N※N

Trump Administration Proposes Rollback of Biden-Era Vehicle Fuel-Efficiency Standards

35

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. biden-era-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-standards.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 16:02 GMT by Penn Live

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 15945 Bytes

2025-11-20 249 x 202 / 7186 Bytes

2025-11-25 182 x 224 / 10529 Bytes

2025-12-03 241 x 210 / 12022 Bytes

Summary of “Trump Plans to Weaken Vehicle Mileage Rules That Limit Air Pollution” (PennLive, December 2025)

The article reports that the Trump administration has unveiled a proposal to roll back the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that were recently tightened under the Biden administration. The plan, announced by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a briefing to the House and Senate commerce committees, seeks to reduce the minimum fuel‑efficiency requirements for new passenger cars and light‑truck vehicles that were set to reach 41.2 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2027. Instead, the administration’s draft rule would cut the target back to roughly 36 mpg for the 2027 model year, effectively reversing gains that would have cut annual gasoline consumption by more than 2 billion gallons in the United States.

Key points from the proposal

1. Reversal of the 2024 EPA rule – In September 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule that extended the fuel‑efficiency standards through 2030, raising the average fuel economy for light‑vehicles to 41.2 mpg by 2027 and then 42.4 mpg by 2030. The Trump plan would “step back” to the 2021 levels of 32 mpg for the 2027 model year, citing economic concerns for automakers and consumers.

2. Scope of the rollback – The proposal would apply to both passenger cars and SUVs, but not to heavy trucks. It would also reduce the 2026 standard from 36.5 mpg to 34 mpg. The White House said the change would “provide automakers with the flexibility needed to invest in new technologies while protecting American jobs.”

3. Impact on emissions – According to the EPA’s own modeling, the rollback would add approximately 1.2 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions annually, equivalent to the yearly emissions of roughly 350,000 passenger vehicles. The article notes that environmental groups argue this would undermine the country’s commitments to the Paris Agreement and its domestic climate targets.

4. Legal and political fallout – The proposal has already drawn criticism from state attorneys general, who argue that the rollback violates the Clean Air Act and would harm public health. The article quotes a spokesperson for the Environmental Defense Fund, who said, “The rollback would likely face judicial review and could be struck down by the courts.” Politically, Democrats on both sides of Congress are calling for a “repeal” of the proposed rule, while some Republicans have expressed support, citing concerns over “overregulation.”

Background context from linked sources

The article includes several links to additional documents and statements that help frame the proposal:

• EPA’s final rule text (link) – The official EPA final rule outlines the methodology for calculating average fuel economy, including the use of “advanced” vehicle categories and “greenhouse gas” accounting. The White House cited this document as the benchmark the Trump plan would revert to.

• NHTSA guidance on vehicle testing (link) – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides guidelines on how automakers must report fuel economy data. The article notes that the proposed rollback would simplify testing protocols, reducing compliance costs.

• Biden administration’s climate strategy (link) – A link to the President’s climate memo explains how the Biden administration’s policy stack (including the Clean Energy Standard and the American Jobs Plan) relies on fuel‑efficiency standards to reach 2030 emissions goals. The article contrasts this strategy with the Trump plan’s emphasis on “energy independence” and “consumer choice.”

• State climate lawsuits (link) – The article references recent lawsuits filed by 12 states that argue the CAFE standards are critical to reducing air pollution and meeting state‑level climate targets. These lawsuits could potentially be used to challenge the Trump rollback in federal court.

Analysis of the policy shift

The White House narrative frames the rollback as a “policy reset” that would give automakers a “breathing room” to innovate without the pressure of aggressive mileage targets. However, the article points out that many automakers—such as General Motors, Ford, and Toyota—have already announced plans to electrify a significant portion of their lineups by the early 2030s. A rollback could undermine these plans by shifting focus back to internal combustion engines.

Moreover, the article emphasizes that the rollback would likely affect the public’s health by increasing air pollution. It cites a study from the American Lung Association, linked in the article, that found a 10 mpg increase in fuel economy would reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxides by roughly 30 percent across the country.

Potential next steps

The article ends by outlining the likely procedural path for the proposal. The Trump administration will submit the rule to the Federal Register for public comment, where stakeholders can file petitions and evidence. After the comment period, the EPA and NHTSA will review submissions and finalize the rule. The article notes that a final rule could be issued as early as March 2026, but that it would face a long docket of lawsuits and congressional hearings.

In short, the Trump plan to weaken vehicle mileage rules represents a significant policy reversal from the Biden administration’s climate agenda. By lowering the fuel‑efficiency targets, the administration aims to reduce regulatory costs for automakers, but the move would likely result in higher emissions, increased air pollution, and a potential clash with federal and state environmental laws. The article underscores that the proposal has already triggered a chorus of criticism from environmental groups, state officials, and members of Congress—suggesting that the rule’s fate will hinge on both political negotiations and legal challenges.