In a fiery clash that underscores the divide between political agendas and voter priorities, 17 states have launched a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for halting $5 billion in funding for electric vehicle (EV) charger infrastructure. This lawsuit isn’t just about EV chargers—it’s a defiant push against the will of the American people who have rejected costly green mandates.
The Lawsuit: Defying a Mandate
The lawsuit, led by Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, and Washington, challenges the Trump administration’s February directive to stop states from spending funds allocated under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
These funds, totaling $5 billion over five years, were intended to expand EV charging infrastructure across the U.S., with $3.3 billion already distributed. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the halt “short-sighted,” claiming the funds were critical to “shape the future of transportation.” But this legal battle ignores a crucial fact: voters have clearly signaled their opposition to EV mandates and the $7,500 federal tax credit for EV purchases.
President Trump’s decision to pause the funding aligns with his broader mission to dismantle Biden-era environmental policies that burden taxpayers and restrict consumer choice.
With EVs comprising only 8% of new car sales in 2024, the market’s sluggish growth reflects widespread skepticism among mainstream buyers. Yet, states like New York, which has $120 million of its $175 million allocation withheld, and California are doubling down on an agenda that many Americans reject.
This lawsuit is driven by motives far beyond the “Green New Deal” rhetoric. It comes down to the motivations of groups with power. They fall into one of three categories:
Followers of the green initiative: California Governor Gavin Newsom claims withholding the funds is “illegal” and will “kill thousands of U.S. jobs, ceding them to China.” The EV charger program has been mired in inefficiencies, from permitting delays to complex electrical upgrades. The program’s slow progress suggests it’s less about economic benefits and more about signaling a commitment to progressive ideals, even at the expense of practicality.
Power and control: The U.S. government and independent investors have been funneling capital to auto manufacturers and the companies supporting those manufacturers. They’ve reaped many millions from federal funds to expand their charger networks, plus research and development on the vehicles, the components, and all manner of ancillary initiatives. This raises questions about whether the states are fighting to protect taxpayers or to funnel more subsidies to powerful corporations. Taxpayers are footing the bill for infrastructure that primarily serves a small, affluent segment of EV owners.
Follow the money: The Trump administration’s move to halt EV charger funding is part of a broader effort to roll back Biden’s environmental policies, including California’s vehicle-emission rules and its 2035 ban on new gas-powered car sales. The recent bipartisan passage of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in the House, now Senate Rule #31, aims to nullify the EPA’s rules granting California its waiver. This reflects growing frustration with policies that impose burdensome regulations on consumers and businesses. This costs consumers in their tax dollars which many believe are misguided.
The EV charger program was intended to address “charging deserts” in rural areas, multifamily dwellings, and highway corridors. But its rollout has been painfully slow, hampered by bureaucratic red tape and contracting challenges.
Many states have yet to install chargers, and consumers continue to cite the lack of reliable infrastructure as a major barrier to EV adoption. Throwing billions at a flawed program, the hosts argue, won’t solve these issues—it will only deepen public frustration.
Moreover, the lawsuit distracts from a stark reality: the push for EVs is out of sync with market demands. Automakers are struggling to meet electrification goals, and consumers remain hesitant to abandon gas-powered vehicles. Biden’s EV mandates were driven by ideology rather than practicality, and Trump’s decision to redirect resources reflects a commitment to fiscal responsibility and consumer freedom.
As the lawsuit progresses, the Senate’s vote on Senate Rule #31 could deal a significant blow to California’s emissions rules, further weakening the states’ case. While experts cited in the podcast believe the EV charger buildout will continue to be an issue and impact automakers’ long-term plans. The Trump administration’s stance sends a clear message: government shouldn’t force an unpopular agenda on the American people.
Paul Fix III and Lauren Fix’s podcast offers a sharp, no-nonsense take on this high-stakes battle, exposing the political and economic motives behind the states’ lawsuit. As they conclude, this fight is about more than chargers—it’s about who gets to chart America’s course in the automotive world. With voters demanding practical, market-driven solutions, the Trump administration’s push to curb wasteful spending is a victory for common sense.
Video Link: https://youtu.be/_ferHJlv_H4
You can support me by buying me a cup of coffee. Thanks for subscribing and your support! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/laurenfix
Looking for more automotive news? https://www.CarCoachReports.com
Total Car Score Podcast ► https://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/total-car-score/
Lauren Fix, The Car Coach, is an automotive expert. Follow her on X
@LaurenFix for the latest car news and insights.
______________
Paul Fix III co-wrote this article with Lauren Fix, The Car Coach, who is a nationally recognized automotive expert, media guest, journalist, author, keynote speaker and television host. A trusted car expert, Lauren provides an insider’s perspective on a wide range of automotive topics and safety issues for both the auto industry and consumers. Her analysis is honest and straightforward.