By Kevin Hardy, Stateline.org

As every state surrounding Idaho legalized marijuana, state Rep. Bruce Skaug started to view it as inevitable that the Gem State would follow suit.

Not anymore.

Related Articles

‘Able to happen again’: Local Japanese American historians warn of Trump’s use of 1798 wartime law

Career diplomat becomes the face of Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda at the UN

Israeli strikes kill at least 25 in Gaza and Huckabee makes first appearance as US ambassador

US lawmakers’ bipartisan Taiwan visit signals support despite harsh words and tariffs from Trump

Judge pauses Trump administration’s plans for mass layoffs at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Skaug, a Republican, supported two bills this legislative session taking aim at marijuana use: one to impose a mandatory minimum $300 fine for possession and another that would take away the right of voters to legalize pot at the ballot box.

He believes other states are starting to regret liberalizing marijuana use, because of potential health concerns and lackluster revenues from marijuana sales.

“Looking around at other states that have legalized marijuana, it’s not improved their states as a place to raise a family, to do business,” he said. “It just hasn’t come through with the promises that we heard years ago for those states.”

Idaho’s not alone. After years of expanding legal access, lawmakers in several states this year have targeted marijuana in various ways.

To help close budget gaps, officials in Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey have proposed raising marijuana taxes. Health concerns have pushed lawmakers in states including Colorado and Montana to attempt to cap the level of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive component in cannabis, in marijuana products sold at dispensaries. And some lawmakers have even tried to roll back voter-approved medical marijuana programs.

“This year in particular, we’re playing defense a lot more than we have in the past,” said Morgan Fox, political director at the advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.

To some extent, he said, the pendulum on marijuana liberalization is swinging back. But Fox said recent legislative efforts are not indicative of waning public support for legalization. He said prohibitionist politicians have been emboldened to act against the will of voters.

Polling from the Pew Research Center has found little change in support for legalization in recent years: 57% of U.S. adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes.

Colorado and Washington state began allowing recreational marijuana sales in 2014. Today, 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational sales, and 39 states and the district have sanctioned medical marijuana.

“There’s been this air of inevitability for a while,” said Daniel Mallinson, an associate professor of public policy at Penn State Harrisburg who researches marijuana legalization.

With medical marijuana programs operational in most states, Mallinson said there is pressure to expand recreational marijuana, especially given uncertainty over whether the federal government will act on the issue.

“Recreational is still in its takeoff period,” he said.

But he acknowledged that new medical research has raised concerns among some lawmakers. One study published in January found a link between heavy marijuana use and memory function. Other studies have found a higher risk of heart attacks among people who use cannabis.

Mallinson said the research on marijuana is “very young,” as many institutions are wary of conducting clinical trials because of federal drug laws. The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug— the same classification as drugs such as heroin and ecstasy.

“There’s a mixture of science and politics in this area,” he said. “ … I could imagine seeing in these really conservative states like Idaho, you know, this kind of a backlash, like, we don’t want this here at all, so we’re going to try to put up barriers to even considering it.”

A debate headed for the ballot

In Idaho, Skaug said he pursued the state’s new mandatory$300 fine for marijuana possession to bring more consistency to how the state handles marijuana cases.

While Idaho law previously allowed fines of up to $1,000, he said judges had issued fines as low as $2.50.

“So that wasn’t the right message. That’s not even worth the time to write the ticket,” he said. “So it’s not that we’re going to arrest more people for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, but there will be more citations in the amount of $300.”

Skaug also backed a proposed constitutional amendment that would give only the legislature the power to legalize marijuana and other drugs. That question will go to voters next year.

Skaug said he’s worried outside groups would influence a public vote to legalize marijuana by pouring millions into a ballot initiative campaign. If the amendment he supports passes, it wouldn’t ban pot — it would leave legalization up to lawmakers.

“If the evidence comes back that says marijuana or some other drug is positive in the medical community and a good thing, then the legislature can legalize that,” he said. “But we’re going to leave it with the legislature.”

