Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In
Streetsblog California

California And Ten Other Friends Go to Battle with Trump Over EV’s

The plaintiffs in the suit are California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

As expected, President Donald Trump signed into law a resolution taking away California’s power to require that all sales of new vehicles in the state be electric or zero emission vehicles. As promised, California immediately challenged the legality of this action and was joined by 10 other states seeking relief from federal overreach.

While the president’s shock troops assaulted one of California’s United States Senators, Trump was signing into law a trio of resolutions - each rescinding a waiver granted by the EPA - that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian have opined have no legal weight.  

The most notable of those waivers allowed California to mandate that, by 2035, at least 80 percent of new vehicles sold in the state be electric, with the remainder being plug-in hybrids. The other waivers two had to do with EV and zero-emission conversion of the freight industry.

California alone has the right to set its own clean air standards because it created state standards before the federal government began setting national standards. However, other states can choose to follow California’s standards rather than the federal ones.

Automakers praised the signing, which the President claimed “liberated” the industry. California and the other plaintiffs were not impressed.

"The Federal Government carried out an illegal playbook designed to evade lawful procedures that might prevent the 'take down' of disfavored California laws," the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in northern California, reads.

At issue is whether or not the federal government can rescind a waiver without going through regular legislative procedures. Republican legislators chose to use powers granted under the Congressional Review Act, which is not something that can be filibustered in the Senate (thus only 51 Senators are needed to approve the change instead of 60). 

The plaintiffs in the suit are California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

The Week in Short Videos

High-Speed Rail, an L.A. Metro smart bike locker how-to, and a push for a new pedestrian plaza in L.A.'s Koreatown

November 15, 2025

2026 Could Be the Year Everything Changes for California High-Speed Rail

What's being built. The financial plans. Everything short of the route could be different a year from now.

November 13, 2025

Why the $65M Studebaker Road Transformation Project Is important for Long Beach

When construction wraps in late 2026, the Studebaker corridor will no longer be a line of separation but a living connector.

November 13, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines

Just a reminder, SBCAL will not be publishing tomorrow.

November 13, 2025

LA Scrapes Grassroots Koreatown Crosswalks, Plans To Replace

The city will replace guerilla crosswalks with an interim traffic circle and new crosswalks. The delayed permanent traffic circle is expected to installed next year.

November 12, 2025
See all posts