Google Maps to Rename Gulf of Mexico as 'Gulf of America' Following Trump's Executive Order

In a move that has sparked widespread debate, Google Maps has announced that it will rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America for U.S. users, following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The decision aligns with the administration’s directive to change geographic names in official government sources, including the U.S. Geological Survey’s Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). 

Google Maps has long followed a policy of updating place names based on official government sources. According to a company statement posted on X, Google applies name changes once they are reflected in government records. The Gulf of Mexico will retain its name for users in Mexico, while users in other countries will see both names listed.

This isn’t the first time Google has adjusted geographic names in response to government decisions. In 2015, the platform updated North America’s tallest peak to Denali after the Obama administration restored its Indigenous name from Mount McKinley. Under Trump’s directive, Mount McKinley is set to return to federal maps, and Google has confirmed it will reflect the change. Both changes stem from an executive action that Trump signed shortly after taking office last week, saying the changes “honor American greatness.”

The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico has drawn mixed reactions. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum dismissed the move, jokingly suggesting that North America should be renamed “América Mexicana” in retaliation. "By the way, we are also going to ask for Mexican America to appear on the map," she remarked. Sheinbaum also sent a letter to Google contesting the name change, arguing that the renaming would only apply within 12 nautical miles from the coastline, citing Mexico’s sovereignty in the area. She further proposed that when searching for "América Mexicana" on Google, the map from 1607, which labeled parts of North America as “Mexican America,” should appear.

Critics argue that renaming a body of water with deep historical and cultural significance is unnecessary and politically motivated. Supporters of the change believe it reinforces American national identity and aligns with Trump’s broader “America First” agenda. The executive order states, “It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes.”

This decision highlights the influence of private-sector bureaucracy in shaping public understanding of geography and history. As a dominant mapping platform, Google’s choices impact how millions perceive global landmarks. The situation also intersects with the commerce clause, as multinational tech firms must balance compliance with U.S. directives while adhering to international regulations.

Government agencies will soon begin updating official maps, and Google’s implementation will likely evolve based on domestic and international reactions. Legal challenges could arise, questioning the executive branch’s authority over geographic renaming. If the decision faces significant opposition, future administrations might reverse it. The international response, particularly from Mexico and global mapping authorities, will play a crucial role in determining whether this change holds or fades as a temporary political move.

Sources:

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/google-maps-trump-gulf-of-mexico-america-denali-rcna189577  

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/28/americas/mexicans-mock-trump-gulf-of-mexico-intl-latam/index.html 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/28/google-maps-will-rename-gulf-of-mexico-as-gulf-of-america-in-us 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-maps-us-gulf-of-mexico-america-denali-mount-mckinley/ 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/technology/google-maps-gulf-of-america-trump.html 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/30/americas/mexico-letter-google-gulf-of-america-intl-latam/index.html

Trump's Memo Freezing Federal Grants Rescinded

President Trump has held office for just over a week now and has managed to stir up numerous controversies through implementing executive orders and presidential memoranda. Just this Monday, Janurary 27, President Trump orchestrated a memo that was sent out from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which meant to halt all federal grants and loans starting at 5:00pm EST on Tuesday, January 28. For the couple hours the memo was in effect, countless institutions that rely heavily on federal funding, such as schools and non-profit organizations, faced widespread confusion and distress, as trillions of dollars of federal funding are put into these institutions. Many also wondered if this memo would affect programs that provide direct assistance to Americans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and student loans, however it was later confirmed by Trump administration officials that these programs would not be affected.

Now you may be wondering the reasoning behind President Trump's order to freeze federal grants. The answer is no surprise; Trump administration officials said that pausing federal loans and grants was necessary to ensure that the institutions benefitting from funding aligned with President Trump's recent outpouring of executive orders. As stated by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the memo was meant to strip funding from programs that promote "transgenderism and wokeness," basically cutting off funds to programs tied to diversity, climate action, or LGBTQ+ rights. 

