Overview
On December 3, 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposal to slash Biden‑era Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, cutting the projected 2031 light‑duty fleet target from about 50.4 miles per gallon to roughly 34.5 mpg and phasing in only 0.25–0.5% annual increases instead of the 2% per year previously planned. The rule would also bar automakers from trading efficiency credits after 2028, a change that especially hurts EV‑focused companies that sell credits to gasoline‑heavy manufacturers.
The White House frames the move as ending an alleged “EV mandate,” lowering sticker prices, and saving families around $1,000 per new vehicle, building on earlier actions to zero‑out CAFE penalties, terminate federal EV tax credits, and block California’s planned 2035 gas‑car sales ban. Federal analyses, however, project that the rollback would drive about 100 billion extra gallons of gasoline consumption through 2050, cost drivers up to $185 billion more at the pump, and boost carbon dioxide emissions roughly 5% versus the Biden rule—turning a central pillar of U.S. climate and transport policy into a high‑stakes legal and political fight.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Trump administration’s second term has prioritized reversing Biden‑era climate measures, including fuel‑economy standards, EV subsidies, and EPA greenhouse‑gas regulations affecting vehicles.
NHTSA, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, sets and enforces federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
EPA regulates air pollutants, including greenhouse gases, from vehicles and other sources under the Clean Air Act.
California has long exercised special authority under the Clean Air Act to set vehicle emissions standards more stringent than federal rules, often driving national policy.
Ford is a major U.S. automaker with a large domestic truck and SUV business and growing global EV portfolio.
GM is one of the largest U.S. automakers and has publicly committed to an all‑electric light‑duty future while navigating shifting regulatory and market conditions.
A loose coalition of national and state environmental groups advocating for strong vehicle emissions and fuel‑economy standards and rapid EV adoption.
Timeline
-
Analyses Highlight Higher Fuel Use and Costs Under Rollback
Impact AnalysisFollow‑up analyses and a related NHTSA document suggest the rollback could increase gasoline use by 100 billion gallons, cost drivers up to $185 billion more in fuel, and raise CO₂ emissions by about 5% versus the Biden rule, even as it saves automakers roughly $35 billion through 2031.
-
Trump Announces CAFE Reset Proposal
Regulatory ProposalPresident Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy unveil NHTSA’s proposal to reduce the 2031 light‑duty CAFE target from about 50.4 mpg to 34.5 mpg, revise prior‑year standards, and phase out fuel‑economy credit trading by 2028, arguing it will lower car prices and end an “EV mandate.”
-
Federal EV Purchase Credits Expire
Policy SunsetFederal tax credits for new, used, and leased EVs expire under Trump’s tax law, removing a major financial incentive for EV adoption in the U.S. even as other countries continue to subsidize electric vehicles.
-
EPA Proposes Rescinding Endangerment Finding and Vehicle GHG Standards
Regulatory RollbackAt an Indiana auto dealership, EPA proposes to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all light‑, medium‑ and heavy‑duty vehicle GHG standards, claiming it will save Americans $54 billion annually and end a supposed EV mandate.
-
‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Ends Federal EV Tax Credits
LegislationTrump signs tax legislation that eliminates up‑to‑$7,500 EV purchase credits (and related used/leased EV incentives) after September 30, 2025, accelerating a short‑term rush in EV sales before the deadline.
-
NHTSA Issues CAFE Interpretive Rule
Regulatory FramingNHTSA publishes “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program,” asserting that prior administrations improperly used CAFE to enforce an EV mandate and clarifying the agency’s authority to revisit standards that counted EVs in compliance.
-
Congress and Trump Block California’s 2035 Gas‑Car Ban
Legislative ActionTrump signs multiple Congressional Review Act resolutions overturning California’s rules phasing out sales of new gasoline cars by 2035 and related EV mandates, prompting immediate legal challenges from California and allied states.
-
Trump EPA Moves to Reconsider Endangerment Finding
Regulatory Opening ShotEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces a formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and other climate rules, calling it a necessary review of the scientific and legal basis for greenhouse‑gas regulation.
