• Over 80 Democratic lawmakers are urging the Trump administration to withdraw its December 3, 2025, proposal (SAFE Vehicles Rule III) to rollback Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years 2022-2031, resetting fleet averages to 34.5 mpg by 2031—far below Biden-era targets of around 50 mpg—while eliminating EV credit trading and reclassifying some SUVs.
  • As of early February 2026, the public comment period ends today (February 4, 2026), with Trump cabinet officials touring Ohio auto plants to promote the plan, amid opposition from environmental groups citing $23 billion in added fuel costs. No withdrawal has occurred, and legal challenges are anticipated.
  • The rollback is projected to save automakers compliance costs but increase consumer fuel expenses by $23 billion over vehicle lifetimes, boost oil company profits via 70 billion extra gallons of gasoline consumed, and slow EV tech investments that have historically saved $4-5 trillion in fuel since 1975.

A Political Standoff Over Fuel Standards

Over 80 Democratic lawmakers have sent a letter urging the Trump administration to withdraw its proposal to weaken vehicle fuel economy standards, as the public comment period closes today. The SAFE Vehicles Rule III, unveiled on December 3, 2025, aims to rollback Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years 2022-2031, resetting fleet averages to 34.5 mpg by 2031—a sharp drop from the Biden-era targets of around 50 mpg. The plan also eliminates EV credit trading and reclassifies some SUVs, according to people familiar with the matter.

With the comment deadline looming, Trump cabinet officials have been touring Ohio auto plants, including facilities operated by Ford (F) and Stellantis (STLA), to promote the proposal. At a recent event, Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy emphasized that the changes are designed to enhance "consumer choice" and safety, though critics argue they ignore real consumer demands for efficient, cheaper-to-run vehicles. Efforts to reach the White House for additional comment were unsuccessful as of press time.

Economic and Industry Implications

The proposal is projected to save automakers compliance costs in the short term, but it could increase consumer fuel expenses by $23 billion over vehicle lifetimes, according to environmental groups like CALSTART and SWEEP. This would translate to about 70 billion extra gallons of gasoline consumed, boosting oil company profits. Meanwhile, EV tech investments that have historically saved $4-5 trillion in fuel since 1975 might slow, risking long-term innovation lag for automakers.

Ford and Stellantis, targeted by the promotional visits, are navigating mixed financial landscapes. Ford reported Q4 2025 revenue up 3% year-over-year to $45 billion, but EV losses widened to $1.3 billion amid weak demand. Stellantis saw Q4 2025 profits fall 70% to €5.5 billion due to U.S. inventory buildup and EV transition costs, with CEO Carlos Tavares resigning in late 2025 and replaced by an internal team amid restructuring. Industry insiders note that without a deal to maintain stronger standards, companies could face increased market distortions favoring fuel-intensive vehicles.

Legal and Future Outlook

No withdrawal has occurred yet, and legal challenges are anticipated, building on historical partisan swings. The proposal aligns with Trump’s January 20, 2025, "Unleashing American Energy" executive order, which ended EV mandates and state waivers. Congress used the Congressional Review Act in May-June 2025 to nullify Biden-era California waivers, now under legal challenge. Short-term, the comment deadline today may spur finalization by mid-2026, with vehicles under weaker rules lasting 15-20 years, locking in higher emissions and fuel use.

Long-term, experts predict ongoing rollbacks on emissions, such as EPA's August 2025 proposal to rescind GHG standards and the 2009 endangerment finding, though future administrations may reverse via litigation. Parallel global shifts, like the EU tightening 2035 ICE bans and China's growing EV dominance, contrast with the U.S. rollback, potentially impacting international competitiveness. As the debate rages on affordability versus savings, stakeholders remain split, with environmental groups decrying climate harm and auto workers potentially benefiting short-term from traditional vehicle focus.