By ALEXA ST. JOHN, Associated Press

DETROIT (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan this week to relax rules aimed at cleaning up auto tailpipe emissions is the latest Trump administration move to undo incentives for automakers to go electric.

Related Articles

Trump administration cancels plans to develop new offshore wind projects

Eagan residents express concern over elevated lead levels, timeline of events

Radar satellite launched by India and NASA will track miniscule changes to Earth’s land and ice

Honolulu’s lawsuit against fossil fuel companies leads climate change legal fight

With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law

As part of a larger effort to undo climate-based governmental regulations, the EPA on Tuesday said it wants to revoke the 2009 finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That would cripple the legal basis for limiting emissions from things like power plants and motor vehicles.

President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending law already targets EV incentives, including the imminent removal of a credit that saves buyers up to $7,500 on a new electric car.

The tax law approved in early July also includes another provision that will hit Tesla and other EV makers in the pocketbook — repealing fines for automakers that don’t meet federal fuel economy standards.

Automakers can buy credits under a trading program if they don’t meet the mileage standards. EV makers like Tesla, which don’t rely on gasoline, earn credits that they can sell to other carmakers. The arrangement has resulted in billions of dollars in revenue for Tesla and millions for other EV makers like Rivian.

That is all set to go away under the new law.

Trump has also challenged federal EV charging infrastructure money and blocked California’s ban of new gas-powered vehicle sales.

It adds up to less pressure on automakers to continue evolving their production away from gas-burning vehicles. And that’s significant because transportation — which also includes ships, trains and planes — is the sector that contributes the most to planet-warming emissions in the U.S.

Push and pull on tailpipe and mileage rules

Stringent tailpipe emissions and mileage rules were part of the Biden administration’s pledge to clean up the nation’s vehicles and reduce use of fossil fuels by incentivizing growth in EVs. EVs do not use gasoline or emit greenhouse gases.

The Trump administration and the auto industry have said both rules were unreasonable for manufacturers.

Automakers could meet EPA tailpipe limits with about 56% of new vehicle sales being electric by 2032 — they’re currently at about 8% — along with at least 13% plug-in hybrids or other partially electric cars, and more efficient gasoline-powered cars that get more miles to the gallon.

The latest mileage targets set under the Biden administration required automakers to get to an average of about 50 miles (81 kilometers) per gallon for light-duty vehicles by model year 2031, and about 35 miles per gallon for pickups and vans by model year 2035.

But Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy pressured the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration earlier this year to reverse the rules, and has recently said Biden’s inclusion of EVs in calculating them was illegal. NHTSA will likely reset or significantly weaken them.

The fines that are going away

Then there are the fines that automakers will no longer face for falling short on the fuel economy rules.

“With the signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill, new penalties for automakers not complying with an illegal fuel economy standard designed to push EVs will be zero,” NHTSA spokesman Sean Rushton said in a statement.

Some legacy automakers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties for not meeting them. Just last year, Jeep-maker Stellantis paid $190.7 million for model years 2019 and 2020, and General Motors paid $128.2 million for the 2016 and 2017 model years.

Automakers that didn’t meet the standards could also instead buy credits from carmakers that did — or even surpassed them — such as Tesla. That provision earned Tesla $2.8 billion in 2024 — revenue it will no longer see.

Elon Musk sharply criticized the big tax-and-spending bill in June, saying it “gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.” Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the law’s effect on those credits.

The agency wrote to carmakers earlier this month informing them the penalties wouldn’t be issued from the model year 2022 onward. Some automakers confirmed receiving the letter but declined to comment further.

Experts say without them, the law “invites automakers to cheat on government fuel economy rules by setting fines to $0, ensuring consumers will buy more gas guzzlers, pay more at the pump and enrich Big Oil,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign.

Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a former acting NHTSA administrator under Biden, called it a “stunning decision” for NHTSA to essentially forgive the fines from 2022 onward. She said it amounted to a windfall for companies that chose to pay penalties rather than produce more efficient cars.

