The Claim

Rescinded waivers that allowed California and over a dozen other states to set their own emission standards and electric vehicle sales mandates.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That the administration rescinded Clean Air Act waivers that had allowed California and more than twelve other states to set their own vehicle emission standards and electric vehicle sales requirements.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That California and other states were rogue actors imposing illegitimate regulations on consumers and the auto industry. That these state standards were separate from and beyond the federal system. That rescinding the waivers represented a return to order — one national standard instead of a patchwork. That “over a dozen” states were engaged in regulatory overreach.

What is conspicuously absent?

That this is the same action claimed in Item 232 (“Revoked the burdensome electric vehicle mandate and fortified this action by signing a congressional resolution into law”). Both items describe the three CRA resolutions (H.J.Res.87, 88, 89) signed June 12, 2025. Item 232 framed the action as revoking an “EV mandate”; item 281 reframes it as rescinding California’s waivers. Also absent: California’s unique authority under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act dates to 1967 — predating the federal Clean Air Act itself — and was preserved by Congress because California had already been regulating vehicle emissions before the federal government acted. Section 177 allows other states to adopt California’s standards voluntarily; they are not “given” waivers but choose to follow California’s lead. Also absent: both the GAO and the Senate parliamentarian determined the CRA was an inappropriate mechanism for rescinding these waivers, and eleven states immediately filed suit. The case (California v. United States, N.D. Cal.) remains pending as of March 2026.

Padding Analysis: Repackaging Item 232’s CRA Resolutions

This item describes the identical action as Item 232. Both reference the three Congressional Review Act resolutions signed June 12, 2025:

• H.J.Res.87 — disapproved California’s Advanced Clean Trucks waiver (zero-emission medium/heavy-duty truck mandates)
• H.J.Res.88 — disapproved California’s Advanced Clean Cars II waiver (escalating ZEV sales requirements, 35% in MY2026 through 100% by MY2035)
• H.J.Res.89 — disapproved California’s Omnibus Low NOX waiver (heavy-duty highway and off-road vehicle emissions)

Item 232 framed this as revoking “the burdensome electric vehicle mandate” and “fortifying” it with a congressional resolution. Item 281 reframes the same action from the angle of California’s waivers and the impact on Section 177 states. The underlying government action is identical — three CRA resolutions, one signing ceremony, one date.

The rhetorical shift is transparent: item 232 counted the action as a win against “EV mandates,” and item 281 counts the same action again as a win against state regulatory independence. One policy action, two “wins.”

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The three CRA resolutions (H.J.Res.87, 88, 89) signed June 12, 2025 are the same action described in Item 232. There is no separate waiver rescission action. Both items describe the same three joint resolutions passed by the House (April 30, 2025, 231-191) and Senate (May 22, 2025, 51-46 party-line), signed by the President at the same White House ceremony. The White House signing statement confirms all three were signed on the same date. ¹

California’s Clean Air Act Section 209 authority predates federal vehicle emissions regulation and was deliberately preserved by Congress. California began regulating vehicle emissions in 1966, before the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. When Congress enacted the CAA, it included Section 209(b), which preserved California’s unique authority to set its own vehicle emission standards. This was not a loophole but a deliberate congressional choice recognizing California’s pioneering role and its severe air quality challenges. The waiver framework has been in place for over 50 years. ²

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia had adopted some or all of California’s vehicle emission standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act. Section 177 allows any state to adopt California’s standards (identical to those with a waiver) rather than federal standards. For light-duty vehicles, 17 states had adopted California’s standards. For heavy-duty vehicles, 10 states had adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule. These states include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, among others. Together, these states represent approximately 30% of U.S. new vehicle sales. The claim’s “over a dozen” is roughly accurate for both light-duty (17) and heavy-duty (10) contexts. ³

Both the GAO and the Senate parliamentarian determined the CRA was inappropriate for rescinding these waivers, and California plus ten other states filed suit. The GAO issued a nonbinding determination (B-337179, March 6, 2025) that EPA waiver decisions are adjudicatory orders, not “rules” subject to CRA review. The Senate parliamentarian reached the same conclusion. The Senate overrode this on a 51-46 party-line vote. California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington filed suit in the Northern District of California on June 12, 2025. As of March 2026, the case is in the motion-to-dismiss phase. ⁴