Advocates have been trying without success to get enough signatures to put a medical marijuana question on the ballot for more than a decade in Idaho, said Democratic state Rep. Ilana Rubel. The House minority leader, Rubel said she hit “a firm brick wall” in pitching medical marijuana legislation in Boise, where GOP lawmakers privately tell her they don’t want to look soft on crime.

She views the proposed amendment as another example of the GOP-controlled statehouse being out of touch with regular Idahoans. She said the state’s closed Republican primaries have led to more conservative stances from lawmakers.

“I think this is one of those issues where there is just a huge, huge gap between what the people of Idaho want and what they’re going to get from their legislature,” she said.

A 2022 poll commissioned by the Idaho Statesman found that nearly 70% of Idahoans supported legalizing medical marijuana.

But even discussions about medical marijuana are shut down in Idaho because of concerns about problems with drugs in liberal cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Rubel said.

“A very large number of red states have legalized medical marijuana, and they haven’t seen any of the parade of horribles that has been presented whenever we introduce this idea,” she said. “There’s just a lot of hysteria and paranoia about where this is going to lead that is really not tied to reality.”

Targeting marijuana potency, revenues

In several states, lawmakers have aimed to restrict the potency of marijuana products.

Montana state Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican, said he doesn’t want to end recreational marijuana sales, which voters approved in 2020. But he said today’s products are much stronger than people may realize.

“People were voting for Woodstock weed, not this new high-THC marijuana,” he said.

A bill he sponsored this year would have banned sales of recreational marijuana products, including flower and edibles, exceeding THC levels of 15%. Montana currently allows up to 35% THC in flower, with no limit on other products.

That legislation stalled, but Hertz said he plans to pitch a similar measure during Montana’s next legislative session in 2027.

A separate bill reducing the state’s dosage of THC for edibles just passed the legislature. The measure, which now heads to Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, would change the individual dosage limit on edibles such as gummies from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams.

Hertz said the state rushed into its liberalization of marijuana without fully understanding the consequences.

He pointed to state health department data showing rising emergency room visits related to marijuana and dozens of cannabis poisoning cases in recent years — including 36 involving children 10 years or younger.

“We probably opened up the barn door too wide,” he said. “I’m just trying to slow this down a little bit.”

With many states facing gaping budget holes this year, marijuana has proven a popular target from Democrats and Republicans looking to raise revenues without across-the-board tax increases.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore in January proposed hiking the cannabis tax from 9% to 15% to help close the state’s $3 billion budget hole. In March, lawmakers agreed to a budget framework that would raise the state marijuana tax to 12%.

Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine proposed doubling marijuana taxes from 10% to 20% — a notion that has so far faced opposition in the legislature.

In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer proposed a new 32% wholesale tax on marijuana growers to help fund road improvements. That tax would be on top of the 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and the state’s 6% sales tax.

Whitmer said it would close a loophole that has exempted the marijuana industry from wholesale tax, which is applied to cigarettes and other tobacco products. Michigan lawmakers, split sharply along partisan lines, have until Sept. 30 to approve a state budget.

Lawmakers in some states have even taken aim at voter-approved medical marijuana programs this year.

In South Dakota, a bill that failed in committee would have gutted the medical marijuana program overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2020.

In November, Nebraska voters widely supported ballot measures to roll out a medical marijuana program — winning majority support in each of the state’s 49 legislative districts.

But setting up the regulatory scheme has proven controversial, the Nebraska Examiner reported. Lawmakers are pursuing legislation that would define which medical conditions and forms of cannabis would qualify.

Medical marijuana advocates say overly strict rules would hamper the program and undermine the will of voters. But some legislators insist on limitations to prevent widespread access to marijuana.

“We make it legal for anything and everything, it’s essentially recreational marijuana at that point,” state Sen. Rick Holdcroft, a Republican, told the Nebraska Examiner this month.

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

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Kay Ochi’s parents were 21 and 22 years old when they were forced to leave San Diego, where they were born, and taken to an incarceration camp in the desert of Poston, Arizona, simply because of their Japanese heritage.

“That was three years of pure hell,” said Ochi, a third-generation Japanese American, or Sansei, who is president of the Japanese American Historical Society of San Diego.

