N※N

Trump Administration Proposes to Lower Corporate Fuel Economy Standards to 35 MPG

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. -corporate-fuel-economy-standards-to-35-mpg.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 16:30 GMT by East Bay Times

• 🞛 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 / 12797 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 16889 Bytes

2025-12-03 245 x 206 / 3778 Bytes

2025-12-03 223 x 224 / 14291 Bytes

Trump Administration’s “Weaken Vehicle Mileage Rules” Proposal: A Comprehensive Summary

In a bold move that has drawn the ire of environmental advocates, lawmakers, and even some industry insiders, the Trump administration released a proposal aimed at loosening the strict vehicle mileage limits that have been in place to curb air pollution. The announcement, published by the East Bay Times on December 3, 2025, is part of a broader effort by the White House to roll back federal environmental regulations that the administration believes hamper economic growth and manufacturing competitiveness. Below, we distill the key points, contextual background, stakeholder reactions, and potential implications of the proposal.

1. What the Proposal Actually Says

The administration’s policy brief, released on the official White House website, contends that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to meet an average mileage threshold across all vehicles sold, are too restrictive. The proposal suggests:

1. Lowering the mileage ceiling from the current 38.5 miles per gallon (mpg) average (for 2024 models) to a more “business‑friendly” 35 mpg target.
2. Removing mileage requirements for electric vehicles (EVs) entirely, effectively exempting them from the CAFE mandate. (EVs already bypass fuel‑efficiency metrics because they don’t use gasoline, but the removal would sidestep other emissions rules that often apply to EVs as a class.)
3. Relaxing testing protocols to allow manufacturers more leeway in how they demonstrate compliance, including shifting from laboratory “city‑highway” simulations to real‑world mileage testing that may yield higher numbers for manufacturers.

The brief explains that these changes would reduce administrative costs, lower vehicle prices, and enable a “more vibrant auto industry.”

2. Why the Administration Wants to Cut Mileage Standards

Economic Efficiency – The White House narrative frames the proposal as a “fairness” measure. It argues that stricter mileage standards impose a hidden tax on consumers and that the costs of compliance outweigh the environmental benefits. The proposal cites a 2023 study by the Center for Business Policy that claims CAFE rules cost U.S. consumers roughly $12 billion annually in higher fuel costs.

Job Protection – Trump’s supporters point to the auto sector’s contribution to the U.S. economy: 1.6 million jobs, $600 billion in payroll, and a 2.2% share of GDP. The administration suggests that by loosening regulations, automakers could expand production and keep jobs in the U.S., particularly in the Midwest.

Political Context – The move aligns with the administration’s broader anti‑regulatory agenda. A parallel initiative launched earlier this year attempted to eliminate the federal Renewable Fuel Standard and to roll back the Clean Power Plan. The vehicle proposal is therefore part of a coordinated effort to diminish federal influence over industrial emissions.

3. The Legal Framework and Potential Challenges

CAFE standards were first codified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and have been tightened since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Under current law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces the standards, and any significant relaxation would require congressional action or a Supreme Court ruling to reinterpret the statutes. The East Bay Times notes that similar attempts to weaken environmental rules in the 2010s were struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court for violating the Tenth Amendment’s “polluter pays” principle. Legal scholars warn that the new proposal could trigger a protracted court battle.

4. Stakeholder Reactions

a. Environmental and Public Health Groups

The American Lung Association (ALA) issued a statement condemning the proposal, highlighting that a 3‑mpg drop could add an estimated 10 million tons of CO₂ emissions annually. “This is a direct assault on public health,” said Dr. Maria Sanchez, an ALA air‑quality specialist. “Cities already hit record smog levels—now we’re adding a policy that will exacerbate the problem.”

The Sierra Club called the proposal “a step backward in the fight against climate change,” citing the 2019 IPCC report that urged stricter vehicle efficiency standards to meet the Paris Agreement goals. A coalition of 12 state environmental agencies sent a joint letter to the White House, urging a reconsideration of the plan and threatening a lawsuit if the proposal moved forward.

b. Automotive Industry

Opinions within the auto sector are split. Some traditional manufacturers such as Ford and General Motors expressed cautious optimism, noting that lower mileage standards could reduce the cost of developing and marketing trucks and SUVs—segments that have been most constrained by fuel efficiency mandates. A spokesperson for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said, “We believe a balanced approach that protects consumers while encouraging innovation is necessary.”

However, a growing number of EV firms—including Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid—were strongly opposed. The National Electric Vehicle Association (NEVA) noted that removing mileage standards for EVs would undermine incentives that already favor low‑emission vehicles. “EVs are already exempt from CAFE, so the real issue is the potential roll‑back of tax credits and stricter emissions standards that affect EV supply chains,” said NEVA CEO John Lee.

c. Consumers

Public opinion polls conducted by the Gallup Polling Institute on December 1 indicated that 58% of respondents believed stricter mileage limits help protect the environment, while only 28% thought they harm the economy. A smaller segment of the population—primarily older voters in rural areas—favored deregulation. The East Bay Times included several editorials from local consumers, some arguing that tighter mileage standards inflate fuel costs, while others pointed to the health costs of polluted air.

5. Potential Environmental Impact

According to a model by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 3‑mpg reduction across the fleet could result in:

• Additional 9.3 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions per year by 2035.
• Increase in ground‑level ozone leading to an estimated 2,200 extra hospital visits for asthma and heart conditions annually.
• Compounding the U.S. deficit in meeting the Paris Agreement, pushing the country further from its 2030 net‑zero target.

The EPA also warned that weaker mileage standards could stall the adoption of more efficient internal combustion engines (ICEs), thereby delaying the transition to a greener transportation system.

6. The Policy Landscape Moving Forward

If the proposal is enacted, it could trigger several downstream changes:

1. State‑level Rollbacks – Several states, including California and New York, have pledged to maintain stricter mileage standards regardless of federal policy. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a statement that it will “maintain the current California Low‑Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards to protect air quality.” States could also push for legal action under the Clean Air Act’s preemption clause.

2. Incentive Shifts – The federal government could reduce or eliminate EV tax credits, thereby undermining a key driver of EV adoption. This would affect the supply chain, from battery manufacturers to charging infrastructure.

3. Global Competitiveness – A weakening of U.S. mileage standards could give foreign automakers, particularly in Europe, an advantage as they continue to meet or exceed the European Union’s stringent emissions rules. The U.S. Department of Commerce warns that a “standards race” could erode U.S. market share for domestic automakers.

7. Conclusion

The Trump administration’s proposal to weaken vehicle mileage rules marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing tug‑of‑war between economic growth and environmental stewardship. While proponents argue that lower mileage standards spur job growth and reduce consumer costs, environmentalists warn of the health and climate consequences that could ripple across the nation. Legal battles, state‑level resistance, and public opinion will all play decisive roles in shaping whether this policy move is implemented, contested, or ultimately reversed. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders from every corner of the transportation ecosystem must remain engaged to ensure that the final outcome strikes a fair balance between progress and planetary health.