Carlson said backing away from future fines also “poses a dilemma for auto manufacturers who may feel bound to comply with the law, even if there is not a financial consequence for failing to do so.”

Where auto manufacturers go from here

It takes a while for carmakers to shift their product lines, and experts say automakers might be locked into their technology and manufacturing decisions for the next few model years. But changes could come for model year 2027 and beyond, they said.

EVs aren’t as profitable as gas-engine cars, so automakers may make fewer of them if they no longer have to offset emissions from their gasoline models. Already, some automakers have pulled back on their ambitions to go all-electric with a slower pace of EV sales growth.

“Automakers also know every presidential administration eventually comes to an end, so they won’t abandon their EV development efforts,” said Karl Brauer, executive analyst at iSeeCars.com. “But they will reduce their near-term efforts in this area.”

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) — Professional wrestler Hulk Hogan died of a heart attack last week, according to a Florida medical examiner’s report released Thursday.

Hogan, whose real name was Terry Bollea, previously had leukemia and atrial fibrillation, an irregular heart rhythm, the report from the District Six Medical Examiner said.

Hogan, 71, was pronounced dead at a hospital less than 90 minutes after medics arrived at his home in Clearwater, Florida to answer a call about a cardiac arrest on the morning of July 24, police said.

Hogan was perhaps the biggest star in WWE’s long history, known for both his larger-than-life personality and his in-ring exploits. He was the main draw for the first WrestleMania in 1985 and was a fixture for years, facing everyone from Andre The Giant and Randy Savage to The Rock and even WWE co-founder Vince McMahon.

Related Articles

Fewer Americans see discrimination as anti-DEI push gains traction, poll shows

American Eagle’s ‘good jeans’ ads with Sydney Sweeney spark a debate on race and beauty standards

With growing urgency, more US Jews urge Israel to ensure ample food deliveries to Gaza

Ranchers say expanding herds to take advantage of record retail beef prices isn’t so simple

Virginia Giuffre’s family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole’ her

By LORNE COOK

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union is working on the assumption that the United States will impose a 15% tariff on most EU exports from Friday, even though the two sides have yet to complete a key document clarifying how the agreement will operate.

Related Articles

With growing urgency, more US Jews urge Israel to ensure ample food deliveries to Gaza

Russian missile and drone attack hits Ukrainian capital Kyiv, killing 9 people and wounding 124

Trump envoy arrives in Israel amid rising Gaza death toll of Palestinians seeking aid

Today in History: July 31, Phelps sets Olympic medal record

Canada will recognize a Palestinian state in September in latest push against Israel’s Gaza policies

Last weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reached a political agreement that would see 15% duties imposed on around two-thirds of EU produce, worth around 380 billion euros ($434 billion).

The tariffs are set to enter force on Friday, but as of Thursday the two sides were still working on a joint statement that would lay out the terms of their understanding, European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said. The document wouldn’t be legally binding.

“It is the clear understanding of the European Union that the U.S. will implement the agreed across the board tariff ceiling of 15%,” Gill said. The commission negotiates trade terms on behalf of the the EU’s 27 member countries.

Carve outs were agreed for a range of “strategic” goods like aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, some drug generics or natural resources. Gill said that “it is also our clear understanding that the U.S. will implement the exemptions to the 15% ceiling.”

“The U.S. has made these commitments. Now it’s up to the U.S. to implement them. The ball is in their court,” Gill said.

European wine and spirits won’t escape the 15% levy on Friday, but may do later as negotiations on additional exemptions to the new tariff regime continue, he said.

Before Sunday’s meeting, Trump had threatened the bloc with 30% tariffs, which the EU’s top trade official said would effectively mean the end of trade between them. Over the last three months, the commission drew up retaliatory measures worth tens of billions of euros to enact should the talks fail.

Those countermeasures are due to take effect on Aug. 7, but Gill said that “if everything goes as expected,” they would be frozen.

