Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

Trump Waged a Multi-Front Blitz on EVs

Among other actions, he overturned an electric vehicle mandate that, well, doesn’t exist.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Ding dong, the electric vehicle “mandate” is dead.

President Donald Trump fulfilled his longtime campaign promise on Monday by functionally ending former President Joe Biden’s tailpipe emissions standards, which had aimed to “accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis.”

As part of his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, signed Monday night in the Oval Office, Trump specifically demanded the elimination of “the electric vehicle mandate,” ordered a “level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles,” and directed the termination of “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles,” as well as the elimination of “unfair subsidies … that favor EVs.”

Though the finer details of how this will be implemented aren’t clear in the executive order, there has never been an actual electric vehicle mandate. The rules under Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency would have required a gradual reduction in fleetwide average carbon emissions by up to 56% by 2032. To meet that goal, electric vehicles would have needed to make up 35% to 56% of new car sales by 2032, up from 8% in 2024. According to the Biden administration, the rule would have cut more than 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions through 2055, or “roughly equal to four times the emissions of the entire transportation sector in 2021.”

Trump’s executive order also appeared to target the Biden administration’s fuel economy standards. Back in June, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a rule that raised the fleetwide average fuel economy of passenger cars for model years 2027 through 2031 by 2% each year — that is, to 47 miles per gallon in 2026 and to 50.4 miles per gallon in 2031. (The current average is around 39.1 miles per gallon.)

Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the rules, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE Standards, arguing they “effectively mandate EVs while at the same time forcing the internal combustion engine out of the market.” The GOP has insisted that the CAFE Standards should be “market-driven” rather than “limit availability of and access to vehicle and fuel options.” Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s playbook for the Trump administration, called for a fuel efficiency standard of 35 mpg.

CAFE Standards have long been a political football between administrations; Trump previously rolled back President Barack Obama’s standards, while Biden’s NHTSA brought even stricter rules.

Monday’s executive order additionally appeared to target the EPA’s waiver for California to set its own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act in its language targeting “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.” Trump previously revoked California’s right to include greenhouse gases in its emissions considerations and barred other states from adopting its criteria. Biden reversed that decision in March 2022, on the grounds that the Trump administration’s withdrawal was based on a flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Since then, California released its Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which 11 other states have adopted and requires all new cars sold by 2035 to be zero-emission.

It had been no secret that the California waiver would be a target of the incoming Trump administration, despite the program being a secret profit center for Tesla and supported by Elon Musk. California has also quietly been working to Trump-proof its standards, reaching an agreement recently with Stellantis (the parent automaker of Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram) to comply voluntarily with its electrification mandates through 2030. (As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has noted, the nationwide EPA rules for tailpipe emission reductions “follow a different model than the California standards,” and are not an electric vehicle mandate.)

By directing the EPA to revoke the California waiver, Trump has started a process that could lead to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Justices declined to consider whether or not California has the right to set its own aggressive tailpipe standards, but if Trump indeed attempts to rescind the waiver, it will likely face further legal challenges.

Taken together, the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order seems designed to deliver on Trump’s frequent campaign attacks on EVs on the 2024 campaign trail, where he argued that “under Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, 40% of all U.S. auto jobs will disappear.” Heatmap’s own investigation found little evidence to suggest that making electric vehicles will result in fewer jobs. Trump’s tune on EVs had changed in recent months, however, as he grew closer to Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

It’s true, also, that executive orders are not the automatic rule of law; many of the policies will face time-consuming new rulemaking processes or legal challenges. More clarity about what the “Unleashing American Energy” order does precisely, and how it will be implemented, will become clear in the weeks and months ahead.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

Exxon Counterattacks

On China’s rare earths, Bill Gates’ nuclear dream, and Texas renewables

An Exxon sign.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Melissa exploded in intensity over the warm Caribbean waters and has now strengthened into a major storm, potentially slamming into Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica as a Category 5 in the coming days • The Northeast is bracing for a potential nor’easter, which will be followed by a plunge in temperatures of as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit lower than average • The northern Australian town of Julia Creek saw temperatures soar as high as 106 degrees.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Exxon sued California

Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit against California late Friday on the grounds that two landmark new climate laws violate the oil giant’s free speech rights, The New York Times reported. The two laws would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas pollution created by the use of their products, so-called Scope 3 emissions. “The statutes compel Exxon Mobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” Exxon complained through its lawyers. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said the statutes “have already been upheld in court and we continue to have confidence in them.” He condemned the lawsuit, calling it “truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
The Aftermath

How to Live in a Fire-Scarred World

The question isn’t whether the flames will come — it’s when, and what it will take to recover.

Wildfire aftermath.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the two decades following the turn of the millennium, wildfires came within three miles of an estimated 21.8 million Americans’ homes. That number — which has no doubt grown substantially in the five years since — represents about 6% of the nation’s population, including the survivors of some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in the country’s history. But it also includes millions of stories that never made headlines.

For every Paradise, California, and Lahaina, Hawaii, there were also dozens of uneventful evacuations, in which regular people attempted to navigate the confusing jargon of government notices and warnings. Others lost their homes in fires that were too insignificant to meet the thresholds for federal aid. And there are countless others who have decided, after too many close calls, to move somewhere else.

By any metric, costly, catastrophic, and increasingly urban wildfires are on the rise. Nearly a third of the U.S. population, however, lives in a county with a high or very high risk of wildfire, including over 60% of the counties in the West. But the shape of the recovery from those disasters in the weeks and months that follow is often that of a maze, featuring heart-rending decisions and forced hands. Understanding wildfire recovery is critical, though, for when the next disaster follows — which is why we’ve set out to explore the topic in depth.

Keep reading...Show less
The Aftermath

The Surprisingly Tricky Problem of Ordering People to Leave

Wildfire evacuation notices are notoriously confusing, and the stakes are life or death. But how to make them better is far from obvious.

Wildfire evacuation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

How many different ways are there to say “go”? In the emergency management world, it can seem at times like there are dozens.

Does a “level 2” alert during a wildfire, for example, mean it’s time to get out? How about a “level II” alert? Most people understand that an “evacuation order” means “you better leave now,” but how is an “evacuation warning” any different? And does a text warning that “these zones should EVACUATE NOW: SIS-5111, SIS-5108, SIS-5117…” even apply to you?

Keep reading...Show less