-
EPA Issues Multi‑Pollutant Tailpipe Rule for 2027–2032
Regulatory ActionEPA finalizes stringent multi‑pollutant standards for light‑ and medium‑duty vehicles starting in model year 2027, using EV adoption as a key compliance pathway and projecting large climate and health benefits.
-
Biden Administration Finalizes 2027–2031 CAFE Rule
Regulatory ActionNHTSA under Biden finalizes new CAFE standards for model years 2027–2031, requiring the light‑duty fleet to reach about 50.4 mpg by 2031 and projecting over $23 billion in fuel‑cost savings for drivers.
-
SAFE Vehicles Rule Slows Obama‑Era Increases
Regulatory RollbackDuring Trump’s first term, NHTSA and EPA finalize the SAFE Vehicles Rule, cutting the required annual increase in fuel‑economy and GHG standards for model years 2021–2026 to 1.5% from roughly 5%, and previously moved to revoke California’s waiver to set its own GHG and zero‑emission vehicle rules.
-
Obama Finalizes 54.5‑mpg by 2025 Standards
Regulatory ActionThe Obama administration finalizes joint EPA–NHTSA standards that will raise fleetwide fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light trucks by model year 2025, nearly doubling efficiency compared with then‑current vehicles.
-
EPA Issues Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding
Regulatory FoundationEPA formally determines that six greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and that vehicle emissions contribute to that pollution, creating the legal basis for federal vehicle GHG standards under the Clean Air Act.
Scenarios
Rollback Finalized and Survives Court Challenges
Discussed by: Reuters, AP, Politico, conservative policy outlets
NHTSA completes the rulemaking in 2026, largely preserving the proposed 34.5‑mpg 2031 target and the end of credit trading. EPA, meanwhile, finalizes rescission of the Endangerment Finding and vehicle GHG standards, creating a regulatory regime where federal climate constraints on vehicle technology are minimal. Courts either defer to agency interpretations or narrow their rulings in ways that leave most of the rollback intact. Automakers shift more of their U.S. product mix back toward larger gasoline SUVs and trucks while continuing to build EVs primarily for foreign markets and certain blue states. U.S. oil demand and transport emissions remain well above the trajectories modeled under Biden‑era rules, and the next administration would face a higher bar to re‑tighten standards.
Courts Strike Down Key Pieces of the CAFE Reset and Endangerment Repeal
Discussed by: Legal scholars, environmental groups, some mainstream outlets
State attorneys general, environmental organizations, and clean‑tech companies sue over both the CAFE rollback and the Endangerment Finding rescission, arguing they are arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with statutory mandates and Supreme Court precedent like Massachusetts v. EPA. Courts could stay the rules and ultimately rule that EPA cannot simply erase the Endangerment Finding without a robust scientific basis, or that NHTSA’s reinterpretation of CAFE unlawfully ignores energy‑conservation goals. In this scenario, Trump’s 2025 actions create years of uncertainty but are partly or wholly vacated, with Biden‑era standards or modified versions snapping back into place. Automakers, anticipating legal risk and foreign requirements, continue investing in higher efficiency and EVs, softening the rollback’s practical impact.
Policy Whiplash Continues with a Future Administration Re‑Tightening Standards
Discussed by: Climate policy analysts, think tanks, international media
Even if Trump’s rollback takes effect for several model years, a subsequent administration could move to restore stronger fuel‑economy and GHG rules, much as Biden reversed the 2020 SAFE Vehicles Rule. Automakers respond by designing global platforms capable of meeting higher standards and using credits and state‑level programs to hedge against U.S. federal volatility. Short‑term emissions and fuel‑use outcomes worsen relative to a continuous strong‑standards pathway, but long‑term technology trends—especially battery cost declines and foreign regulations—keep pushing the fleet toward higher efficiency and electrification. This scenario resembles a repeated cycle of regulatory tightening and loosening, with significant efficiency “lost years” but not a permanent reversal.
