US expected to declare Biden fuel economy rules exceeded legal authority

The US Transportation Department is expected to declare that fuel economy rules issued under then President Joe Biden exceeded the government's legal authority by including electric vehicles in setting the rules, automaker officials said Monday.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the department's
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
on Friday submitted its interpretive rule, "Resetting the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program
" to the White House for review.
The prior administration had "illegally used CAFE standards as a backdoor electric vehicle mandate - driving the price of cars up," he said in a statement.
Removing EVs from the calculations for credits and the regulatory mandates could result in lower overall fuel economy requirements.
NHTSA in June said it would hike CAFE requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon (4.67 liters per 100 km) by 2031 from 39.1 mpg currently for light-duty vehicles.
Last year, 120 Republican lawmakers said NHTSA exceeded its authority by adopting fuel economy standards "that effectively mandate EVs while at the same time force the internal combustion engine out of the market."
The lawmakers said the agency "accounted for EVs in its regulatory baseline and factored that baseline into its determination of the maximum achievable CAFE standards."
House Republicans last week proposed killing the EV tax credit and repealing fuel efficiency rules designed to prod automakers into building more zero-emission vehicles as part of a broad-based tax reform bill.
Federal law requires NHTSA to set CAFE standards at the maximum feasible level.
The Environmental Protection Agency also plans to reconsider parallel vehicle emissions rules and rescind California's legal authority to ban sales of gas-only vehicles by 2035. The US Senate this week may take up legislation passed by the House to rescind the approval for California's rules. Automakers like General Motors and Toyota are aggressively lobbying for repeal.
NHTSA said last year the rule would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons. The agency said while some vehicles would be more expensive to buy, consumers would save on fuel costs with estimated net benefits of $35.2 billion.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Deccan Herald

an hour ago

• Deccan Herald

Republican lawmakers cheer strike on Iran as top democrats condemn it

To those concerned about U.S. involvement— this isn't a 'forever war' in fact, it's ending one. @POTUS was clear: Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. The Republican-led @SenateGOP trusts President Trump to keep America safe, free, and prosperous. Peace through strength. — Markwayne Mullin (@SenMullin) June 22, 2025 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 — John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) June 22, 2025

The Hindu

2 hours ago

• The Hindu

Trump ignites debate on Presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans

U.S. President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Mr. Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. Also Read | Donald Trump says Iran nuclear sites 'obliterated,' threatens more strikes 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Mr. Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Follow the Israel-Iran conflict LIVE updates The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Mr. Trump publicly considered the strikes for days, and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Mr. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Mr. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Mr. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment." 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Mr. Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Mr. Casar said. "Enough.'

First Post

2 hours ago

• First Post

Trump sees bipartisan blowback over Iran strikes as Republicans and Democrats question its constitutionality

While most Republicans and Pro-Israeli Democrats lauded the US's strikes on Iran, some questioned its constitutionality, emphasising how Trump bypassed the US Congress to conduct the attack read more Protesters hold a banner with a message and images of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a 'No War on Iran' rally in New York City. Reuters While most congressional Republicans and pro-Israeli Democrats are lauding US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities , the White House is also receiving significant blowback over the strikes. The objection centres around the argument of whether Trump's decision to drag America into the Iran-Israel conflict was constitutional. Soon after the attack, Trump critics pointed out that Trump needed congressional authorisation for such a provocative use of the American military. In light of this, one House Democrat is also pushing for a vote to restrict further unilateral actions. 'We need to immediately return to DC and vote on [Rep. Thomas Massie's and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war,' Democratic Representative Ro Khanna from California said in response to Trump's attacks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On Saturday evening, the White House announced that the United States had successfully conducted strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan . The US's direct involvement in the conflict came more than a week after strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. Republicans question the constitutionality While Democrats condemn US intervention in West Asia, most Republicans lauded Trump's move. However, there were some who called it out as well. Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the most vocal Republicans pushing against American intervention in Iran, posted on X that President Trump's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites is unconstitutional. It is pertinent to note that Massie wanted to introduce a war powers resolution in the House on Tuesday that would prohibit American involvement in Iran. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution,' he posted on X on June 16. This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution. — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 16, 2025 However, there is little appetite among the ruling Republicans, outside of a handful of right-wingers, to be in direct conflict with Trump on the issue. Both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) publicly backed the American strikes on Saturday night. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD