Musk’s Approval Implied? California Sues — Trump’s EV Policy Becomes New Battleground for U.S. Political Parties

TradingKey – On June 12, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive resolution to revoke California’s mandatory electric vehicle (EV) regulations, marking a direct challenge to key policies championed by the Democratic Party.

California has long enforced strict environmental regulations, including a mandate to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 and promote widespread adoption of EVs. This policy is seen as a cornerstone of the Democratic climate agenda.

From the outset, Trump has made it clear he opposes Democratic energy policies. Now, he has taken his first major step by targeting California — revoking the state’s emissions waiver and dismantling its EV sales mandate. Critics argue this move undermines California’s long-standing authority to set its own environmental standards.

California quickly responded with legal action. State Attorney General Rob Bonta (Democrat) announced in a press briefing: “We are committed to holding the president accountable if he attempts to unlawfully interfere with our clean air standards.”

Bonta, who has previously led multiple lawsuits against Trump-era policies — including those related to tariffs, federal funding threats, and military deployments — emphasized that California will defend its regulatory autonomy through the judicial system.

Trump’s decision is likely to deepen tensions between the federal government and California, especially at a time when conflicts over immigration and federal spending are already intensifying. The move highlights a deeper ideological divide between the two parties over environmental regulation, industrial policy, and the balance of power between states and the federal government.

Although Trump claimed that Tesla CEO Elon Musk tacitly supported the move, Musk reportedly told him, “As long as the rules apply equally to all automakers, I have no objection.”

Musk has repeatedly expressed concerns about excessive government intervention in markets. In numerous interviews, tweets, and public statements, he has consistently advocated for minimal government interference in business operations and market dynamics.