Unsurprisingly, this order didn't please many Americans, including some Republicans who may have supported Trump in this last election or even continue to do so. Non-profit organizations such as Head Start, who provide childcare to those in underpriviledged communities, and Meals on Wheels, who use federal funding to deliver food to the eldery, would have been cut off if the memo had not been recinded due to the fact that a great percent of their funding comes from the federal government. The short-lived memo could've had dire effects on the livelihoods of so many citizens, for disadvantaged Americans such as those who utilize Meals on Wheels or Head Start rely on government funded institutions to simply survive.

In alignment with all the distate for the memo, several non-profits filed suit in federal court less than 24 hours after the administration's pause in funding was announced. The lawsuits stated that the memo had failed to explain the source or legal reasoning behind the OMB's right to gut every program in the federal government. And the plaintiffs (the National Council of Nonprofits and the American Public Health Association being among them) were completely correct. Legal expert and defense attorney Shan Wu argued that the memo clearly violated the Impoundment Control Act, which limits the president's ability to withhold congressionally approved funds: an example of separation of powers as it is ensured that the President cannot override the legislative branch's power of the purse without oversight. Wu also claimed that the executive branch didn't set forth valid reasons for the order, as recited in the lawsuit. 

As learned recently in class, the President's power is limited by the judicial branch, which has the authority to ensure that executive actions do not exceed constitutional or legal boundaries. In this specific case, the judicial branch played a crucial role in reviewing the legality of President Trump's memo once several lawsuits were filed. In response to the plaintiff's complaints that the memo violated the Impoundment Control Act as well as the fact that it would inflict harm upon programs that many disadvantaged Americans rely on, Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary injunction, halting the enforcement of the memo until the court reviewed the legal challenges. This intervention by the judicial branch ensured that President Trump's actions did not infringe on the legislative branch's right to control federal spending. The memo was eventually blocked and rescinded on Tuesday, January 28, the same day it had been put into effect. However, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has claimed that efforts to "end the egregious waste of federal funding" will continue.

Sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-white-house-rescinds-freeze-on-federal-grants-after-widespread-confusion-and-legal-challenges

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/27/politics/white-house-pauses-federal-grants-loan-disbursement/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-federal-funding-freeze-widespread-confusion-rcna189581

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/29/g-s1-45313/trump-federal-funding-freeze-reversed

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/dc-federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-plan-pause-federal-aid-spend-rcna189706

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rv3HnUXv8&list=RDNSW0rv3HnUXv8&start_radio=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E74mBp0qrrA

Trump Order Ending Federal DEI Programs

In the past week, president Donald Trump has released two executive order which explicitly aim to put an end to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs with aggressive methods of enforcement. One passed on Monday was aimed at abolishing DEI programs within the federal beauracracy, putting all federal DEI staff on paid leave until they are eventually laid off. Another executive order signed by Trump on Tuesday has far broader implications to private sector DEI programs across the country. The language within the order is incredibly hostile, claiming to be ending “illegal discrimination” and restoring “merit to government service”.

The signed executive order ending federal DEI programs | ABC7 News

Trump's order ends several monumental legislative moves by past administration to limit bias and discrimination within the federal bureaucracy. The most significant of which was an executive order signed by Lyndon B. Johnson amidst the Civil Rights era which directed federal contractors to end possibly discrminatory policies. With this move Trump also ends popular Clinton legislation which required federal agencies to seek equality in the work environment for low-income and minority groups. 

Other concerns within the federal goverment is that the executive orders call upon civil employees to report their coworkers if they suspect them of trying to continue any DEI programs or training under alternative language. This prong of the executive order is likely to pit federal employees against each other, creating an atmosphere of mistrust that is detrimental to cooperative work environments and embodies the exact chaos that Trump brings with him into office.

Many within the private sector have also expressed concerns about the expansion, considering it will affect DEI programs with federal contractors, and within one of his orders Trump directs all federal agencies to identify and investigate publicly-traded companies which have DEI policies and programs. Not to mention, affirmative action is ending in federal contracting -- meaning that the fair and equal selection process for federal contractors is no longer looking like a level playing field. This order will lead to the federal bureaucracy purposefully discriminating against private companies that have DEI programs, which have been expanding across the country in recent years.