Market and Global Rules Outrun U.S. Rollback
Discussed by: Industry analysts, EV advocates, some automaker executives
Global demand for EVs, stricter European and Chinese standards, and continued cost declines in batteries lead automakers to keep pushing EVs and efficiency upgrades regardless of weaker U.S. rules. In this world, Trump’s rollback slows adoption in certain U.S. segments but does not fundamentally alter the technology trajectory. Automakers may choose to maintain near‑Biden levels of efficiency in many models for supply‑chain simplicity, while oil companies, dealers, and some domestic manufacturers still benefit from regulatory relief. U.S. consumers see a wider spread between the cheapest low‑efficiency models and more efficient or electric options, with larger regional differences based on state policy.
Energy‑Price or Climate Shock Triggers Political Backlash
Discussed by: Environmental groups, some economists and columnists
A future oil‑price spike, extreme climate events, or international pressure (e.g., border carbon adjustments) could rapidly shift U.S. public opinion toward stronger efficiency and climate measures. In such a shock scenario, the 2025 rollback may be blamed for locking in higher fuel consumption and vulnerability to oil markets, prompting Congress to legislate statutory fuel‑economy or GHG targets that are harder for future administrations to undo. This could mirror how past energy crises spurred the original 1970s CAFE program and later efficiency pushes.
Historical Context
Obama’s 54.5‑mpg Clean‑Car Deal (2011–2012)
2011–2012What Happened
In 2011–2012, President Obama brokered and finalized a landmark agreement with major automakers, EPA, and NHTSA to nearly double U.S. fleet fuel efficiency to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg by model year 2025. The rule was projected to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the pump and cut 6 billion metric tons of CO₂ over the life of the program.
Outcome
Short term: Automakers publicly supported the standards and began planning for a more efficient, partially electrified fleet; average new‑vehicle fuel economy rose, though not as quickly as hoped.
Long term: The Obama standards became a central target for later Trump rollbacks and were only partially implemented before being weakened in 2020 and reshaped again by Biden and Trump’s second term, illustrating how even broad consensus deals can be undone over time.
Why It's Relevant
The 2012 deal shows that industry, states, and environmentalists can converge on ambitious standards—but also how subsequent administrations can unravel that consensus, leading to the policy whiplash visible in the 2025 CAFE reset.
Reagan‑Era Fuel Economy Rollback (Mid‑1980s)
1985–1987What Happened
In the mid‑1980s, NHTSA under the Reagan administration lowered the passenger‑car CAFE standard from 27.5 mpg to 26 mpg for the 1986 model year after intense lobbying from GM and Ford, which argued they could not meet the stricter target without major production cuts and job losses. The nominal 27.5‑mpg standard was later restored, but actual fleet efficiency stagnated around that level for roughly two decades.
Outcome
Short term: The rollback saved automakers from immediate penalties and allowed continued production of larger, less efficient vehicles, pleasing consumers at a time of low gasoline prices.
Long term: Years of flat standards led to lost oil‑savings opportunities; later analyses suggested that modestly higher standards in that period could have avoided millions of barrels per day in oil consumption.
Why It's Relevant
The 1980s episode demonstrates that even seemingly small downward adjustments in CAFE can lock in long‑lasting plateaus in fuel efficiency and oil demand—an important precedent for understanding how a 34.5‑mpg cap in 2031 could shape U.S. emissions for decades.
Trump’s 2020 SAFE Vehicles Rule and California Waiver Fight
2018–2021What Happened
In his first term, Trump replaced Obama’s clean‑car standards with the SAFE Vehicles Rule, which slowed annual efficiency improvements to 1.5% for 2021–2026 and sought to revoke California’s waiver to set its own GHG and ZEV rules. California and other states sued, and several automakers sided with California in a voluntary agreement for somewhat stronger standards.
Outcome
Short term: The SAFE rule modestly slowed efficiency gains and created deep uncertainty for automakers caught between federal and California trajectories; litigation over the waiver revocation remained unresolved when Biden took office.
Long term: The Biden administration restored California’s waiver and re‑tightened standards, but Trump’s 2020 actions previewed the legal and political arguments now being used again in the 2025 rollback, including claims about affordability and federal preemption of state rules.
Why It's Relevant
This earlier cycle shows both the vulnerabilities and limits of presidential power over auto standards: a determined administration can soften rules quickly, but subsequent administrations and courts can reverse course. It foreshadows the likely litigation and potential reversals facing Trump’s 2025 CAFE reset and EPA deregulatory push.