the villain for this sticky Republican problem. California will sue, of course, which would just help the Trump political narrative.

Kevin de León, a California Senate president emeritus and author of SB 100, California’s landmark 100% clean energy law, said he can easily envision Trump claiming that “we have lots of cheap oil in the United States that can lower your gas prices — but crazy lefty California is blocking us.”

Actually, it’s hard to imagine Trump not grabbing the chance to blame gas prices on the Golden State — or Newsom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: ‘Very few people out in the streets’: ICE surge rattles California’s Central Valley

The California angle: Justice Dept. demands California prove citizenship for lists of voters or withhold ballots

The L.A. Times Special: The U.S is in the death business. Newsom can change that, and win votes
Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

So supposedly loaded were the Super Bowl-favorite Rams, they earned four prime-time appearances in their first five games.

And from a purely entertainment standpoint, the Rams were not living up to their billing.

Monday night’s matchup against the Buffalo Bills provided the latest showcase.

The Rams delivered some thrills — but not a victory.

Tyler Bass kicked a 45-yard field goal with 1:55 left in overtime, sending the Rams to a 37-34 loss before 73,882 at SoFi Stadium.

Special teams miscues and penalties once again hampered the Rams in a game that featured three touchdown passes by Matthew Stafford and a career-best 17 catches by Puka Nacua.

Just as they did two years ago, when the Rams outlasted the Bills for a 44-42 victory, the teams put on a show.

But the Rams’ record dropped to 2-3, the fourth time in the last five seasons the Rams are 2-3 or worse after five games.

In 2022, when the Bills blew out the Rams in the opener at SoFi Stadium, the Rams were 2-3 en route to a 5-12 finish, the worst Super Bowl hangover in NFL history.

In 2023, the Rams were 2-3 before rallying to finish 10-7. The Detroit Lions eliminated the Rams in the NFC wild-card round. The next season, the Rams started 1-4, finished 10-7 again and lost to the Philadelphia Eagles in the divisional round.

Monday’s game was a matchup between the two previous NFL most valuable players, Bills quarterback Josh Allen in 2024 and Stafford in 2025. It was the first game between consecutive MVPs who play in separate conferences since 2015 when Peyton Manning went against Aaron Rodgers.

Stafford completed 40 of 54 passes for 383 yards, including two touchdown passes to Davante Adams and another to Nacua, who had 138 receiving yards.

Allen, who accounted for six touchdowns in a 44-42 loss to the Rams two years ago, completed 12 of 19 passes for 210 yards and a touchdown, and he rushed for 121 yards and a touchdown as the Bills improved to 4-1.

This was supposed to be a special season for the Rams.

But it has turned into a special teams nightmare.

Harrison Mevis failed to convert two field-goal attempts, including a winning kick in overtime that was blocked by Buffalo linebacker Greg Rousseau. The Rams also gave up a 70-yard return on the opening kickoff.

Tyler Bass kicks a 45-yard field goal in overtime to seal the Bills’ 37-34 win over the Rams at SoFi Stadium on Monday night.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

The Rams continued their penalty-filled foibles: They were flagged 11 times for 84 yards, many of the pre-snap variety that drives coach Sean McVay crazy.

Special teams miscues and penalties hampered the Rams in the first half, and they trailed 13-7 at halftime.

The Rams took the lead early in the second half when Stafford engineered a 60-yard drive that ended with Blake Corum’s one-yard touchdown run.

But late in the third quarter, the Bills took the lead on Allen’s touchdown pass to receiver Keon Coleman. The Bills missed the extra-point attempt, leaving them with a 19-14 lead.

The Rams immediately answered, Stafford connecting with tight end Tyler Higbee for 28 yards before Corum caught a pass and turned it into a 34-yard gain. That set up Stafford’s two-yard touchdown pass to Nacua early in the fourth quarter, but Stafford was sacked on a two-point conversion attempt, leaving the Rams with a 20-19 lead.