Mural exemplifying what DEI programs stand for | NYTimes

Looking at history, many are fearful that Trump's executive orders violate the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment rights that demand "equal opportunity", and present harm to the entire structure of the federal bureaucracy. DEI programs were invented and strenthened on the basis of equality -- that everyone deserves equal opportunity despite historical obstacles. The mass layoffs of DEI staff and anyone seen as aiding them seems like one way for Trump to influence the bureaucracy in his favor -- keeping staff who are more likely to be compliant with his radically conservative policies. As we've learned in class, the president is intended to have limited influence in the bureaucracy, as they are not allowed to fire staff for political reasons, yet this executive order appears to be a thinly veiled attack on employees with more "liberal" beliefs and employment positions.

Sources:

What is DEI, and why is it dividing America? | CNN
The War on D.E.I. Heats Up | NYTimes
Trump calls DEI programs 'illegal.' He plans to end them in the
federal government | NPR
Trump administration directs all federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff be put on leave | AP News
Trump’s orders to end DEI programs reflect his push for a profound cultural shift | AP News
In first days, Trump deals ‘death blow’ to DEI and affirmative action | Washington Post
Explainer: Trump says corporate diversity efforts are illegal - but are they? | Reuters

Trump's Gender Policy

On his first day back in office, President Trump issued an executive order limiting the federal definition of sex to the one assigned at birth, rejecting the recognition of gender diversity. The policy frames sex as a classification based solely on the reproductive cells (eggs for females and sperm for males) present "at conception." However, biologists and medical experts have criticized this definition for its scientific inaccuracy, as egg cells develop weeks later after conception, and sperm cells are produced at puberty, not at conception. His critics argue that the order disregards scientific and medical consensus, which recognizes sex and gender as multidimensional traits involving chromosomes, hormones, anatomy, and identity. This rigid interpretation sets a bad precedent for marginalized groups, particularly transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals, whose identities are erased by this order.

The executive order also threatens to remove protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, as it revokes a rule from Biden allowing nonbinary and intersex individuals to select “X” as their gender marker on passports and other documents. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has implemented a change, instructing staff to suspend all applications requesting the “X” marker and saying that existing documents would remain valid only until renewal. This rollback underscores a broader agenda to reinforce binary definitions of sex in federal policy, undermining previous efforts to accommodate gender diversity. For many, this signals a loss in the fight for equality, replacing inclusivity with exclusionary programs that deny individuals’ experiences.

The "X" marker on a US passport

Trump’s campaign leading up to the 2024 election heavily emphasized anti-transgender rhetoric, pouring millions into ads opposing gender-affirming care and transgender participation in sports. His administration now aims to codify these sentiments into federal law, mandating binary definitions of sex across agencies and programs. Medical professionals, like Kellan E. Baker of the Whitman-Walker Institute, have spoken out against this, highlighting that sex is far more complex than binary categories make it seem. Intersex populations, for example, have variations in sex traits that defy simple classification as male or female, yet the order fails to account for their existence. Such oversights not only ignore scientific understanding but also strip affected individuals of basic rights and recognition.

The order also has implications for transgender people in federal prisons, who are now at risk of being housed according to their birth-assigned sex rather than their gender identity. Reports have already surfaced of transgender inmates being moved into isolation or transferred to facilities inconsistent with their identities, increasing risks of violence and discrimination. Furthermore, the order halts gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated people, despite court rulings that have previously ruled for access to such treatments.

Ultimately, Trump’s executive order symbolizes a deliberate rejection of diversity, equity, and inclusion under the guise of defending “biological reality.” By stripping away gender-affirming policies and narrowly defining sex, the administration undermines years of progress toward LGBTQ+ equality and scientific integrity. While the order’s implementation will face legal challenges and public scrutiny, its immediate effects are clear: transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans are being pushed further to the margins. In addition to just redefining sex, this policy redefines the federal government’s commitment to human rights and inclusivity, raising questions about the intersection of ideology and policy in shaping the future of equality in America.

