President Donald Trump followed through Thursday on his plan to kill California’s electric vehicle mandate by signing a series of three resolutions passed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The EV mandate program has been a centerpiece of Governor Gavin Newsom’s agenda in recent years.
“Now we know why Elon [Musk] doesn’t like me so much,” the President joked during a White House speech preceding the signing ceremony, adding, “which he does, actually. He does.” That has been an open question since Musk – whose real-time worth according to Forbes topped $400 billion this week – and Trump engaged in a very public and personal exchange of insults a week ago.
Because California has thus far been the biggest consumer market for EVs in general and Tesla’s cars specifically, the conventional wisdom holds that a reversal of California’s aggressive targets for forcing drivers via heavy regulations to adopt electric cars and other cars it classifies as Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs) would harm Tesla most. But conventional wisdom has often been wrong throughout Tesla’s 20-year history, and it seems just as likely that an end to the state’s ability to enforce its regulations – which I explained in detail here on Wednesday – will do far more harm to Tesla’s struggling competitors instead.
In that prior story, I noted that California Attorney General Rob Bonta had threatened to challenge the President’s action in federal court. Right on cue, Bonta, along with Democrat attorneys general from 10 additional states, filed their suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California within minutes after the signing took place. It represents the 26th time Bonta has sued the Trump administration in the less than five months since Trump was sworn into office on January 20.
The CRA resolutions target the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Advanced Clean Cars II program, Advanced Clean Trucks rules, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. Together, those programs invoke incentives and escalating penalties designed to force buyers to abandon traditional internal combustion cars and replace them with either EVs or other cars that qualify as zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
California’s aggressive targets under the program call for 35% adoption of ZEVs by 2026, 68% by 2030, and 100% by 2035. But the state is already woefully behind the needed pace of adoption. The California government itself reports that, as of the end of 2024, just 6% of the light-duty cars on the road would qualify under the mandate.
Governor Newsom said in a statement that, “Trump’s all-out assault on California continues – and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process. We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”
The three resolutions signed by Trump will a) repeal a waiver under the clean air act issued by the Biden EPA in 2023 which allow California to mandate all new cars sold by 2035 be ZEVs; b) block rules requiring zero-emission sales targets for commercial trucks; and c) eliminate higher standards for heavy-duty diesel engines to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution.
As reported by KCRA Channel 3 in Sacramento, Bonta admitted to reporters that his office has spent $5 million thus far in 2025 on lawsuits against the Trump administration. The state assembly recently beefed up his budget with a $25 million additional budget authorization. “While there is some expenditure, I want to highlight the results,” Bonta added, though his highlights were limited to a discussion of potential savings of billions of dollars in federal funds should he ultimately win some of his many suits.
Next Up For The EV Mandate
The process for lawsuits like these since January has first involved states or other plaintiffs challenging Trump’s policy actions to shop for a federal judge willing to issue a stay or injunction preventing the administration from enforcement. That has been followed by a quick appeal by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the relevant appellate court asking them to lift the hold.
Bonta’s lawsuit contends that the use of the CRA for the purpose of rescinding an EPA waiver is an improper use of the law, a question that has never been adjudicated in the courts. With the opening acts from both sides in this EV mandate debate having been fired today, it seems highly likely that this is a case that will rise to the Supreme Court to determine the ultimate winner.