The House strikes a blow against California in a fight over EVs

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to undo three federal waivers that let California set strict vehicle pollution standards. On Wednesday, the House voted against two waivers involving heavy trucking, and on Thursday, it voted to reverse a state rule that would require all new vehicles in the state to be zero-emission by 2035.

Two nonpartisan government entities have advised Congress that it can't actually reverse those waivers through the mechanism it's using. The Senate now needs to decide whether to follow that guidance — or follow the House.

California's standards have been described by supporters as ambitious, and by critics as unrealistic. Beginning with model year 2026, the state requires 35% of new cars sold by any given automaker to be zero-emission. Currently, about 25% of new cars sold in California are electric; the national average is closer to 10%.

These rules are not something automakers can brush off or overlook. California is a huge state and a major auto market. Other states can't set their own standards, but they can opt to follow California's, and about a dozen have adopted its zero-emission rule. The result is that more than 30% of the U.S. auto market is governed by California's policies.

"California's waiver has a massive impact," Stephanie Brinley, the associate director of AutoIntelligence at S&P Global Mobility, wrote in a report in January 2025.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing automakers, had pushed hard for Congress to step in and overrule California because they argue that consumer demand for EVs is not strong enough to support California's targets. John Bozzella, the trade group's president, has warned that meeting the requirements would "take a miracle" and said in a statement Wednesday that "thousands of American auto jobs and millions of units of U.S. auto production are at stake."

Environmental groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists argue that flexibilities built into the rules make them more achievable than they seem. And they say stricter regulations are important for protecting public health and the climate.

"This vote is an unprecedented and reckless attack on states' legal authority to address the vehicle pollution causing asthma, lung disease and heart conditions," Kathy Harris, Director of Clean Vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a statement.

Here's how we got here, and what's next.

Picture Los Angeles in the 1940s and '50s. Beautiful beaches, palm trees and picturesque homes — that were impossible to see behind a thick haze. That choking smog was fueled by air pollution from cars and industry, which became trapped mid-air by mountains and wind patterns.

Facing this unusually severe problem, the state began regulating air pollution well before the federal government did. As a result, California has a unique privilege: It, alone among U.S. states, can impose its own emissions standards that are stricter than the nation's.

Each time California wants to add a new, stricter rule, it has to obtain a waiver from the EPA. It's done that more than 75 times.

Today, the House voted to rescind the waiver that let California issue its zero-emission rule for passenger cars, along with two more that allow California to set rules for heavy trucks. One rule would require more heavy trucks to be electric, while the other would require new diesel vehicles to become cleaner.

Those three California rules aren't just about reducing smog. Cars and trucks are a major source of the carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet. Increasingly, California has become a global leader in reducing the carbon emissions that fuel climate change, and zero-emission vehicles are a key part of those climate policies.

California's climate-minded vehicle regulations, far more aggressive than the federal standards and explicitly designed to fight climate change, have long outraged President Trump and his allies. Trump has dismissed climate concerns and prioritized the domestic fossil fuel industry, and opposes regulations that he describes as limiting consumer choice.

The Trump administration is working to eliminate a number of the Biden administration's pro-EV policies, from freezing EV charger funding to reconsidering federal vehicle standards.

But even if the administration eases federal standards, California's tougher rules still push the auto industry to move aggressively toward EVs. That's why reversing these waivers is a key part of the Trump administration's broader deregulation plan.

Yes. During the first Trump presidency, the federal government revoked a waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle standards. That had never been done before, and triggered years of litigation.

It also split the auto industry. Some companies that had already made costly investments based on existing rules, and that were looking for some consistency among flip-flopping policies, sided with California. They agreed to follow the state's rules regardless of whether they were legally required to. Others sided with the Trump administration. The whole situation was messy, chaotic and, ultimately, temporary.

When Biden took office, the waiver was reinstated. Over the next few years California made its rules even stricter, requiring a new waiver to be granted — the one on passenger vehicles that the House just voted to nix.

The new Trump administration is now trying a different tactic to eliminate these waivers.

The EPA grants them. In the first Trump term, it was also the EPA that revoked the passenger vehicle waiver. As soon as Biden was in office, the EPA just issued the waiver again. That flip-flopping could, hypothetically, continue with each new administration, unless something changes.

This time, Congress is attempting to use the Congressional Review Act to reverse the EPA's decision to grant these waivers in the first place. It's a little bit like pressing an "undo" button, wiping the waivers out of existence.

It's only an option within a narrow window of time — and it only works if the president's party controls Congress. (Trump used this tool heavily in his first administration.) Significantly, rules that are reversed under the CRA may not be reissued in "substantially the same form" unless Congress passes a new law authorizing that specific rule.

The Congressional Review Act also states that actions taken under it are not subject to judicial review, meaning that courts can't overturn Congress' decision. But if the California waiver is in fact revoked under the CRA, expect legal challenges anyway.

"It's guaranteed," says Christopher "Smitty" Smith, an environmental lawyer in California. "And that's something I'm willing to state: It's guaranteed to result in litigation."

Now, the Senate has a decision to make.

The Government Accountability Office, a federal agency, believes the waiver is not actually eligible for this kind of reversal. So does the Senate parliamentarian, a sort of referee over what Congress can and can't do according to its own rules. Three Democratic senators say the parliamentarian "reaffirmed" in early April that the waiver is not subject to the Congressional Review Act.

The parliamentarian is not elected, and while her rulings hold significant weight in the Senate, they are not binding.

But overruling the parliamentarian violates long-held Senate norms — the same norms that keep the filibuster in place.

Reports indicate that some Republican senators have been weighing whether eliminating the California rules justifies breaking that norm.

Lobbying on this issue has been intense, with traditional automakers and the oil industry pushing hard for Congress to eliminate the rules, and public health groups like the American Lung Association joining environmental and EV groups to defend California's policies.

Copyright 2025 NPR