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

Give Input on Metro Sepulveda Rail Plan to connect Valley and Westside

Metro is still deciding between some low-performing monorail alternatives and some high-performing heavy rail alternatives. What do you want to see?

July 10, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: Localities Subsidize the State DOT

Adie Tomer of Brookings on how to improve regional coordination around infrastructure.

July 10, 2025

Call to Action: Car Brains Try to Remove San Mateo Committee Member for Opposing Widenings

Mike Swire fought highway widening, so asphalt-addicted bullies want him kicked off the San Mateo Transportation Authority Community Advisory Committee.

July 10, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines

Calmatters continues their great reporting on the state's lack of teeth when it comes to dealing with deadly drivers.

July 10, 2025

Five of the Ugliest Transportation Policies In the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill

Here's a rundown of some of the transportation provisions in the Republicans' reconciliation package, and what they might mean for your community.

July 9, 2025
See all posts