California lawmakers are calling for the state’s high-speed rail project to be scrapped after projected costs have ballooned by more than 700%.

“This is a project that will never be built, and everybody in this building knows this project will never be built for the people of California and we keep wasting billions of dollars at a time where we have budget deficits,” state Sen. Tony Strickland, vice chair of the state’s Senate Transportation Committee, told Fox News Digital.

Strickland is calling for the project to be abandoned completely.

“I’ve been saying this for years now, but this is the most wasteful government project in probably world history,” he told the New York Post.

BLUE STATE’S BILLIONAIRE EXODUS ABOUT TO GET MUCH WORSE IN 2026, INSIDER WARNS

The project received its first bond funding in 2008 and was originally slated for completion in 2020. Initial estimates also pegged its cost at between $33 billion and $45 billion.

But the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the body in charge of the project, recently estimated that the first phase won’t be finished until 2032 in its 2026 business plan. And costs are now predicted to be in excess of $230 billion.

“It goes from a $33 billion projected estimate to the voters to go from LA to San Francisco. Now it’s $231 billion and climbing,” Strickland told the Post.

TRUMP ADMIN SUED BY NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY OVER HUDSON RIVER TUNNEL FUNDING FREEZE: ‘SEE YOU IN COURT’

The program was originally slated to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, but in 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom scrapped those plans, citing a lack of transparency.

“Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were,” Newsom said in his 2019 state of the state speech.

Now, the efforts focus on a Central Valley transport corridor between Merced and Bakersfield.

Strickland, for his part, doesn’t believe the next Governor will continue the plan.

“Whoever the next governor is, Republican or Democrat, is going to face a multi-year budget deficit and to continue to dedicate this kind of money… when you’re talking about $231 billion that’s almost the cost of our entire state budget. Is one project worth that?” he asked Fox News Digital.

“Whoever the next governor is is going to face a multi, you know, multi-billion dollar deficit in the years to come, and uh, to be physically responsible, would be to scrap this and pull a plug on this. I firmly believe whoever the next governor is, no matter Republican or Democrat, will scrap this plan,” Strickland concluded.

TRUMP ADMIN UNCOVERS ‘STAGGERING’ $8.6 BILLION IN SUSPECTED CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS FRAUD

Lou Thompson, who chaired a state legislative peer review group responsible for reporting issues to CHSRA, called the project a “dead end” in a March letter to state leaders.

“The project began as a promise of service from San Francisco to Los Angeles… Now, in the Draft 2026 Business Plan, even the 171-mile Merced to Bakersfield cannot be completed by the end of 2032 without access to more funding,” Thompson wrote.

He also said CHSRA and the California legislature’s “state of denial should end.”

ROTTEN REGULATIONS: EVEN YOUR TRASH CAN’T ESCAPE CALIFORNIA’S RED TAPE

In July, President Donald Trump’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) pulled $4 billion in federal funding from CHSRA, citing the Golden State’s lack of cooperation on a previous agreement with FRA.

“To be clear, the mere promise of delivering the EOS someday and at some cost was not the bargain struck between FRA and CHSRA,” acting FRA Administrator Drew Feeley wrote in a letter to CHSRA at the time.

California initially sued the Trump administration for the move, but Attorney General Rob Bonta dropped the suit in December.

CLIMATE EXECUTIVE WARNS CALIFORNIA ‘FUNCTIONALLY BANKRUPT,’ $1T SHORTFALL COULD SHAKE NATION

California is now seeking private investment for the project, though skepticism still abounds.

“They’re talking about raising money from private capital, and I’ll tell you right now. I said it in the committee hearing. I wouldn’t invest. Would anybody invest in a project that started out as $33 billion, and now it’s $231 billion, and it was supposed to be done in 2020 and hasn’t even started and we’re in 2026?” Strickland asked.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Our country has never seen a fiscal disaster of this magnitude,” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., also said in an X post. Additionally, Kiley told the Post the project was the “worst public infrastructure failure in U.S. history.”

Fox News Digital contacted Newsom’s office and Kiley for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Maine has officially joined the ranks of high-tax blue states as Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed a controversial new millionaire tax into law, sparking immediate warnings that the move will punish local business owners and stifle investment.

Effective Jan. 1, 2026, the new law bypasses traditional Republican opposition to implementing a permanent income tax surcharge as it was included in a supplemental budget bill. The legislation, titled LD 2212, allows for a 2% tax on individual incomes exceeding $1 million and $1.5 million for joint filers.