Kay Ochi, president of the Japanese American Historical Society of San Diego, holds several historical photos taken during the time when San Deigns with Japanese ancestry were taken to internment camps. (Nelvin C. Cepeda / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

The history of how the U.S. incarcerated more than 120,000 people of Japanese descent — most of them U.S. citizens like Ochi’s parents — during World War II is well-documented in museums and archives. It’s a memory that still shapes the identity of generations of Japanese Americans today and is a widely recognized example of how one group of people’s civil rights were ignored and violated.

But now civil rights activists and historians feel they are witnessing a flashback to history as President Donald Trump has invoked the same 227-year-old U.S. law that was used to justify incarcerating the Japanese American community during wartime.

“With the way the administration has gone forward with the executive orders, a lot of things seem to be able to happen again,” said Susan Hasegawa, a local historian of Japanese American history and a professor at San Diego City College.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798 when the U.S. was on the brink of war with France, allows the president to detain or deport any “aliens” he considers “dangerous to the peace and safety” of the country.

U.S. presidents have invoked the law only three times before — during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when it was used to incarcerate people of Japanese, German and Italian descent.

Trump has been invoking the act to justify detaining, deporting and revoking visas for growing numbers of immigrants, largely Venezuelans that his administration has sent, without charges, to a notorious El Salvador prison.

Kay Ochi, president of the Japanese American Historical Society of San Diego, sits next to a construction replica of the wall that would be used to create a wall for apartments in the large buildings at the internment camps. (Nelvin C. Cepeda / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Last week, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to keep deporting people under the law, while saying the administration had to give people the chance to fight their deportations legally. The court didn’t weigh in on the law’s constitutionality.

Civil rights advocates and others have described Trump’s moves as alarming violations of civil rights, including the right to due process.

The danger of the Alien Enemies Act is that it enables such violations, “under the guise of national security,” said Michael Kurima, the co-president of the board of the San Diego chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League.

He noted that the last time the law was invoked, about two-thirds of the people it was used to incarcerate were U.S. citizens.

Historical photos from the archives belonging to the Japanese American Historical Society of San Diego. The photo was taken during the time when San Diegans of Japanese ancestry were required to report to the Santa Fe Railway Depot on April 8, 1942. (Nelvin C. Cepeda / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

“If the Alien Enemies Act is only a first step, then government suppression of dissent could be next,” Kurima said. “What begins with purported gang members from abroad could easily expand to include others — even American citizens — when civil liberties are treated as conditional.”

Critics have also noted that Trump is the only president in history to invoke the act when it’s not wartime as declared by Congress. He has repeatedly referred to unauthorized immigration as an “invasion.”

“The last time it was invoked, it was devastating to a lot of people who had nothing to do with the enemy,” Hasegawa said. “So then to do it again with a targeted group in a non-war time, it’s even more suspicious and scary.”

On Saturday, six local immigrant and refugee artists debuted an art installation at the San Diego Central Library, in collaboration with the local historical society, that shows parallels between the experiences of Japanese Americans during World War II and the experiences of immigrants today.

“It’s just horrendous, and we need to understand that it didn’t happen just now,” Shinpei Takeda, director of the AjA Project, whose artist fellows created the installation, said of the return of the Alien Enemies Act. “With art, at least it gives people a chance to talk about it, and it shows that something like this has happened in the past.”

A San Diego community dismantled

When the Alien Enemies Act was last invoked, in 1941, about 2,000 people of Japanese descent, known as Nikkei, were living in San Diego County.

First-generation Japanese immigrants, or Issei, arrived in San Diego starting in the 1880s, with many working in agricultural fields and on railroads. In the decades leading up to World War II, they had made significant contributions to the region’s farming and fishing industries, Ochi said; many worked as fishermen or at tuna canneries in San Diego Bay, and many were farmers, from the Tijuana River Valley up to Oceanside, Hasegawa said.

Issei also ran about 30 small businesses in downtown San Diego, near Fifth Street and Island Avenue, Hasegawa added. There were Japanese-language schools, as well as a Buddhist temple and two Japanese Christian churches.

After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the U.S. moved quickly to begin its forcible removal of Nikkei.