Rams linebacker Nate Landman punches the ball out of Bills running back James Cook III’s arms during the third quarter Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Allen then directed an 80-yard drive that he capped with a one-yard sneak, and his two-point conversion pass to tight end Dalton Kincaid gave the Bills a 27-20 lead with 11:28 left.

But the Rams tied the score on the next possession off a five-yard touchdown reception by Adams.

Allen, however, got the ball with just over seven minutes left, and had 15- and 21-yard scrambles during a drive that ended with James Cook III scoring on a five-yard run for a 34-27 lead with 1:39 left.

On the ensuing possession, Stafford completed a 14-yard pass to Adams and, one play later, found Nacua for 16 yards and then Adams for 15. A one-handed catch for nine yards by Kyren Williams moved the ball to the one-yard line, and Williams scored on the next play with five seconds left in regulation. Mevis’ extra-point tied the score.

Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford passes during the first half against the Bills on Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

The Bills got the ball first in overtime, and appeared on their way to a field goal or touchdown when Khalil Shakir gained 57 yards on a catch-and-run to the Rams’ 22. Rams safety Kamren Kinchens prevented Shakir from scoring when he just barely managed to trip up the Buffalo receiver.

But on the next play, linebacker Nate Landman punched the ball from Cook’s grasp and Aaron Donald recovered the fumble with 7:54 left.

Stafford drove the Rams to the Bills’ 30, but the Bills blocked Mevis’ attempt, setting the stage for the Bills’ winning drive.

Ten-man Tottenham fight back from a goal behind to draw 1-1 at Manchester United in the Premier League.

Dominic Solanke rescued a 1-1 draw for 10-man Tottenham to ramp up the pressure on Manchester United boss Michael Carrick on Saturday.

Solanke’s stoppage-time header edged Spurs off the foot of the Premier League table after it seemed like they would pay a heavy price for not taking their chances in a dominant display at Old Trafford.

Bryan Mbeumo put United in front against the run of play 17 minutes from time before Rodrigo Bentancur was shown a straight red card.

But not for the first time this season, Carrick’s men failed to make a man advantage count.

Manchester City won 1-0 at Old Trafford last month despite playing for more than an hour with 10 men.

Solanke stooped to head in Sandro Tonali’s cross to leave United with just six points from their opening six league games.

Tottenham had three weeks to fester on dropping to the bottom of the table during the international break after a disastrous start to their 300-million-pound ($397m) rebuild in the transfer window.

Roberto De Zerbi’s men took until the closing stages of their fifth league game to even score a goal, and a much-improved performance was undone by a familiar lack of cutting edge up front.

Before kickoff, the United supporters took aim at local rivals City, who have been found guilty on more than 100 charges of breaking Premier League financial rules.

But the home fans soon had their own troubles to concentrate on as Spurs penned United inside their own half.

Solanke should have opened the scoring when he fired too close to Senne Lammens before Mohammed Kudus blasted wide at the end of a flowing Tottenham move.

Chances continued to come and go for the visitors after the break, much to the frustration of a visibly animated De Zerbi.

Solanke spooned over, and Destiny Udogie curled wide before the game appeared to run away from Spurs.

Carrick helped turn the tide with a triple substitution on the hour mark.

Carlos Baleba added more dynamism to United’s midfield on his first appearance since a 70-million-pound ($92.6m) move from Brighton, while the introduction of Joshua Zirkzee allowed Matheus Cunha to drop into a deeper role.

United had barely threatened Antonin Kinsky’s goal until Mbeumo was afforded too much room to spin onto Cunha’s pass and fire into the far corner.

To compound Tottenham’s woes, Bentancur was then shown a straight red card for a headbutt on Luke Shaw after an angry confrontation between the pair.

But United again failed make their man advantage count.

Solanke finally ended Tottenham’s wait since May for an away goal when he outmuscled Lisandro Martinez to glance in Tonali’s cross.

The point edges Spurs up to 18th, with only goals scored keeping them inside the relegation zone.