“If we have reached a deal, we don’t need the retaliatory tariffs,” he said.

By Kevin Hardy, Stateline.org

Worried about large numbers of workers without a nest egg, Nevada this month launched a new retirement program for private sector workers who lack access to one.

The program requires employers with six or more employees to participate — unless they already sponsor an employee retirement plan.

Employees, who can opt out, are automatically enrolled in an Individual Retirement Account, or IRA, through regular paycheck deductions.

Nevada State Treasurer Zach Conine hopes the new program, created by lawmakers in 2023, will boost financial literacy and ultimately reduce state costs on social services as more people save for retirement. He said about 500,000 workers were expected to be eligible under the plan — nearly a third of the state’s civilian labor force of 1.68 million.

“We don’t care broadly if someone stays on the Nevada plan or goes out and gets their own retirement savings plan,” said Conine, a Democrat who is running for state attorney general. “We care that people are saving for retirement.”

Related Articles

How a Michigan program that gives new mothers cash could be a model for rest of US

Trump administration cancels plans to develop new offshore wind projects

Trump plans to revive the Presidential Fitness Test for American schoolchildren

Virginia Giuffre’s family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole’ her

Kamala Harris will release ‘107 Days,’ a behind-the-scenes look at her historic presidential run

Nevada is among a growing number of states creating automatic retirement programs for employees of private employers. These programs, known as auto-IRAs, target employees without access to retirement programs through work, aiming to address what groups such as AARP characterize as a national retirement crisis.

So far, 20 states have created retirement programs for private sector workers, according to the Center for Retirement Initiatives at Georgetown University. Those programs are generally overseen by state treasurers and appointed boards. Private contractors administer the investment funds, which can fluctuate with financial markets.

AARP says more than 1 million Americans have enrolled in auto-IRA programs launched by states in recent years. But the group, which advocates for Americans aged 50 and older, says nearly half of private sector workers — 56 million people — still lack access to a retirement plan through work.

“In the long term, this is a problem we need to deal with. But in the short term for those individuals, this is a real crisis,” said David John, senior policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute. “This is something that they are going to be facing soon, and our goal is to make sure that as younger people come along, they are much better prepared than some of the people who went before them.”

While anyone can open a savings or investment account, workers are far more likely to participate in retirement programs funded through simple payroll deductions, John said. And state auto-IRAs require little effort from employees and employers.

“Yes, anyone can go to a financial institution and open an IRA. But the bottom line is, they don’t,” he said.

Unlike state pension programs for public workers including teachers, these auto-IRAs are the sole possession of the worker. That means they are portable, and employees can even rely on those funds for emergency expenses at times, John said.

Some financial services firms have objected to these programs, arguing that they compete with private sector retirement providers.

So far, more liberal states have led the way on auto-IRA programs: Oregon launched the nation’s first in 2017, quickly followed by Illinois and California. But John said there’s growing interest in more conservative states: Nevada’s legislation was sponsored by Democrats, but ultimately signed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo.

“This is not a partisan political issue,” John said. “We are seeing strong interest in a number of red states.”

Launching new programs

In launching its new auto-IRA, Nevada elected to join an interstate consortium of public auto-IRA plans founded by the Colorado Department of the Treasury. By pooling resources and reducing overhead costs, officials say states can offer lower plan fees to savers.

“Relatively, it’s a lot of work to set one of these things up, but it’s a lot less work if you’re not first,” Conine said.

The Nevada treasurer’s office expected the launch of the program to cost about $1.2 million over two fiscal years — funds that were borrowed from the state and are to be paid back through the collection of retirement participant fees over time.

Colorado Treasurer Dave Young sees the state’s retirement program as both a social and financial cause: It helps workers save for a more dignified retirement and keeps the state from spending more on services in the long run, he said.

