U.S. Rep John James will spearhead an effort in Congress to cancel California’s latest tailpipe emissions limits, according to the office of the Shelby Township Republican.

If successful, the move would curb the West Coast state’s ambitious, influential push toward mandating electric vehicle sales over the next decade and alleviate auto industry concerns that the standards, adopted by 11 other states and the District of Columbia, are too stringent to meet.TMD-L-DNJames0226

The legal basis for James’ effort, however, is murky and is likely to draw challenges from environmental groups and supporters of California’s agenda-setting power on emissions. If the move fails, automakers will have to expedite their so-far rocky transitions to all-electric powertrains — especially in some of the largest U.S. markets — unless they find other forms of regulatory relief.

James led the U.S. House side of an unsuccessful September 2024 effort to cancel a federal tailpipe emissions rule finalized under former President Joe Biden. California’s rules go above and beyond the Biden administration’s national standards for consumer cars and trucks.

“Nobody here is against battery electric vehicles, but we are against telling the American people what they can do with their money and when they can do it,” James said during a floor debate over the past effort.

The second-term lawmaker, who previously ran an auto supply chain firm, has been an outspoken opponent of so-called “EV mandates.” That opposition was a hallmark of his successful reelection bid last year.

“I have nothing against EVs. I would love to build every EV in Michigan, but my problem is with top-down, comply-or-die regulations dictated by the federal government,” he told The Detroit News in a September interview.

Biden’s policies — which also face likely rollbacks from Republican leadership in Washington — set tough emissions standards for automakers but never explicitly required sales of EVs to meet targets. California’s rules, by contrast, require by 2035 that 100% of all new vehicles sold have electric powertrains. The Golden State’s requirements begin in 2026 and ramp up over the next decade.

The standards apply to California and all states that voluntarily adopt them within the next two years.

EVs represented about 10% of all new vehicle sales nationally in January, a figure that trails significantly behind California’s 35% sales requirement for model year 2026. That gap could force a difficult vote for congressional Democrats representing states that have pledged to follow the regulations but are far from hitting targets that automakers and dealerships have said are impossible in the immediate future.

Complicated process, big impact

The state of California — and its environmental regulator, the California Air Resources Board — has long set its own vehicle emissions standards, enabled by waivers from the federal government. The state gained that authority thanks to a set of major amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1970.

California received a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its most recent set of tailpipe emissions rules for light-duty vehicles in December, when Biden was still in office.

Because that action came so late in Biden’s presidency, James and congressional Republicans are seeking to rescind the action under authorities granted by the Congressional Review Act. That law gives Congress the power to cancel rules set by outgoing presidents, so long as the rules were finalized within the last 60 legislative days of a given year.

The details of that law are complex and technical but essential to whether lawmakers can quickly deliver a win for President Donald Trump, who emphatically campaigned on a promise to end “EV mandates.”

CRA resolutions require only a simple majority in both the U.S. House and Senate to pass and move on to the president for approval. That stipulation makes it easier for Republicans to pass measures through their slim, three-seat advantage in the Senate.

Crucially, however, it’s not clear that James and his colleagues will be able to use the CRA process at all. The process is only available to address rules, as defined in the act. EPA waivers have historically been considered orders — not rules — though James could work to change that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

To do so, James would have to ask the Government Accountability Office — an independent, nonpartisan agency within Congress — to reevaluate its formal stance issued in 2023 that California’s waiver does not qualify as a rule. If the GAO changes its position, the emissions policy could be canceled within days or weeks.

The Trump administration teed up the legislative maneuver on Feb. 14 when new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced he would send the agency’s Biden-era waiver to Congress for review.

“The Biden Administration failed to send rules on California’s waivers to Congress, preventing Members of Congress from deciding on extremely consequential actions that have massive impacts and costs across the entire United States. The Trump EPA is transparently correcting this wrong and rightly following the rule of law,” said Zeldin, a former New York congressman, in a statement.

“The American people are struggling to make ends meet while dealing with rules that take away their ability to choose a safe and affordable vehicle for their families. As an agency, we are accountable to Congress, but most importantly, we must be accountable to the American people,” he added.

CARB blasted Zeldin’s statement.

“The Trump EPA is doing what no EPA under Democratic or Republican administrations in 50 years has ever done, and what the GAO has confirmed does not comply with the law,” said David Clegern, a spokesperson for the regulator, in a Monday statement.