United are just three points better off in 12th.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.

When Lincoln Riley hired Gary Patterson to be his third defensive coordinator in five seasons, the USC head coach naturally pointed to Patterson’s impressive track record.

His reputation, after all, was as one of the great defensive minds in the modern history of college football, a coach who, at Texas Christian, knew how to get more out of lesser talent. It stood to reason that he could do the same at USC, where they’d just signed the nation’s No. 1 recruiting class. And through the spring and summer, that appeared to be the case, as coaches and players alike raved about their new coordinator, who earlier this year was enshrined in the College Football Hall of Fame.

But as the Trojans approach the midway point of an increasingly tense campaign, Patterson and his defense have fallen drastically short of those expectations.

As USC welcomes Washington to the Coliseum with its season on the brink, its defense is currently allowing more than 6.14 yards per play, good for 115th nationally. The secondary, which has struggled with consistent miscommunication, is allowing 8.4 yards per pass play — more than either of former coordinator Alex Grinch’s defenses allowed at USC. And big plays are becoming a big problem. Only three defenses the country have allowed more explosive plays of 20-plus yards than USC (23), which is also in line with Grinch’s defenses.

USC coach Lincoln Riley and defensive coordinator Gary Patterson talk after a loss to Oregon at the Coliseum on Saturday.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

And all this despite the fact four of the Trojans’ first five games were against opponents who were expected to struggle against USC’s far superior talent.

Patterson has yet to answer questions about those early results. That’s because unlike Riley’s first two defensive coordinators at USC, who spoke at least weekly, Patterson has not spoken to reporters since the preseason.

Without any explanation from him for USC’s early issues, the numbers don’t exactly paint a promising portrait of Patterson’s season. But while Riley acknowledged that the defense has “had some breakdowns at all levels” and must “play tighter in all areas,” the coach insisted Thursday that the Trojans were close to reaching their potential on defense, again reassuring that there was “a lot of good on tape” on that side of the ball.

“We don’t necessarily need any level of the defense to make this massive jump,” Riley said. “We just need each level to play a little bit better and each level to play a little bit better together.”

Outside of USC’s Week 1 shutout of Fresno State, though, the Trojans haven’t looked particularly good at any level of the defense. The pass rush has been lacking, with only three sacks across USC’s four other games. And on the back end, the Trojans continue to be caught flat-footed, with defensive backs out of position.

One former USC defensive back, Max Williams, posited on social media that the Trojans’ secondary appeared to be getting the defensive calls too close to the snap of the ball. In another social media breakdown by a former Trojan player, former quarterback Max Browne suggested that USC’s defensive backs were often out of position before the play began, putting them behind.

Those problems have seemingly been exacerbated the past two weeks in Big Ten play, as Rutgers and Oregon combined to pile up 964 yards on USC’s defense. And the Ducks did it with a backup quarterback at the helm in Dylan Raiola, who converted all seven of his third- and fourth-down pass attempts.

Patterson’s defense will have another tough test this week in Washington quarterback Demond Williams Jr., who’s just as much a threat with his legs as his arm. The Trojans already had trouble with a dual-threat quarterback earlier this season, allowing Louisiana’s Lunch Winfield to rush for 94 yards during a Week 2 Trojans win.

Any further struggles from here for USC’s defense could spiral in a hurry. The Trojans travel to Penn State next weekend and still have No. 5 Indiana and No. 6 Ohio State on the schedule. They’ll have to win two of those three, plus all their other games, if they still hope to contend for the College Football Playoff.

Those hopes hinge largely on Patterson, who Riley bet before the season would finally bring him salvation on the defensive end.

Riley still has faith that bet will pay off. Mostly because “there’s very few that have been through as much as he has.”

“Trust me, nobody takes it more personal than him or takes more responsibility than he does,” Riley said of Patterson. “He’s done this for a long time. He’s done it at a high level. And there’s nobody, you know, more committed to getting it fixed.”