Sources:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

https://apnews.com/article/trump-transgender-passports-prisons-eggs-sperm-da1d1d280658a8c85c57cfec2f30cefb

https://nypost.com/2025/01/24/us-news/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-bans-passports-with-x-gender-markers-after-trump-order-report/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-definition-male-female-criticized-medical-legal-experts/story?id=117975718

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire

On January 15, Hamas and Israel reached a long-awaited ceasefire agreement. The agreement details three phases during a six-week period of no violence. The first phase entails a staggered hostage deal, in which 33 Israeli hostages are released in exchange for almost 2,000 Palestinian hostages. This phase started this past Sunday, with 3 Israelis being released to their homes, along with 91 Palestinians. There are currently fears that this staggered release schedule could lead to a failure to release all Israeli hostages due to ongoing political turmoil.

The upcoming phases of the ceasefire are set to include release of more military hostages, deliberation over a potential permanent ceasefire, complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and the return of dead bodies.

West Bank celebrations of the announcement of ceasefire deal. The New York Times

In the days and hours leading up to the ceasefire going in to effect, Israel has launched several strikes and continued military operations in Gaza. As the deal's implementation was delayed, Israel used the hours leading up to it to continue to lanch air strikes. According to Gaza's Civil Defense, at least 19 Palestinian civilians were killed in the attack on Sunday, with 36 others wounded. On the other side, Israel's military claimed to have been aiming at "terror targets". 

There are hopes that this ceasefire will spell an end to the Israel-Hamas war which has been ongoing for over two years now, with peace talks going on for the past 15 months. However, considering there are limited terms within the agreement to address concerns from either side, it seems likely that the war is far from over. The main impetus of the war -- leadership in Palestine -- remains unresolved and there is nothing in the ceasefire concerning this issue. Palestinians themselves remain divided over who they want to lead them, as the government of Israel has repeatedly refused any of the proposed options of leadership in Palestine. Currently, judging from contentious statements made by Israel Prime Minster Netanyahu, it appears that Israel “does not want to end the war, and Hamas, too, intends to continue its military struggle and rearm,” according to Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy, a Washington research institute. Yet, as a low estimate of the war's death toll currently sits at around 47,000, with roughly 90% of Gaza's population being displaced, a permanent solution is direly needed.

Though the future remains nebulous, the current focus of the UN and other countries involved in the war is finally getting the opportunity to "surge much-needed humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians," as explained in a statement made by previous President Joe Biden. This aid will include food, medicine, and other essential supplies and aims to help those living in the war zone.

Hundreds of aid trucks waiting to cross the border into Gaza. Reuters

--

Sources:

Israel and Hamas Reach a Ceasefire | CSIS

Israel, Hamas reach ceasefire deal to end 15 months of war in Gaza | Reuters

What We Know About the Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire | NYTimes

A long-awaited ceasefire has finally begun in Gaza. Here’s what we know | CNN

As ceasefire takes hold, Hamas returns 3 Israeli hostages and Israel frees 90 Palestinian prisoners | AP News

Israel Embarks on an ‘Extensive’ Military Operation in the West Bank | NYTimes

Fighting Has Halted in Gaza, but the War Is Not Over | NYTimes

The Israel-Gaza ceasefire deal hangs by a thread. This is what must happen for peace to last | The Guardian

Biden's Premature Pardons

Biden has just issued preemptive pardons to many who he feel are political targets of Trump. The pardons were issued to his family, Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, and members of the House committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Biden granted these pardons in order to shield these people from potential retaliation by the incoming Trump administration, as Trump has stated on record how he intends to get retribution. 

Biden justified these pardons by stating how "even when individuals have done nothing wrong — and in fact have done the right thing — and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances." While his justification might be sound, this opens the door for future administrations to use pardons more expansively and preemptively. 

Biden's supporters, however, agree with him because of the circumstances surrounding the decision. The individuals he prematurely pardoned, who had not been accused of crimes, faced the threat of political persecution. Dr. Fauci, for example, became a target of right-wing criticism for his role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, while Milley was attacked for speaking out against Trump’s authoritarianism.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Sen. Adam Schiff, Dr. Anthony Fauci and former Rep. Liz Cheney were granted preemptive pardons.

Critics, though, accused Biden of setting a dangerous precedent, with Representative Dan Meuser calling it an "admission of guilt" and arguing it shielded his family and political allies from accountability. Even some recipients of the preemptive pardons, such as Senator Adam Schiff, cited concerns about eroding public trust. Biden’s pardons of individuals not under investigation, such as Fauci and Milley, drew additional backlash for being politically motivated.