It pushes Maine’s top marginal rate from 7.15% to 9.15% and impacts an estimated 2,600 filers, as the new tax is expected to bring in $160 million over the next two years.

Progressive lawmakers and Gov. Mills, who previously resisted such hikes, argue the tax is a necessary response to federal policies and a way to fund “Free Community College.”

CALIFORNIA BILLIONAIRE TAX NEARS BALLOT AFTER UNION COLLECTS NEARLY DOUBLE REQUIRED SIGNATURES

“This budget will deliver significant relief to Maine people facing rising prices because of the shortsighted actions of the Trump Administration,” Mills said in a press release. “The supplemental budget gives money directly back to the people of Maine, it builds on my Administration’s historic investments in housing, it makes Free Community College permanent, it delivers more property tax relief and funding for childcare and importantly, preserves critical funding for schools and health care for the coming years.”

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” State Rep. Cheryl Golek, D-Harpswell, told the Michigan Advance. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.” 

However, in the weeks following the law’s passage, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce has warned that it functions as a tax on local entrepreneurship and retirement.

“This new surcharge isn’t hitting Wall Street — it’s hitting the sale of local businesses that have kept people working for decades. When a Maine business owner finally sells after 30 years of hard work, we shouldn’t punish that moment of success,” former Maine senator and business owner Brian Langley said in a news conference.

“Many Maine businesses, particularly small and family-owned companies, would feel the direct impact of higher income taxes, reducing their ability to reinvest, grow and hire,” Maine State Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Patrick Woodcock added. “At a time when our economic outlook is uncertain, those resources should be focused on strengthening Maine’s long-term growth potential.”

Additionally, conservative fiscal watchdogs argue that Maine is moving in the opposite direction of the rest of the country, where many states are currently slashing rates to attract residents.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

“Twenty-three states have reduced their top marginal income tax rates since 2021, while six states have gone in the opposite direction, yielding a widening gulf between high- and low-income-tax states. The modest amount Maine could collect from a high-rate income tax isn’t worth the damage to the state’s economic competitiveness,” Tax Foundation’s Jared Walczak recently wrote.

Maine joins blue states Washington, Massachusetts and New Jersey in passing millionaire-related taxes. States like New York, Illinois and Michigan are examining proposals or facing stalled efforts.

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

This story about the Federal Reserve’s April interest rate decision is developing and will be updated with further details.

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced it will leave interest rates unchanged amid concerns about inflation rising further amid the war in Iran.

Fed policymakers voted to leave the benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at its current range of 3.5% to 3.75%. The move follows the central bank’s decision to hold rates steady in January and March after three successive 25-basis-point rate cuts in September, October and December to close out last year.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the central bank’s panel responsible for monetary policy moves, voted 11-1 to leave interest rates unchanged. Fed Governor Stephen Miran dissented in favor of a 25-basis-point cut. 

Three other FOMC members – Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari and Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan – dissented as they opposed the inclusion of language showing a bias toward easing interest rates. The four total dissents were the highest total for a FOMC meeting since 1992.

The FOMC meeting is expected to be the last under the leadership of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, as his term as Fed chairman is due to expire on May 15. Powell said at his press conference that he intends to continue serve his term as a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors for a period of time that’s to be determined due to his concerns regarding the Trump administration’s investigations of the Fed.

KEVIN WARSH MOVES ONE STEP CLOSER TO BECOMING NEXT FED CHAIR

The FOMC’s statement noted that the war in the Middle East is “contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook,” and that the economy is expanding with low levels of job gains and inflation elevated due to the recent rise in global energy prices.

Powell opened his press conference by saying that policymakers are “squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people.”

He noted that the slowdown in job growth stems from a “decline in the growth of the labor force due to lower immigration and labor force participation,” and said that inflation has risen recently due in part to the “significant rise in global oil prices that has resulted from the conflict in the Middle East.”

GOP SENATOR DROPS OPPOSITION TO TRUMP FED CHAIR NOMINATION AFTER DOJ DECISION

Powell was asked about the impact of the ongoing oil price shock and said that “in the textbook, you would look through an oil shock because they tend to be short-lived and they tend to revert, and monetary policy works with long and variable lags, so you know, you wouldn’t necessarily react right away.”

