The Brief

The Trump administration has started the process of dramatically easing fuel economy requirements for new vehicles, part of the administration's broader pivot away from cleaner cars.

At the White House on Wednesday, surrounded by the executives from several major car companies, President Donald Trump said the move would save consumers money by making cars cheaper.

"We're officially terminating Joe Biden's ridiculously burdensome — horrible, actually — CAFE standards that impose expensive restrictions," Trump said, referring to the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, often called CAFE standards. "And all sorts of problems, all sorts of problems for automakers."

Previous research from Consumer Reports has challenged the argument that regulations make cars more expensive. Stringent fuel economy standards also carry an economic benefit in the form of lower fuel costs over time.

CAFE standards require that the entire fleet of vehicles sold by a given automaker, on average, get more fuel-efficient over time. Automakers who fall short have previously needed to either pay hefty fines, or buy credits from a company that over-performs on efficiency, like Tesla and other all-electric automakers.

The Trump administration has already defanged the existing CAFE standards by eliminating the fines associated with them, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Under Former President Joe Biden, the rules called for vehicles to get 2% more efficient every year; the Trump administration is now proposing to revert to the 2022 baseline and increase by .5% annually.

The proposed change now enters a period of public comment; the Department of Transportation will collect input from companies and citizens before finalizing the rule.

The administration has already been working to roll back tailpipe standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency, which are designed to cut pollution from vehicles. The two sets of rules have overlapping effects, with both of them pushing automakers toward cleaner vehicles.

Meanwhile, during the second Trump presidency Congress has also eliminated the consumer tax credit for purchasing electric vehicles, decided to end a tax credit for installing an EV charger in June 2026, earlier than planned, and voted to strike down federal waivers that let California require automakers to build zero-emission vehicles. The Trump administration also temporarily delayed a program to use federal money to build a high-speed EV charger network.

The policy shift was no surprise. Trump campaigned against what he called the "electric vehicle mandate," and promised to rescind policies — including fuel economy standards — that encouraged or incentivized EVs.

Trump has framed the policy rollback as a gift to the auto industry. And that's partially true: Large trucks and SUVs may be inefficient, but they're popular and profitable, and selling more of them without any penalty is a financial boon to automakers. In earnings calls this fall, multiple executives noted that the regulatory rollback will boost earnings and help offset the cost of tariffs.

Electric vehicle adoption in the U.S. has moved slower than automakers had expected. Some automakers have said made some of the Biden-era policies not just challenging but unworkable.

In a statement provided by the White House, Ford CEO Jim Farley praised "President Trump's leadership in aligning fuel economy standards with market realities."

But automakers are also navigating a changing global market, with many countries continuing to prioritize climate action. The popularity of high-quality, affordable Chinese EVs has raised questions about whether legacy automakers can compete. So Farley's statement also promised that "We can make real progress on carbon emissions and energy efficiency while still giving customers choice and affordability."

For companies, which need to plan their future vehicle lineups years in advance, it's challenging when rules whipsaw back and forth with each change in administration. That's been the reality for years now: The Obama administration set ambitious fuel economy rules, which Trump 1.0 reversed, Biden reinstated, and now Trump 2.0 is seeking to "reset."

Farley obliquely noted that risk in a conversation with investors in October. He explained why Ford was continuing to move ahead with plans for an affordable electric pickup, despite regulations shifting to no longer support EVs. "We expect adoption will increase over time and the market continue to evolve," Farley said. "And maybe the regulations evolve."

Copyright 2025 NPR

Community groups and local unions are asking the organizers of the L.A. Olympics to take a stand against ICE and keep federal immigration enforcement activities out of the 2028 Games.

The federal government is leading security for the Olympics and has allocated $1 billion to security spending for the mega-event, which will span the region and bring all levels of law enforcement to the streets of Los Angeles.

Critics are worried about what that might look like and how it will impact a city already reeling from ICE raids and the deployment of National Guard troops on the city's streets this summer.

Dozens gathered outside the offices of Los Angeles Olympics organizing committee LA28 in downtown Wednesday morning to ask organizers to take a stand against ICE. They also called on LA28 chair Casey Wasserman to resign, citing the recent addition of several allies of President Donald Trump to the Olympics board of directors.

"It's sad that they haven't taken a stance in defense of this community," said Jose Madera, director of the Pasadena Community Job Center. "That's a huge shame. So that's why we're asking LA28 to get ICE and any other immigration enforcement agencies out of the Games."

LA28 has not publicly weighed in on the immigration raids that have swept the city since summer, sparking protests and a climate of fear across the region.

A spokesperson for the organization did not respond to a request for comment on the concerns of community organizations about immigration enforcement at the Games or to the demand that Wasserman step down.