Despite these controversies, Biden left office yesterday with a record number of pardons, causing debates about the limits of presidential pardons and their impact on public trust. His actions remain a point of contention, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of such power, and what it means for future presidents.

Personally, I feel like Biden's use of preemptive pardons sets a dangerous precedent that raises logistical and ethical concerns. For instance, it’s unclear to me how these specific pardons would work. Are they limited to specific crimes or future offenses? Could someone commit a crime later, knowing they’re already pardoned? That said, with Trump targeting these individuals, Biden likely felt compelled to protect his family and allies, though he probably should have acted sooner to avoid last-minute controversy. Hamilton first brought up presidential pardons in his Federalist papers where he argued they were necessary for mitigating justice with mercy, but this situation raises the question of whether or not preemptive pardons align with Hamilton's vision of government.

Biden and his son Hunter who received a pardon

Sources:

https://nypost.com/2025/01/21/us-news/biden-warned-against-trump-preemptively-pardoning-family-after-2020-election/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/flashback-media-attacked-trump-floating-preemptive-pardons-2020-before-biden-did-so-four-years-later

https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-fauci-milley-pardons-january-6-3cba287f89051513fb48d7ae700ae747

Trumps First Day Acts

 

 Border Security Executive Orders:

    Just hours after his inauguration today he signed an executive order to place more security at the US-Mexico border and also spoke today. about ending all migration at the border by placing a national emergency there to stop migration. One part of this new executive order is shutting down the CPB One App which was  an app used by asylum seeking migrants the ability to seek asylum in the US through the appointments on this app. Through this bill this app was shut down immediately and people that were supposed to be going to these appointments were forced to stay in Mexico as they could not proceed. Luckily Mexico has released a statement stating that these migrants can maintain asylum near the southern border until their court cases are finished.

One of his other orders that he told the head of the Department of Homeland Security is to end Humanitarian Parole. This was a program that allowed migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to fly to America and stay up to 2 years here. This was a program that Joe Biden had put in place in 2023 and just last year 500,000 people came to America through this program, all of which is being done away with by this order.

Birthright Citizenship: 

    He signed another executive order today stating that the citizenship of someone would be based on the legality of their parents being their and effectively ending Birthright Citizenship, meaning that not every person born on American soil would automatically become a citizen. Despite the 14th amendment directly opposing this order, he still signed it and will probably get court attention due to this conflict. Though if it does stand this order will go into effect in 30 days as it states.

Other smaller moves:

As he said that he would in his campaign, within his first day he pardoned 1,500 people that were convicted or being charged with a variety of charges all surrounding the January 6th insurrection from 2020.

He also left the Paris climate agreement as he did in 2016 when he first came to office and how he said he would throughout his whole campaign. This agreement aims to keep emissions down and overall global warming temperatures across the world down and since he doesn’t think climate change is real, leaving this agreement is no surprise.

Another thing he did today is that he halted all government hiring besides the military as well as putting a freeze on all regulations being placed. All of which is an attempt overall to overhaul the bureaucracy, probably to provide room for the Department of Government Efficiency to work despite the fact that they are not an official department yet.

Final Thoughts:

Overall, it is clear that President Trump had an agenda to get things done today much of which he talked about in his campaign. As well as it is clear that he opposed a lot of the measures put in place by the previous campaign thus having to put a lot of things in place today.

Sources:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-immigration-homan-asylum-inauguration-ac10480dc636b758ab3c435b974aeb19 

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-43650/trump-inauguration-day-one-immigration 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-day-1-executive-orders-3a035a0bbd37b5c12630b92c8c8a9625 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/20/us/trump-executive-orders 

US Supreme Court Upholds the Tiktok Ban

Context:

    ​ Tiktok, the global social media app seemingly is facing a ban just after the start of 2025 but this is not the first time the US has tried to ban it. The first start of suspicion around Tiktok Starts in 2019 when American media starts reporting that it is hard to find videos and info about certain events that may be bad for China, such as protests in Hong Kong or Tiananmen square content. This suspicion around security concerns continues to increase until President Donald Trump signs an executive order to force the owners of Tiktok, Bytedance, to divest or stop work within the US within 90 days. Though nothing really comes of this ban as when President Biden became president he postpones the legal battles that Tiktok is fighting and halts them overall keeping Tiktok around. 