“That’s all the more true given that we’re several years above 2% inflation and we’re already looking through the tariff shock, so I think we’re going to be very cautious about that. But the question about looking through energy really is not in front of us right now, it hasn’t even peaked yet, and I think we’d want to see the back side of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about reducing rates,” he explained.

FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence noted the four dissents in the FOMC statement and asked Powell if he’s handing a divided Fed to his successor.

“The thing to remember is, we have always had vigorous debates and they’re excellent debates, I have to say, they’ve been really good. And we’re in an unusually difficult situation, we’ve really had four supply shocks – you could actually say more than four, but at minimum, we had the pandemic, we had the invasion of Ukraine, we had the tariffs, and now we have Iran and the oil spike,” Powell said. 

“Every supply shock has the capability of driving inflation up and unemployment up, and the central bank has a really hard time knowing what to do. So the right thing to do is to try to balance the achievement of those two goals, and that’s what our framework calls for us to do,” he said. “It’s only natural that you have a range of views on the committee… if everybody agreed, that would be surprising, and I think it’s partly a function of extraordinarily challenging set of supply shocks that we’ve been dealing with now for five or six years.”

POWELL WARNS OF NEW ENERGY SUPPLY SHOCK AS GAS PRICES SURGE: ‘NO ONE KNOWS HOW BIG IT WILL BE’

What’s next for Jerome Powell?

Powell said that this would be his last press conference as chair and congratulated his expected successor, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, on his nomination advancing from the Senate Banking Committee earlier on Wednesday. 

He said that he plans to continue serving as a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors following the conclusion of his term as chairman due to lingering concerns over the Trump administration’s legal actions against the Fed.

“I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation. She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation. Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there’s a criminal referral from the Fed’s inspector general. And if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek, as part of that appeal, to restart the investigation, or send new subpoenas,” Powell said.

PIRRO CLOSES INVESTIGATION INTO FEDERAL RESERVE OVER BUILDING PROJECT

He said that he’s encouraged by recent developments and his decisions on these matters “will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve.”

“My concern is really about the series of illegal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. And I want to note here, this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials. I’ve never suggested that such verbal criticism is a problem, and neither has anyone else here,” Powell explained.

“But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113-year history and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. So I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public – which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors,” he added. 

“It is so important for economy, for the people that we serve, that they can depend, over time, on a central bank that operates that way free of political influence. It’s part of the absolute foundation of this amazing economy that we have, it’s just one of the many reasons why the U.S. economy is the envy of the world,” Powell said.

TRUMP THREATENS TO FIRE POWELL, BLASTS FED LEADERSHIP AS ‘INCOMPETENT’

The outgoing Fed chair added that he previously planned to retire at the end of his chairmanship, but that he’s waiting for the “investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency, and I’m waiting for that, and I will leave when I think it’s appropriate to do so.”

Powell said that he plans to “keep a low profile as a governor. There’s only ever one chair of the Federal Reserve Board, when Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that chair once sworn in… his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well.”

What experts are saying about interest rates

Shares of solar cell manufacturer Websol Energy System jumped 5% to hit the upper circuit for the third consecutive session on Wednesday, rallying 45% in six days as strong quarterly earnings and fresh purchases by ace investor Vijay Kedia boosted investor sentiment.

Shares of the company were trading at Rs 128.31 apiece on Wednesday morning. Notably, the stock has rallied a whopping 155% in less than two months, after hitting a 52-week low of Rs 50.40 per share on March 9 this year.

Websol Energy’s strong Q4 earnings

The company, on Monday, released its results for the January-March quarter of FY2026. Net profit soared 158% YoY to Rs 125 crore in Q4 FY26 from Rs 48 crore in Q4 FY25. The firm’s revenue from operations, meanwhile, zoomed 132% to Rs 401 crore during the quarter under review, from Rs 173 crore in the corresponding quarter of the previous financial year.

Sequentially, the solar module-maker’s net profit grew 92% from the Rs 65 crore reported in the October-December quarter of the same financial year. Revenue grew 54% quarter-over-quarter (QoQ).

India’s solar manufacturing sector continues to benefit from strong structural tailwinds, including ambitious renewable capacity targets, supportive government policies such as PLI and ALMM, and increasing domestic demand for high-efficiency solar products, Websol said in a media release. “With a strengthened manufacturing base, improving utilisation levels, and a clear roadmap for expansion and integration, Websol is well positioned to capitalise on these opportunities,” the release added.

