The federal government’s legal power to combat climate change just suffered a major blow, making it official: the United States will effectively operate without laws dictating how fuel-efficient American passenger vehicles should be.
This stark reality comes after a year of regulatory rollbacks by the Trump administration, culminating in the recent repeal of the “endangerment finding.” This crucial scientific determination previously mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) to regulate greenhouse gases due to their threat to human health.
“The U.S. no longer has emission standards of any meaning,” stated Margo T. Oge, who once served as the E.P.A.’s lead vehicle emissions regulator under three different presidents. She now advises both car manufacturers and environmental organizations, adding, “Nothing. Zero. Not many countries have zero.”
It’s worth noting that transportation remains the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States.
While consumers could still opt for more fuel-efficient cars, and California has pledged legal action to uphold stricter standards, the overall landscape has changed dramatically. Even the Department of Transportation’s fuel economy rules, originally designed for oil conservation, face significant threats.
Last year, the Trump administration proposed weakening the fuel economy standards to almost negligible levels. Concurrently, a Republican-led Congress reduced civil penalties for violations to $0, essentially making compliance voluntary for carmakers. Furthermore, California’s own stringent clean-car rules were blocked by Congress.
The practical upshot is that the United States is poised to diverge from most industrialized nations worldwide, which maintain mandatory fuel economy or tailpipe emissions rules for greenhouse gases. The E.P.A. will continue to regulate specific pollutants like nitrogen oxides, but its broader climate authority has been stripped away.
In contrast, the Biden administration had previously aimed to tighten emission limits, encouraging the automotive industry to transition towards electric vehicles that produce no pollution.
The Trump administration’s recent elimination of the endangerment finding is expected to spark intense legal battles from environmental groups and other concerned parties. This finding, established in 2009, scientifically concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger American health and welfare, forming the basis for federal regulations on carbon dioxide, methane, and other pollutants, including those from vehicles.
Credit: Apu Gomes/Getty Images
Should the E.P.A.’s decision stand, it could result in a 10 percent increase in the country’s greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of global climate change, which, in turn, exacerbates phenomena like heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and floods, while also accelerating glacier melt and rising sea levels.
Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, hailed the decision as “the single largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.” He criticized Democrats for what he termed an “ideological crusade” on climate change, which he claimed had “strangled entire sectors of the United States economy,” particularly the struggling auto industry that has faced challenges in electric vehicle sales.
Beyond climate concerns, the long-term benefits for the U.S. auto industry from this deregulation remain uncertain. Experts suggest that without these rules, American automakers might become even more reliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, potentially falling behind countries like China that are rapidly advancing in cleaner electric vehicle technology.
This could put them at a significant competitive disadvantage. Ms. Oge starkly warned, “Our automakers are not going to survive.”
John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents U.S. automakers, has not explicitly endorsed the rollback of the endangerment finding. However, he stated that the action would “correct some of the unachievable emissions regulations enacted under the previous administration.”
Interestingly, Mr. Trump’s stance on electric vehicles has fluctuated. During his 2024 presidential campaign, he famously claimed electric cars would “kill” the American auto industry. Yet, he seemingly softened his position after discussions with Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and a former advisor, even stating in March that he would purchase a Tesla.
“Globally, the push is in exactly the opposite direction, in the direction of electrifying vehicles,” explained Ann Carlson, a U.C.L.A. School of Law professor who served as acting administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the Biden administration.
Now, however, “they’re saying no standards whatsoever,” she observed.
Credit: Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
For 17 years, the E.P.A. and the Department of Transportation collaborated closely, with the E.P.A. overseeing carbon dioxide emissions for health protection, and the Transportation Department managing fuel consumption for conservation.
The endangerment finding previously empowered the E.P.A. to implement more aggressive standards than fuel-economy rules alone could achieve. These targets were set so low that traditional gasoline engines would eventually find them almost impossible to meet. The E.P.A. also possessed the authority to issue stop-sale orders, preventing automakers from selling vehicles that failed to meet these standards until compliance was achieved.
The first Trump administration had sought to weaken both tailpipe emissions and fuel economy regulations. President Biden then reversed this, strengthening them. However, with the second Trump administration’s recent elimination of the E.P.A.’s foundational authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a future administration might face significantly greater difficulty in reversing course again.
“Even if a new administration came in and was inclined to regulate greenhouse gasses, it would take years to reissue and defend the endangerment finding,” Professor Carlson noted. “And in the meantime, they would have no authority to write any new greenhouse gas regulations.”
The remaining regulations, such as fuel efficiency requirements, could also be weakened. In December, the Trump administration proposed lowering the Transportation Department’s standard to an average of 34.5 miles per gallon for new cars by 2031, a significant reduction from the Biden-era target of approximately 50 miles per gallon.
These proposed new standards would be less stringent than those in the European Union and countries like China, Japan, and India. Furthermore, Congress’s decision to eliminate fines for failing to meet efficiency standards essentially makes these rules voluntary, providing considerable cost savings for automakers.
Such a shift by American automakers towards larger, gas-guzzling models that cannot be sold in Europe or China could further isolate the U.S. market. Experts warn this could increasingly cede the future of automotive technology to Chinese electric vehicle powerhouses like BYD.
“We’re an outlier now,” commented Joshua Linn, a University of Maryland professor specializing in environmental policies and transportation. He explained that “those larger trucks and S.U.V.s tend to make them more money,” but for American manufacturers to compete internationally, “they really need to be able to produce these E.V.s.”
A divergence in tailpipe emissions rules could also create a fragmented domestic market. California has vowed to challenge the decision in court, aiming to retain its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, with other states expected to follow suit.
Credit: Moriah Ratner for The New York Times
“To have a patchwork of systems makes it really hard for companies that do business in 50 states,” remarked Anne L. Kelly, vice president of government relations at Ceres, an advocacy group working with businesses on sustainability. She emphasized, “There is no world in which this is helpful for the auto industry.”
Matthew Beecham, a senior research analyst at S&P Global Mobility, suggested that given the uncertainties, automakers would likely “hedge their bets.” While they might expand their gasoline vehicle offerings, he believes they won’t entirely abandon electrification. He also predicted “no wholesale lawbreaking” regarding the remaining voluntary fuel economy standards, as state regulations and investor scrutiny would likely maintain some level of compliance. “Expect tactical shifts toward profitable trucks, not open defiance,” he concluded.
Nevertheless, a move towards larger gasoline models could ultimately weaken their competitive edge in the rapidly accelerating global electric vehicle race. Automakers worldwide are intensely competing to secure sufficient EV batteries, a race where those who lag behind will face penalties, he pointed out.
While the E.P.A. still regulates pollutants like nitrogen oxides, which directly harm human health, it is now also seeking to ease those specific rules.
Aaron Szabo, the E.P.A.’s air quality chief, argued in an opinion piece that rolling back these regulations would “reduce red tape and bring common sense back to rulemaking.” He claimed such deregulation would increase consumer choice and lower car prices.
However, Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, countered that vehicles burning more fuel lead to higher costs for car owners at the pump, alongside environmental, public health, and industrial competitiveness costs.
He starkly contrasted the approaches: the Trump administration is “telling American manufacturers, ‘You guys go build gasoline cars again,’” while “The Chinese government is telling its manufacturers, ‘You go build the advanced vehicles that are going take over the world.’”
Maxine Joselow contributed reporting from Washington.