Legal observers who oppose the California waiver had called for such a move from the Trump EPA before the Republican leader took office in January.

“As soon as Mr. Trump takes office, he can direct the EPA to stop stalling. Congress can quickly disapprove the waivers and send a resolution to the White House for presidential signature. Ballgame over,” wrote Michael Buschbacher and James Conde, partners at the law firm Boyden Gray PLLC, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month.

They also argued that the GAO stance is “irrelevant” and “matters only when an agency doesn’t submit a potential rule for review,” which Zeldin did. From there, the duo suggested that the cancellation of the California waiver would be unassailable.

“Federal courts have no jurisdiction to review congressional actions under the law; nor do they have any constitutional right to second-guess Congress’s decision to proceed with a vote,” they wrote. “Because Congressional Review Act resolutions are statutes, they become the supreme law of the land, displacing any conflicting state mandates. Mr. Trump and Congress shouldn’t waste a minute.”

Regardless of whether the CRA effort fails, opponents of the current California waiver can — and likely will — undertake efforts to permanently gut the state’s unique emissions regulation privileges.

State-level opponents of California’s newest rules can also lobby their governors and legislatures to cancel pledges to adopt the Golden State’s standards. Virginia, for example, canceled its pledge under Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

Republican U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, praised James for pledging to lead the congressional effort. James is a member of that committee.

“The American people should choose what vehicle is right for them, not California bureaucrats. Congressman James’s resolution would block a disastrous ban on the gas-powered trucks that keep our supply chains working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” the Kentucky lawmaker said, noting California regulations on heavy-duty vehicles. “It’s time to use the Congressional Review Act process to finally put this issue to rest.”

Industry, environmentalists react

Environmental advocates who closely follow transportation emissions have decried the Trump administration and congressional Republicans’ move to cancel California’s waiver, while automakers and fossil fuel groups have cheered.

“Trump’s EPA is illegally trying to contort a law for a different purpose to try to kill California’s effort to protect its own residents from oil pollution,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign. “And all of this is to reward the auto and oil industry donors to the Trump campaign.”

“I think they’re going to just try to jam it through and then see what happens in the courts,” Becker said of congressional Republicans. “They want a quick result. And the quick result they’re going to get is a lawsuit that says the court will find that you acted illegally in doing this.

“And in the meantime, the auto companies are going to be at war with California over this. They’re certainly going to be tempted to side with Trump, and when Trump is nothing but a bad memory, California will remember what the auto companies did, and there will be retribution.”

Becker also pointed out that several automakers in the past have inked agreements with California to voluntarily follow previous emissions rules, which angered Trump during his first term. Those agreements expire in 2026.

Stellantis NV, however, signed an agreement with California last year pledging compliance with rules through 2030. The commitment applies even if federal legislation or a judicial ruling stop the state from otherwise enforcing its standards.

The transatlantic automaker, asked about the CRA effort to cancel California’s waiver, declined to comment.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a top industry trade group representing all major U.S. automakers except for Tesla Inc., said in a December memo that “it’s gonna take a miracle” for states to comply with California’s rules. “The 11 states following California’s lead aren’t accountable to California or the EPA. They’re part of a program that is an unaccountable, unachievable regulatory wormhole,” the group added.

Toyota Motor Corp., a purposeful EV laggard with a broad gas-powered hybrid portfolio, has stepped up its public opposition to the California rules in recent weeks.

“Toyota believes providing consumers with affordable vehicles and a variety of powertrain options is the best path forward for reducing emissions,” Mark Templin, the company’s chief operating officer in North America, said Monday.

“We urge Congress to stop California’s unachievable, unrealistic and unworkable battery-electric vehicle mandate. Instead, promote choice for the American consumer while contributing to emissions reductions,” he added.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a top oil and gas lobby, also cheered the Trump administration for setting up Congress to nix California’s EPA waiver.

“California’s ban on sales of new gas, diesel and traditional hybrid vehicles is unlawful and will impact our entire country,” Chet Thompson, AFPM president and CEO, said in a Feb. 19 statement.

“The previous administration waited until after the election to greenlight California’s ban, knowing it was wildly unpopular with the American people,” he added. “Congress must stand up for consumers, the U.S. economy and national security and use its Congressional Review Act authority to overturn EPA’s power-grabbing attempt to let California tell the rest of the country what we can and can’t drive.”

Michigan automakers Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. did not respond Monday to requests for comment on the CRA effort.