    Despite it staying around, the poor sentiment around Tiktok does not stop as there are continuous reporting of the security concerns in American media as well as congress had a congressional hearing with the CEO of Tiktok, Shou Zi Chew. Thus again leading to a ban voted in by congress in March of 2024 stating they must be banned in the US or sell Tiktok to an american company, which will be enforced by January 19th, 2025.

Thus leading us to this where the US Supreme Court deems the Tiktok ban to be constitutional and thus allowing it to go into effect on January 19th, 2025 as long as congress or the president does not step in.

Current responses:

President Joe Biden recently has put out a statement stating that he will not enforce the ban meaning that he will not collect on the fines associated with the ban. Despite Biden’s effort Shou Zi Chew has responded by stating that streaming providers that keep Tiktok running need more insurance to keep Tiktok running on the 19th as they are afraid they may still be charged fines. Also President elect Donald Trump has stated he will make an executive order on the 19th stating that the ban will be moved to 90 days in advance meaning until then tiktok would be able to be open.

Closing thoughts:

I think that it is pretty wild that this ban has been in place for close to 10 months and lawmakers and political figures showed no signs of getting rid of the ban until right before it is being put into action. It is also a little odd how the only word on why this ban is going into effect is due to the “security concerns” and no more word than that. To me this whole ban just feels like a way for the US government to make a US company buy a huge social media platform, but be sure to display what it seems like to you in the comments.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyng762q4eo

https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-timeline-ban-biden-india-d3219a32de913f8083612e71ecf1f428

Wildfires Blaze Through Southern California

Context

Brush fires, amplified by extreme winds running up to 80 MPH, has given rise to a blazing landscape of wildfires in Los Angeles. There are 3 MAJOR fires accounted for, so far. The Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire and the Hurst Fire. The biggest of them all (Palisades Fire) has spread a total of 23,713 acres and is only 11% contained, marking it the worst sight the Pacific Palisades has ever seen. Close to 200,000 people are under evacuation notice, and this number continues to grow. Although the hurricane-force winds have calmed for the moment, the threat of rising winds still looms over the city of Los Angeles. 

Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass

California Governor Gavin Newsom has already taken steps towards addressing the drastic situation. He has signed an executive order to speed up the rebuilding process of homes, stating that “[w]hen the fires are extinguished, victims who have lost their homes and businesses must be able to rebuild quickly and without roadblocks.” Under this order, certain permit and review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been suspended in order to streamline the recovery process. Furthermore, he doubled the California National Guard deployment in LA to 1680 members in order to bolster support for the affected citizens.

On the other hand, Mayor of LA, Karen Bass faces intense scrutiny for being out of the country on a diplomatic excursion when the fires began, as well as cutting the firefighter budget by 17.5 million dollars months beforehand. Furthermore, water shortages have also placed LA officials under even more criticism for a lack of preparation. Public figures have come out and expressed their disapproval. Elon Musk, for example, called Bass “utterly incompetent” on X, leading a conservative hammering on her. However, the danger of living in the Pacific Palisades was expressed for years before by experts, and Bass also emphasized that the budget was boosted later on. Whether or not Bass’s decisions had a significant impact on the current situation, the reality is that we still face the daunting task of containing the fires, alleviating homelessness and reconstructing the lost environment.

Looking Forward

The process of rebuilding both the physical landscape and the mental culture of the affected people will take time. The fires are far from extinguished, and the death toll will be likely to keep increasing as time continues to tick away. Amidst all the chaos, this event also begs a larger question at hand. Is this a sign of what is to come, as the issue of climate change continues to be pushed aside? How will this affect Trump’s policies as he enters office, if anything? As always, the future is filled with scary and uncertain possibilities, and it is key that we stay united and hopeful as fear continues to burn through our country. 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/08/us/california-fire-palisades-evacuation.html

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/10/us/fires-los-angeles-california

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/california-fires-live-updates-santa-ana-winds-rage/? id=117541907

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/10/karen-bass-criticism-los-angeles-fires/77584894007/