By February, the FBI had arrested about three dozen local Issei whom it had pre-identified as community leaders, among them the leadership of San Diego’s Buddhist temple, Japanese language teachers and instructors of the Japanese martial art kendo, Hasegawa said.

On Feb. 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt enacted Executive Order 9066, which mandated the removal of people of Japanese descent from their communities and sent them to incarceration camps. Japanese people were forced to abandon their homes, jobs and businesses.

The vast majority of those from San Diego were sent by train to the Santa Anita racetrack in Los Angeles County, a holding place for thousands being relocated from around Southern California. Then they were shipped to Poston, Arizona — one of 10 camps the U.S. government created to incarcerate people of Japanese descent.

San Diego leaders, meanwhile, supported and praised the incarceration. The San Diego City Council, county Board of Supervisors and Chamber of Commerce all passed measures saying Japanese American residents should be incarcerated or shouldn’t be allowed back to San Diego.

‘Intergenerational trauma’

After their release following the war, Japanese Americans struggled to rebuild their lives, including in San Diego.

Their forced removal and incarceration had decimated Japanese institutions, including the businesses that once existed downtown, Hasegawa said. Many were replaced or unable to rebuild, unlike in larger cities like Los Angeles. And many people were pressured or forced to assimilate by abandoning their language and culture.

For many, the toll on mental health and self-esteem persisted for decades. “Some people say that the resettlement was even harder than the incarceration,” Ochi said. “The emotional toll was even greater and has had lasting impact, intergenerational trauma.”

In 2022, the San Diego City Council formally apologized and revoked the resolution it had passed eight decades earlier to support the incarceration. “It is incredibly important that we identify the racist acts of the past and injustices of the past and address them head-on,” then-Council President Sean Elo-Rivera said at the time. “We can acknowledge the wrong that the city committed.”

To the artists whose work is now on display at the Central Library, addressing those injustices is also paramount, even as their installation examines ways incarcerated Nikkei found to preserve their community.

First-generation Laotian American artist Tarrah Aroonsakool focused on how incarcerated Nikkei used cooking as an act of resilience, adapting recipes to their wartime rations. First-generation Mexican American artist Jazmin Barajas connected parallels between how Japanese and Mexican traditions use altars and shrines to honor the dead, and juxtaposed images of the walls of the Tule Lake incarceration camp with that of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Historical photos from the archives belonging to the Japanese American Historical Society of San Diego. The photo was taken during the time when San Diegans of Japanese ancestry relocated to the Poston Internment Camp. (Nelvin C. Cepeda / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Related Articles

A US citizen was held for pickup by ICE even after proving he was born in the country

The Abrego Garcia case pulls Democrats into the immigration debate Trump wants to have

Immigration judge denies bond for Tufts University student from Turkey, her lawyers say

Tennessee’s GOP leads the fight to deny public education to children without documents

What happens next after judge warns of possible contempt prosecution over deportation flights order

The artists said education and accurate descriptions of history are needed to ensure that mass civil rights abuses like the ones Japanese Americans faced are never repeated. If history is sanitized, it can more easily be repeated, the artists said.

“The silencing is exactly what allows these sorts of trajectories to repeat themselves without people realizing the signs,” Barajas said.

Their art installation will be on view at the library through June.

By FARNOUSH AMIRI

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The highest-ranking U.S. representative now at the United Nations told Congress two years ago that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked” and “unjustified,” urging U.N. members to condemn Moscow’s aggression and demand an end to the war.

Related Articles

US lawmakers’ bipartisan Taiwan visit signals support despite harsh words and tariffs from Trump

Venice expands its day-tripper tax program in bid to combat overtourism

Iran-US talks over Tehran’s nuclear program hinge on a billionaire and a seasoned diplomat

US strikes on a Yemeni oil port kill 74 people, Houthis say, in deadliest attack of Trump campaign

Rubio says the US will drop Ukraine-Russia peace efforts if no progress within days

In February, it was the same career diplomat, Dorothy Shea, who voiced the Trump administration’s extraordinary decision to split with European allies and refuse to back a U.N. resolution blaming Russia for its invasion on the third anniversary of the war.

While it is typical for diplomats to stay on as U.S. presidents — and their political parties — change, Shea’s interim role has unexpectedly made her a face of the stunning U.S. transition on the world stage, with President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach increasingly upending the post-World War II international order.