“If we don’t take this on and get more people saving for retirement, there’s this massive tax bill awaiting taxpayers to fund safety net services, and why would we do that to our taxpayers?” said Young, a Democrat. “Why not change the trajectory for people? It’s relatively actually a simple solution.”

A 2023 report from payroll and benefits company Gusto found the biggest boost in participation came among Coloradans earning the least. Before the mandate, 10% of employees earning $15,000 to $25,000 per year participated in a retirement plan — a share that nearly doubled to 19% afterward.

Gusto also found more small employers started offering 401(k) plans after the state’s program launched in 2022.

Colorado has signed up about 72,000 workers with more than $100 million in savings. About 20% of eligible employees choose to opt out, said Hunter Railey, executive director of the Colorado retirement program.

The state program requires all employers in operation at least two years with five or more employees to participate or offer their own retirement plan.

Railey said it’s an easy process to sign up employers and workers, though an initial challenge was identifying the state’s smallest employers. The state used its unemployment system database and explains the program requirement directly to businesses.

“The final step there is really just communicating effectively that these are required programs, and that failure to comply with this does carry penalties at some point,” Railey said. “…By and large, we found that most if not the overwhelming majority of businesses, if they receive a notice for their business, are going to take action.”

Pennsylvania State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, a Republican, has advocated for a state auto-IRA program. Legislation creating a program passed the Democratic-controlled state House by a single vote along party lines and now awaits action in the Republican-controlled state Senate.

Garrity, who also leads the National Association of State Treasurers’ retirement and pensions committee, said an auto-IRA plan would benefit Pennsylvania businesses, workers and taxpayers.

“These are people we all depend on every day, like the mechanic who keeps our car running and the waitress that tops off our coffee,” she said in a statement to Stateline. “Two million hardworking Pennsylvanians without access to workplace retirement plans deserve to have the same opportunity to save.”

The opposition

While state retirement programs are growing, they have faced industry opposition.

State chapters of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents 600,000 small businesses across the country, have opposed some measures. In Pennsylvania, the federation said 84% of surveyed members opposed creation of an auto-IRA, arguing not all employees could afford to invest in retirement and that the new plans imposed too heavy a burden on small businesses.

The organization did not respond to requests for comment.

The National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, which represents financial services providers in every state, says states should encourage private-sector options rather than setting up competing programs.

“If we don’t take this on and get more people saving for retirement, there’s this massive tax bill awaiting taxpayers to fund safety net services, and why would we do that to our taxpayers?”

– Colorado State Treasurer Dave Young

In a statement, Kevin Mayeux, CEO of the association, said access isn’t the only barrier to retirement savings. Many Americans, especially lower-income workers, must balance retirement savings against competing financial priorities including child care and rising costs of living.

The organization said it supports states’ interest in retirement savings, but that lawmakers should focus on private-sector options. Those could include multiple employer plans and pooled employer plans that make it easier for small employers to offer retirement plans at competitive rates.

“In short, NAIFA does not oppose efforts to improve retirement security; we welcome them,” Mayeux’s statement to Stateline said. “But we believe that empowering private-sector solutions, not replacing them with state-run programs, is the path to long-term success.”

But early success among participating states is inspiring more adoption, said Angela Antonelli, a research professor and executive director of the Center for Retirement Initiatives at Georgetown University.

In addition to amassing more than $2 billion in savings for workers, the state programs have encouraged employers to offer their own retirement plans, Antonelli said.

“It’s a huge return on the investment. It’s money well spent,” she said.

Antonelli said many participating workers are younger and will likely move into other jobs or careers over time. The hope is they will continue saving, either through the state-sponsored plans or retirement plans offered by future employers.

While she’s encouraged by the growing interest and adoption of these plans, Antonelli said she hopes to see Congress eventually act by requiring employers to offer retirement plans. A bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers reintroduced legislation on the matter in Washington this year, but it has not progressed.

“The goal is to have more states adopt these programs,” she said. “And I think the question is, is there a tipping point at which the federal government will now decide to step in?”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.