Ten California mayors, from Fresno to Anaheim to Bakersfield, are fighting a state proposal they say would siphon local tax dollars to prop up the state's high-speed rail project, a venture that has burned through nearly two decades and tens of billions of dollars without producing a single mile of operating track.
Led by Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, the mayors sent a letter in April to the CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority opposing a mechanism outlined in the agency's 2026 Draft Business Plan. That mechanism would redirect tax revenues generated near future rail stations to fund the project, a move the mayors call unconstitutional and reckless.
The letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, represents the sharpest local pushback yet against a project whose cost estimates have ballooned from $33 billion at its 2008 approval to as much as $231.3 billion under the authority's own updated projections. The mayors are not fringe critics. They represent cities that would host the very stations the state wants to build.
Dyer did not mince words. In a statement attributed to him by Fox News Digital, the Fresno mayor laid out the coalition's position plainly:
"This proposal in the 2026 Draft Business Plan is fiscally reckless, legally vulnerable, and fundamentally unfair to the communities expected to host High-Speed Rail facilities. It would weaken local governments, destabilize public services, and undermine constitutional protections that California voters have repeatedly affirmed. Simply put: the state cannot solve a state funding problem by raiding local tax bases."
The nine other mayors who co-signed the letter represent Anaheim, Lancaster, Riverside, Bakersfield, Gilroy, Merced, Burbank, Hanford, and Stockton. Together, the ten cities span much of the proposed route and its surrounding communities.
Dyer also raised a constitutional argument. He said it is "not constitutionally allowable in California for the state of California to come in and take those sales tax dollars for any other purpose than what they're intended for, and that's to support local government." The mayors urged the state to pursue voter-approved bonds or dedicated state revenue sources instead of what they described as "attempting to divert local tax growth through a legally dubious scheme."
Governor Gavin Newsom, whose administration has championed the rail project, has faced mounting criticism on multiple fronts in recent years. Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to Newsom's office for comment on the mayors' letter but did not include a response.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority pushed back, sort of. An unnamed spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the characterization was wrong, framing the plan as a conversation rather than a concrete policy.
"There is no proposal. Through the 2026 Draft Business Plan, the Authority is continuing conversations with local jurisdictions and stakeholders about potential tools that could support station-area infrastructure and long-term system delivery."
That denial sits awkwardly alongside the 2026 Draft Business Plan itself, which Fox News Digital reported outlined the tax-revenue redirection mechanism. The mayors clearly read the document as more than a conversation starter. When ten elected officials from cities along the route jointly write a formal letter calling a plan "fiscally reckless" and "legally vulnerable," they are responding to something more concrete than a brainstorming session.
The authority's own numbers tell a story of spiraling ambition and collapsing credibility. The 2026 Draft Business Plan re-estimated the full Phase 1 buildout at $231.3 billion. Even the authority's so-called "optimized approach" carries a price tag of roughly $126.2 billion, nearly four times the $33 billion voters were told the project would cost in 2008.
The local tax fight arrives at a moment when the project's federal lifeline has been cut. The U.S. Department of Transportation canceled billions of dollars in federal grants for the rail project in the summer of 2025.
Breitbart reported that the Trump administration revoked approximately $4 billion in unspent federal funding, with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy calling the project a "boondoggle" that failed to meet grant obligations. The Federal Railroad Administration cited nine areas of noncompliance, including missed deadlines and budget shortfalls. Duffy stated: "Federal dollars are not a blank check, they come with a promise to deliver results."
President Trump weighed in directly on May 6, calling the project "totally out of control" and mocking its cost overruns. The loss of federal funding makes the state's search for alternative revenue all the more urgent, and helps explain why Sacramento's eyes may have turned toward local tax bases.
Rep. Vince Fong, a Republican representing part of the Central Valley, posted his own assessment on X in April. His verdict was blunt:
"California's high-speed rail has become a slow-moving train wreck, a case study in government waste and mismanagement, with billions spent, deadlines blown, and still nothing to show for it. No finished track. No trains. Just broken promises. Years later, taxpayers are still footing the bill."
That last line captures the core frustration. There is no finished track. There are no trains. The project was supposed to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. After nearly two decades and expenditures that dwarf the original estimate by orders of magnitude, the promise remains unfulfilled.
The high-speed rail debacle does not exist in isolation. It fits a broader pattern of accountability failures in Newsom's Sacramento. His former chief of staff recently pleaded guilty in a federal campaign fraud scheme, raising questions about the culture of oversight, or its absence, in the governor's orbit.
Meanwhile, HSRA CEO Ian Choudri offered what may be the most unintentionally revealing statement of the entire saga. At a conference in Washington, D.C., Choudri assured attendees that the high-speed railway will be finished "in our lifetime." For a project approved in 2008 with a price tag that has grown sevenfold, "in our lifetime" is not a timeline. It is an admission.
The mayors' letter pointed to a specific alternative: the state should fund the project through voter-approved bonds or dedicated state revenue, not by reaching into the pockets of cities already struggling to maintain their own public services. That distinction matters. California voters approved the initial bond measure in 2008 based on a $33 billion estimate. The project they were sold bears almost no resemblance to the one now projected to cost north of $200 billion.
Newsom's broader political standing has shown cracks beyond the rail fight. Corruption accusations have dogged his signature programs, and even prominent cultural figures have publicly distanced themselves from the governor.
Several questions remain unanswered. The specific legal mechanism by which the state would redirect local tax revenues has not been fully detailed in public reporting. The authority insists no formal proposal exists, yet its own business plan outlined the concept clearly enough to provoke a ten-mayor coalition into formal opposition.
Whether the 2026 Draft Business Plan will be revised, shelved, or pushed forward despite local resistance is unclear. The authority has not explained how it plans to close the gap between its $126 billion "optimized" estimate and the reality of a project that has lost billions in federal support and now faces organized opposition from the very cities it needs as partners.
The constitutional question Dyer raised, whether the state can legally divert local sales tax revenues to a state project, could end up in court if Sacramento presses forward. California's constitutional protections for local tax authority have been a recurring flashpoint in state politics, and the mayors made clear they view any attempt at diversion as a fight worth having.
For now, the project sits in a familiar place: over budget, behind schedule, short on allies, and asking for more money. The difference this time is that the people being asked to pay are pushing back, and they happen to be the mayors of the cities the state needs most.
When the hosts of the party start locking the doors, it may be time to admit the train isn't coming.