Shea will be in place longer than expected after Trump’s unusual decision last month to withdraw his nominee for U.N. ambassador, Rep. Elise Stefanik, from consideration because of a slim Republican House majority.

“I would say (Shea’s) position is unique. It is probably particularly unique in that because of the extraordinary change, not just from one administration to another, but really an era of U.S. foreign policy, even when there were nuanced differences,” said Phillip Reeker, the former acting assistant secretary of state for Europe. “The change in the vote that took place at the U.N. on the Russia-Ukraine war was really an inflection point in U.S. policy.”

A UN vote changes US messaging on Ukraine

On Feb. 24, the U.S. joined Russia in voting against a European-backed Ukrainian resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of Moscow’s forces. A dueling U.S. resolution noted “the tragic loss of life” and called for “a swift end to the conflict,” but it didn’t mention Moscow’s aggression as the Trump administration opened negotiations with Russia on a ceasefire.

“Continuing to engage in rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield,” Shea, 59, said at the time. “Let us prove to ourselves and to our citizens that we can come together and agree on the most basic principles. Let us show one another that the bold vision of peace that once pulled us out of hell can prevail.”

The message was a shocking retreat for the U.S. in the 193-member U.N. General Assembly, whose resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as a barometer of world opinion. It also reinforced the fears of some allies about what a second Trump presidency could mean for longstanding transatlantic partnerships — and whether the U.S. could remain a bulwark against aggressors like Russia.

For Shea, it was another day at work. She has spent the last 30-plus years serving as a diplomat under both Republican and Democratic presidents — from Bill Clinton to Trump — carrying out their policies even if they were a departure from longstanding U.S. positions.

“I don’t know what her personal views are on things. But administrations change, policies change. And your job as a diplomat is to advocate for those policies,” said a former colleague and deputy U.S. ambassador, Robert Wood, who recently retired.

The U.S. mission to the U.N. declined to comment. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The roots of a diplomat

Shea’s work has included stints in South Africa, where she witnessed Nelson Mandela become the first democratically elected president, and Israel, where she worked on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Shea grew up in the suburbs of Washington — her father a World War II veteran and her mother active in the local Japanese American friendship society. The experience of Japanese exchange students staying with her family over several summers and wanting to understand world events propelled her into international relations at the University of Virginia. After graduation, she scored a job offer with the U.S. Foreign Service.

She worked her way up and in 2019 was tapped to be Trump’s ambassador to Lebanon, where the soft-spoken diplomat made headlines for her criticism of the Hezbollah militant group. A Lebanese judge banned local and foreign media outlets from interviewing Shea for a year, saying her criticism of Hezbollah was seditious and a threat to social peace.

In 2023, Biden nominated Shea to become No. 2 at the U.N.

The top US role at the UN — for now

It is unclear when Shea will hand off to a Senate-confirmed political appointee. Stefanik went through a confirmation hearing, but her nomination was pulled last month because her vote to advance Trump’s agenda remains crucial to Republicans in the House. The GOP congresswoman was the fourth Trump nominee not to make it through the confirmation process.

Trump has made no mention of whom he would nominate to replace Stefanik and fill his last remaining Cabinet seat. Until then, Shea is at the helm at a critical moment for U.S. foreign policy, selling big changes to dealing with both allies and adversaries and defending the administration’s slashing of foreign assistance.

The White House recently proposed additional drastic cuts to the State Department, which would include eliminating funding for nearly all international organizations, such as the U.N.

The proposal is highly preliminary but reflects the administration’s isolationist view, which, along with funding uncertainties, poses a major challenge to the mandate and work of the U.N.

By ALEXA ST. JOHN

Mike Summers was eager to install solar at his home in Ohio for years, and after he finally replaced his aging roof this year, his solar contractor swung into action. His system — including 19 panels and a battery backup — went up this week, and Summers considers himself lucky.

“I’m glad to have done it when I did,” said Summers, a former mayor in his city of Lakewood just west of Cleveland. He’ll get about $10,000 in tax credits on his $39,000 investment, but nearly as important is that all the equipment was readily available.

