Speaking at the Republican Convention, former President Trump made an impossible promise: “I will end the electric vehicle mandate on Day One.” Unfortunately, that rhetoric crashed into reality – there is no federal electric vehicle mandate.
No car company is being forced to sell electric vehicles and no consumer is being forced to buy them. The Biden administration’s policies have given consumers the freedom to choose cleaner air and cheaper energy costs by driving electric. And no matter what he says, Trump can’t repeal existing environmental standards on his first day in office.
Unfortunately, Trump is not the only one lying about an EV mandate. Nationwide television ads funded by oil companies falsely claim the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standards mandate EVs and impose a “ban” on gasoline vehicles. This is also a lie, told to keep consumers chained to volatile oil prices and pain at the pump. No EPA standards have ever banned the sale of gasoline or diesel vehicles. A quick visit to an auto dealership would dispel this myth.
Trump and the oil industry’s ads likely refer to the EPA’s most recent clean car standards, released in March 2024. The standards establish tailpipe emission reduction targets through 2032 – the goal is to cut tailpipe pollution so that all Americans can breathe cleaner air. The standards may indeed encourage EV sales, but these are still not mandates.
For decades, EPA regulations have been designed so carmakers can develop a mix of cars and trucks in their fleet that meets clean air and emission goals, including cleaner gasoline and diesel, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles and EVs. Allowing automakers to choose what technology they invest in fosters innovation and investment – for proof look at the “Battery Belt” of factories springing up across the Southeast U.S. and the billions in EV manufacturing investments automakers are pouring into our communities. Encouraging clean cars also cuts air pollution from America’s transportation sector, the country’s largest source of the carbon emissions heating up our planet and a significant contributor to toxic smog and soot.
Rolling back these clean car standards would have significant consequences for our economy and the air we all breathe. It would increase emissions, slow job and economic growth, undermine efforts to meet international climate commitments, and jeopardize public health and environmental sustainability. Fortunately, any attempt Trump might make to repeal the EPA clean car program will face multiple hurdles.
First, rolling back clean car standards will face significant legal challenges from environmental organizations, states including California – the nation’s largest car market, and even auto manufacturers. These legal battles would likely extend over months or years, making a Day One repeal impractical.
No matter what Trump says, the EPA also must adhere to the Clean Air Act. As the senior director of transportation emissions at EPA, I led the first set of EPA regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions in automobiles, so I know well how rigorous the process for developing federal environmental regulations is. It involves extensive research, stakeholder engagement, and public comments over the course of several years. During a public comment period, stakeholders can submit comments in writing and attend hearings held across the country to testify in person. The EPA must account for all this public input in its final rule.
The EPA’s updated clean car program was crafted following this same meticulous process, including thousands of pages of legal, engineering, and cost-benefit analyses. The overall benefits of these new rules are estimated at $2.1 trillion, with consumers saving $1 trillion by using less oil and gas, which translates into savings at the pump.
The bottom line is that reversing such regulatory standards is not as simple as signing an executive order. Any major change to regulation requires a similar, time-consuming process of proposal, public comment, and finalization, all subject to legal scrutiny, typically also lasting several years.
These long-standing processes are what helped stymie Trump from rolling back clean energy and transportation to regulatory programs that EPA has finalized. In his first term, Trump’s proposed cuts to the previous EPA clean car program were so radical that even automakers—the group Trump claimed to be helping—said they went too far. In fact, five major auto companies agreed to meet California’s more ambitious clean car standards over the ones proposed by the Trump-controlled EPA.
The economic landscape has changed, and even if Trump were re-elected and did attempt to roll back the EPA’s clean car programs, forward thinking car manufacturers will once again join California to oppose him. Stellantis recently signed a historic deal with California that aligns with the state’s zero emission goals, regardless of the election or court decisions. I encourage GM, Ford and other forward thinking car manufacturers to follow Stellantis’ example and sign similar agreements with California.
Trump may imagine that in his second term EPA’s authority would be curtailed by the Supreme Court’s recent Chevron deference decision, but that ruling is unlikely to impact the EPA’s April 2024 clean car program. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Chevron doctrine recognizes the importance of Congressional delegations of discretion to agencies like EPA and in status expressly cited the Clean Air Act. For example, the clean car program under the Clean Air Act is precisely such a delegation of discretion to EPA. That means EPA’s new standards based on such a meticulous consideration of the law and technical issues is precisely the exercise of a congressional delegation of discretion to an agency that should be upheld under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
Beyond the legal limitations Trump would face in any attempt to roll back environmental legislation, many elements of EV adoption simply aren’t controlled by the federal government. California has implemented stringent emissions standards and EV adoption rules, and 17 other states are committed to adopting its clean car programs. These states, which represent about 40% of new car sales in U.S., are likely to continue their efforts to clean up emissions regardless of any federal reversals. And consumers are increasingly choosing EVs over gas-powered cars – U.S. EV sales have passed 10% of total auto sales and are forecast to comprise 20% of all cars on American roads by 2030.
Perhaps even more importantly, eliminating existing clean car programs now creates political risks in Red, Blue, and Purple states alike. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act has spurred over $360 billion in investments in clean technology manufacturing and infrastructure, creating nearly 313,000 jobs as of June 2024, many in the EV sector and many in red states. Erasing these well-paying domestic manufacturing jobs just because they are also environmentally beneficial would be a huge political risk.
Undoing the momentum created by this massive federal investment in our country would also be economically disruptive. Reversing existing EV policies will create massive uncertainty for car manufacturers and suppliers about future investment. At the same time, global competitors like China and the European Union are financially supporting and rapidly growing their EV markets. Reducing support for EVs could weaken America’s competitive position in this critical and growing industry.
President Trump’s promise to repeal Biden’s EV policies fails to acknowledge the complexities and challenges inherent in such an action. Undoing established regulations is neither swift nor simple, involving legal hurdles, state-level initiatives, and broader market trends towards electrification.
The future of transportation is undeniably electric. The shift towards EVs is being driven by environmental necessity, technological innovation, and economic opportunity. Instead of attempting reverse this progress, the next president should build on the foundations laid by current policies, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future for all.