Commenting on the performance, Managing Director Sohan Lal Agarwal said ‘FY26 has been a landmark year for Websol as the commissioning of Cell Line-2 not only enhanced the company’s capacity but also reinforced the core strength of the business.

Vijay Kedia buys Websol Energy shares

The stock recently grabbed headlines after the latest data on the company’s shareholding pattern showed that ace investor Vijay Kedia purchased shares of the company.Vijay Kedia was one of the largest public individual shareholders in the company, after Amit Mishra, according to data on Websol’s shareholding pattern as of March 31, 2026. Notably, Kedia’s name did not appear in the company’s shareholding data as of March 13, which was published following a preferential allotment of warrants after a stock split.

Also read: Maruti Suzuki shares jump 4% after Q4 results. What Jefferies, Goldman Sachs and HSBC recommend now

At the stock’s previous closing price of Rs 122.20 apiece on NSE, Kedia’s holding of 44.44 lakh shares would be worth more than Rs 54 crore. The exact price at which the veteran market investor may have bought the shares is unknown. Also, it is important to note that companies are required to disclose shareholders’ names in the shareholding pattern only when their total stake crosses 1%. This means that it is not possible to ascertain whether Kedia added the stock to his portfolio in March or simply bought more shares to his existing holding.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

Construction adjudication remains a central route for resolving disputes across the UK construction market at speed.

Whether the issue involves interim payments, final account valuations, defects, delay, or differing interpretations of contract terms, adjudication is a deadline-driven process where preparation and tactical decision-making matter.

As margins tighten and scrutiny increases across the sector, many parties are prioritising solicitors who combine adjudication fluency with commercial realism and, where appropriate, flexible fee options. Independent guides such as Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners continue to influence buying decisions by highlighting teams with sustained recognition and consistent client feedback.

Below is a refreshed selection of construction adjudication solicitors for 2026. Each firm listed is known for supporting clients through complex disputes, with different strengths depending on project type, scale, and risk appetite.

1. Helix Law

Best for: Partner-led strategy on complex, high-value adjudications and enforcement

Helix Law is regularly instructed on technically demanding adjudications and is recognised in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners. The firm is often engaged on payment disputes, adjudications under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act, and multi-party disagreements where speed and careful positioning are essential.

A key differentiator is its partner-led approach, giving clients senior input from the start rather than later-stage supervision. The team blends contentious construction experience with a commercial focus on cash flow, leverage, and project continuity. Helix Law is also noted for adopting legal technology and exploring alternative pricing or funding arrangements where suitable, helping clients manage cost alongside urgency.

Key Services:

• Running and defending construction adjudications
• Payment disputes, including “smash and grab” claims
• Final account and valuation challenges
• Contract interpretation, compliance, and enforcement
• Defects, variations, and delay or disruption claims
• High Court enforcement of adjudication decisions

Pros:

• Recognised in leading independent legal directories
• Senior, partner-led case direction from the outset
• Commercially focused, fast-moving approach aligned to adjudication timetables
• Experience with complex, high-value disputes and multi-party issues
• Flexible mindset on technology and dispute funding options

Cons:

• Boutique profile may suit clients seeking depth over broad national footprint
• Strategic intensity may be more than is needed for very small claims

2. Sharpe Pritchard Solicitors

Sharpe Pritchard is well known for construction law, particularly where public sector bodies, infrastructure schemes, or regulated procurement environments shape the dispute. The firm frequently supports parties through adjudication in complex project settings and is experienced in navigating governance and stakeholder considerations alongside the legal issues.

Key Services:

• Construction adjudication
• Public sector and infrastructure disputes
• Contract management and dispute avoidance support

Pros:

• Strong public sector and infrastructure capability
• Experienced construction specialists
• Comfortable with complex project frameworks

Cons:

• May be less oriented toward smaller private-sector disputes
• Public-sector focus may not match all client profiles

3. JMW Solicitors

JMW Solicitors advises businesses involved across the construction supply chain, handling adjudications as part of a broader commercial disputes offering. The team supports parties seeking quick outcomes and pragmatic resolution, including payment recovery and contract-based claims.

Key Services:

• Adjudication support and dispute management
• Construction and engineering contract disputes
• Payment recovery and related litigation

Pros:

• Broad commercial disputes strength
• Practical approach suited to time-sensitive disputes

Cons:

• Wider caseload may mean clients should clarify lead solicitor availability
• Not solely focused on construction adjudication work

4. Myerson Solicitors

Myerson Solicitors is a well-established regional firm providing construction dispute services, including adjudication. The team supports developers and businesses with contract disputes and valuation issues, often acting for SMEs and owner-managed organisations that value responsive advice.