Other hopeful solar buyers may have a much harder time in coming months. President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with China threatens to crimp a massive source of solar panels and parts, with experts saying the cost of projects will certainly rise as China retaliates.

China accounted for at least 80% of the components of solar panels as recently as 2022, according to an International Energy Agency report, especially polysilicon, glass and solar cells. Solar also demands increasing critical mineral supplies, of which China is a key player across the globe, and electronics.

In the U.S., private industry has poured $18.2 billion into developing a domestic supply chain in recent years, according to Atlas Public Policy, that includes everything from the ingots and wafers that make up panels to electrical and structural components to assembly of the panels themselves. Most of that came from the Inflation Reduction Act passed during former President Joe Biden’s administration, with massive funding for clean energy investment.

But that won’t come close to replacing what China produces.

“Really everybody’s losing when you think about it, because the systems are costing more for the customers and it’s also just making it more difficult, in some ways, for us to do business,” said Brian DiPaolo, assistant sales manager at Cleveland-based solar installer YellowLite, which is doing Summers’ project. DiPaolo said some customers are holding off on plans until there is more clarity. The company still stocked up on solar panels, made in North America, a month ago to stay competitive in coming months.

“We’re seeing both international as well as domestic manufacturers of the equipment increasing their costs to prepare for the tariffs,” DiPaolo said. “You think that the domestic manufacturers would keep their prices down because they don’t get hit by the tariffs, but they’re seeing this added demand for their equipment.”

It’s supply and demand, said Martin Pochtaruk, CEO of Heliene, which focuses on large-scale solar projects. He described the price of a necessary glass component from China going up in February due to a tariff hike. Suppliers in other countries matched the higher price, meaning higher costs no matter the source.

Alexis Abramson, dean of Columbia University’s Climate School, said there’s no doubt that residential solar is going to be more expensive. That will cut solar adoption, and small and mid-size installers will go under, she said.

It’s just “extremely difficult to offer current and future customers pricing certainty” when trade policy is changing so much, said James Hasselbeck, chief operating officer at New England-based solar company ReVision Energy.

Related Articles

Law firms, universities and now civil society groups are in Trump’s sights for punitive action

As demand for AI rises, so do power thirsty data centers

Proposed rule change on endangered species triggers alarm for environmentalists

The EPA can’t end grants from $20 billion Biden-era fund for climate-friendly projects, a judge says

Wind and solar power opponents make headway in state legislatures

Solar has gotten significantly more affordable in recent years as the technology scales up, improves and gets cheaper to install. Systems can still cost thousands of dollars on average, but the average cost for a residential system is down more than 70% from 2010, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. American consumers have also had a shot at credits that bring the cost down still further, although the future of those is uncertain under the Trump administration.

Commercial and utility-scale project costs have also dropped dramatically.

That’s fed rapid growth across the U.S. over the past two decades. In 2024, the commercial segment grew 8% and utility grew 33%, according to an annual report from the association and consultancy Wood Mackenzie. The residential segment fell 32% last year, but experts attribute that to high interest rates and election uncertainty, and said they had expected continued growth before the tariffs hit.

Solar is an important source of clean energy because it doesn’t emit the harmful greenhouse gases that coal, natural gas and oil do. Those are massive contributors to Earth’s warming.

Trump imposed tariffs during his first term on imported solar cells and modules in 2018 in hopes of slashing reliance on China.

But China subsidized its own domestic overproduction and some U.S. manufacturers accused it of essentially moving operations to four Southeast Asian countries that had a temporary exemption from tariffs.

Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the U.S. is “quickly taking back control of the supply chain from China to build the strongest solar manufacturing base in the world.” The group reported that in 2024, module manufacturing capacity, largely concentrated in the South, grew 190%, and said cell manufacturing “was reshored for the first time in five years” with company Suniva restarting production.

But Hopper also said sudden changes in policy risk chilling investment and slowing job creation, especially for manufacturers. The group said during the first Trump administration that tariffs issued then were harmful to the industry.

Ultimately, Abramson said she “would encourage anybody who has been really thinking about putting solar on their roof to really look into locking that in sooner rather than later.”

Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment.

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.