"LA28 is committed to working with all stakeholders to welcome athletes and visitors from around the world and deliver the safest and greatest Games for Angelenos and beyond," Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28's vice president of communications and public affairs, said in a statement.

The federal government has stepped up its involvement in the Olympics in recent months. Over the summer, Trump formed a federal task force on Olympics security and named himself the chair.

Last month, LA28 added several Trump allies to its board of directors, including former House Speaker and California Republican Kevin McCarthy and Reince Priebus, who served as chief of staff during part of Trump's first term.

Billionaire Trump donor Diane Hendricks, Trump's former banker Ken Moelis and Patrick Dumont, son-in-law of Trump donor Miriam Adelson, also were added to the list.

Those names elicited boos at the press conference outside of LA28 on Wednesday.

" You have claimed that this will be an Olympics that will celebrate the rich culture that defines our city," said Eddie Anderson, a pastor at McCarty Memorial Church in West Adams. "And we wanna ask you: Which culture are you talking about?"

California is fighting back after President Donald Trump’s administration instigated homeless housing cuts that local service providers said would be "devastating."

Two recently filed lawsuits accuse the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of illegally going over Congress’ head to make massive changes to the way federal homelessness funds are distributed.

“HUD’s new grant rules would effectively defund permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing programs across the nation, eliminating proven tools that help residents exit homelessness sustainably,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said in a statement. “This is another instance of the Trump administration prioritizing its political agenda above the needs of our most vulnerable community members.”

Santa Clara County and San Francisco sued the Trump administration this week, in conjunction with the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition. A separate lawsuit was filed last week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and a handful of other states. It marked the 47th time California sued the Trump administration in 44 weeks.

Now, homeless service providers are waiting anxiously to see how the litigation plays out and wondering if the impending legal battle will further delay the money they desperately need.

“It’s just the matter of how long it’s going to take that concerns me,” said Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health, which coordinates the county’s homelessness response. “Because while we’re waiting for these issues to get resolved, we have programs that are going to run out of money to support people.”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement last month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the changes are aimed at “stopping the Biden-era slush fund that fueled the homelessness crisis, shut out faith-based providers simply because of their values, and incentivized never-ending government dependency.”

At issue are changes the Trump administration made to its funding policy last month. Jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds now can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a significant decrease. Los Angeles County, for example, currently spends more than 80% on permanent housing. Instead, the federal government wants localities to prioritize emergency shelter and temporary housing programs that require participants to be sober or participate in treatment.

While shelters offer a temporary respite from the streets, permanent housing can end someone’s homelessness. For years, the federal government has prioritized funding permanent housing using the “housing first” method — a strategy that moves people into housing as quickly as possible, without requiring them to first get sober or agree to addiction treatment. Veering away from both of those principles marks a major policy shift.

Last year, California communities won more than $683 million in federal homelessness funds through what is called the Continuum of Care program. About 90% of that went to permanent housing projects, which currently house tens of thousands of Californians, according to Newsom. The new rule threatens to put those people back out onto the street, he said in a news release.

The new policy also prohibits the use of federal funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely. And it gives preference for projects in cities, counties and states that ban homeless encampments.

Both lawsuits allege that the Trump administration’s funding changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by defying the rules Congress set out for distributing the funds. Congress authorized a two-year grant cycle in 2024, meaning local jurisdictions wouldn’t have to reapply for funds in 2025. The Trump administration flouted that decision when it suddenly forced jurisdictions to reapply, the lawsuits allege.

The lawsuits also claim the administration didn’t go through proper protocol before enacting the changes to its funding strategy, which would have included giving cities and counties more time to comply with the new rules, and allowing stakeholders to comment on the changes.

In Santa Cruz County, Ratner is of two minds about the lawsuits. On one hand, he believes the abrupt way the Trump administration rolled out the funding changes was “very inappropriate.” But he worries a lengthy court battle could tie up funds his county needs to pay people’s rents.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness sued the Trump administration over similar allegations tied to a smaller, $75 million pot of homelessness funding in September. A judge sided with the Alliance, and temporarily barred the federal government from distributing those funds. But now that money is frozen, unable to help unhoused residents as the case moves forward.

Ratner worries that could happen again in this case. Santa Cruz County is set to start hitting serious financial problems as soon as February, Ratner said. That’s when a $1.2 million supportive housing grant, which currently houses about 50 people in different apartments around the county, is set to expire.

The Trump administration doesn’t expect to start awarding Continuum of Care money until May. It’s unclear how the lawsuits will affect that timeline.

In the meantime, Ratner and other homeless service providers are trying to remain optimistic.

“At this point, we don’t know how long the litigation process will take, but we’re hopeful it leads to a more workable path forward,” Sacramento Steps Forward CEO Lisa Bates said in a statement. “Of course, any delay in federal funding would have real impacts on communities across the country, including ours, to operate shelters, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and essential system coordination.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.