Strong Inferences

The federal government has escalated its attack on California’s emissions authority beyond the CRA resolutions. In March 2026, the DOJ and DOT filed a separate lawsuit against CARB, arguing that California’s fleet-wide CO2 emission standards and ZEV sales mandates are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), under a legal theory that bypasses the Clean Air Act waiver framework entirely. This suit targets the pre-existing California regulations (not just the ACC II, ACT, and Low NOX rules covered by the CRA resolutions), suggesting the administration views the CRA resolutions as insufficient and is pursuing additional legal avenues. ⁵

Rescinding the waivers did not eliminate California’s underlying regulations — it eliminated the federal permission that shields them from preemption challenges. California’s CARB regulations remain on the state’s books. Governor Newsom signed an executive order on June 11, 2025 (the day before the CRA signing) directing CARB to develop new zero-emission regulations. The legal battle will determine whether these regulations survive under alternative legal theories. ⁶

What the Evidence Shows

This claim is padding. Items 232 and 281 describe the same government action — the three CRA resolutions signed June 12, 2025 — using different rhetorical frames to count the same thing twice.

Item 232 presented the action as revoking an “EV mandate.” Item 281 presents it as rescinding waivers that let California and other states set their own standards. These are not two different actions; they are two descriptions of the same signing ceremony. The pivot from “revoking a mandate” to “rescinding waivers” reveals the list-padding strategy: the same policy action gets counted once as consumer liberation (no more “mandate”) and again as federal authority restoration (no more state “waivers”).

The claim’s factual details are approximately accurate on their own terms. The CRA resolutions did rescind the specific waivers for ACC II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Omnibus Low NOX. Seventeen states had adopted California’s light-duty standards under Section 177, making “over a dozen” a reasonable descriptor. The rescission did eliminate those states’ ability to enforce those specific standards.

But the framing erases important context. California’s Section 209 authority is not a regulatory anomaly — it is a 50-year-old congressional decision recognizing that California was regulating emissions before the federal government existed in that space. The Section 177 states did not receive waivers; they voluntarily adopted California’s standards, which is their right under federal law. Both the GAO and the Senate parliamentarian concluded the CRA was the wrong tool for this action. And the rescission set off a legal battle that remains unresolved, with eleven states suing and the DOJ escalating with an entirely separate EPCA preemption theory in March 2026.

The Bottom Line

This is the same action as Item 232, repackaged with a different emphasis. Item 232 counted the CRA resolutions as revoking an “EV mandate”; Item 281 counts them again as rescinding state emission waivers. One signing ceremony, one date (June 12, 2025), three resolutions, two “wins.” The factual core — that the CRA resolutions rescinded California’s Clean Air Act waivers, affecting 17 Section 177 states — is accurate. But counting the same action twice in a “365 wins” list is padding, and the framing omits that California’s authority predates federal regulation, that the GAO and parliamentarian questioned the CRA’s applicability, that eleven states are suing, and that the legal battle over state emission authority is far from settled.

Footnotes

1. White House, “Congressional Bills H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, H.J. Res. 89 Signed into Law” (2025-06-12); Seyfarth Shaw, “Trump Rescinds California’s Emission Waivers” (2025-06-16); Holland & Knight, “Up in the Air: Congress Nullifies Clean Air Act Waivers” (2025-05-28). ↩

2. CRS, “California and the Clean Air Act (CAA) Waiver: Frequently Asked Questions,” R48168 (2025); 42 U.S.C. Section 7543(b) (Section 209 of the Clean Air Act). ↩

3. Holland & Knight, “Up in the Air” (2025-05-28) (17 states for light-duty, 10 for heavy-duty); CARB, “States that have Adopted California’s Vehicle Regulations” (2025). ↩

4. GAO, Observations Regarding EPA’s Submission of Notices of Decision, B-337179 (2025-03-06); Spencer Fane, “Battle Over California’s Vehicle Air Emission Waivers Now in U.S. District Court” (2025-10); California v. United States, N.D. Cal. (filed 2025-06-12). ↩

5. DOJ, “Justice Department Sues California to End Enforcement of Unlawful Emissions Standards for Trucks” (2026-03-12); JURIST, “US government sues California over electric vehicle mandate” (2026-03-12). ↩

6. California Governor’s Office, Executive Order N-06-25 (2025-06-11); Seyfarth Shaw, “Trump Rescinds California’s Emission Waivers” (2025-06-16). ↩