Key Services:

• Construction adjudication
• Contract disputes and risk guidance
• Final account and valuation disagreements

Pros:

• Strong regional presence and established dispute capability
• Good fit for SMEs and mid-market clients

Cons:

• Largely UK domestic focus
• Less emphasis on cross-border construction disputes

5. B P Collins Solicitors

B P Collins supports clients through construction disputes with a focus on sensible resolution pathways, including adjudication, mediation, and negotiated settlement. The firm is often chosen for relationship-driven advice and a balanced approach to contentious matters.

Key Services:

• Adjudication and construction disputes
• Contract claims and negotiation support
• Mediation and alternative dispute resolution

Pros:

• Strong client service and settlement capability
• Balanced approach between dispute escalation and resolution

Cons:

• Less visible in very high-value enforcement work
• Regional profile rather than national construction disputes brand

6. MJD Solicitors

MJD Solicitors advises on construction adjudication with an emphasis on practical case handling and cost control. The firm supports contractors, subcontractors, and developers dealing with payment and performance disputes, particularly where decisive action is needed to protect cash flow.

Key Services:

• Construction adjudication
• Payment disputes and contractual claims
• Delay, disruption, and associated loss claims

Pros:

• Practical, cost-aware advice
• Strong understanding of contractor-side pressures

Cons:

• Smaller team capacity for multiple concurrent large disputes
• Lower public visibility on major enforcement outcomes

7. LEXLAW Solicitors

LEXLAW Solicitors is primarily known for dispute resolution and litigation, including construction-related claims where adjudication, court enforcement, or robust contractual arguments are required. The firm may be suited to parties looking for assertive dispute strategy and strong litigation experience.

Key Services:

• Construction disputes and adjudication support
• Contract litigation
• Enforcement proceedings

Pros:

• Litigation-led approach
• Strong focus on dispute strategy and leverage

Cons:

• Less clearly positioned as construction-only specialists
• More limited adjudication-specific rankings visibility

8. Taylor Rose Solicitors

Taylor Rose Solicitors provides construction dispute services through a national consultant-led structure. The firm can be a suitable option for clients wanting geographic convenience and access to dispute support across multiple locations, including adjudication.

Key Services:

• Construction adjudication
• Contract and commercial disputes
• Mediation and settlement support

Pros:

• Nationwide reach
• Flexible service model

Cons:

• Experience can vary depending on individual consultant
• Adjudication specialism may be less centralised

How to Choose a Construction Adjudication Solicitor

Appointing the right solicitor for adjudication is often a decision made under time pressure. The process moves quickly, and the financial stakes can be immediate, particularly where cash flow and project delivery are at risk.

Key points to assess include:

• Independent recognition: Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners rankings can help indicate consistent market standing.
• Relevant adjudication track record: Look for experience in both claimant and respondent roles.
• Access to senior lawyers: Direct partner involvement can be valuable when deadlines are tight.
• Commercial judgement: The best advice aligns legal tactics with business realities and project constraints.
• Enforcement strength: Capability in High Court enforcement can be decisive if the other side does not pay.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is construction adjudication?

Construction adjudication is a statutory dispute resolution process intended to deliver a fast decision on disputes under qualifying construction contracts.

What kinds of disputes work well in adjudication?

Common examples include interim and final payment disputes, valuation issues, defects allegations, delay and disruption claims, and contract interpretation disagreements.

How long does an adjudication usually take?

Many adjudications conclude within 28 days, often extending to 42 days depending on agreement and complexity.

Is the adjudicator’s decision final?

The decision is binding on an interim basis and is usually enforceable in court, although it can be revisited later in litigation or arbitration.

Conclusion: Getting Construction Disputes Resolved Quickly and Effectively

Adjudication remains one of the most effective mechanisms for securing swift, workable outcomes in construction disputes, particularly where project momentum and payment certainty matter. Success often depends on a solicitor’s ability to combine construction-specific knowledge with procedural discipline and decisive strategy.

Among the 2026 options, Helix Law stands out for its directory-recognised capability, partner-led approach, and strong performance in complex adjudications and enforcement. The other firms listed also offer credible support, and the right choice will depend on dispute value, sector, urgency, and the level of specialist focus required.