Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptClimate, Environment & Energy

CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS … canceling Biden's Electric Vehicle and other Mandates, and preventing the importation of Chinese vehicles.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 83%

Adversarial re-check: all four sources the prior rater cited were independently fetched and are REAL, live, and accurately quoted. Every operative federal mechanism of the EV push has in fact been repealed by binding action now in force. (1) EO 14154 (Jan 20, 2025) states the policy is to 'eliminate the electric vehicle (EV) mandate' and to terminate 'state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles,' and it revoked Biden's EO 14037 by name — verified on the primary text. (2) On June 12, 2025 Trump signed H.J. Res. 87/88/89 disapproving EPA's California waivers, killing Advanced Clean Cars II (the 100%-ZEV-by-2035 rule adopted by ~17 states), Advanced Clean Trucks, and Omnibus Low NOx — verified on the primary White House statement. (3) The IRS's own page confirms the $7,500 New Clean Vehicle Credit was terminated by P.L. 119-21 (OBBBA, July 4, 2025): 'The New Clean Vehicle Credit is not available for vehicles acquired after Sept. 30, 2025' — a primary source the prior rater asserted but did not cite; it checks out. (4) I confirmed independently that EPA FINALIZED (not merely proposed) repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding on Feb 12, 2026, releasing automakers from the MY2027-2032 tailpipe rules that would have cut fleet emissions ~50% — the strongest single fact, and it is stronger than the prior rater's own hedged framing. (5) On Chinese vehicles, Reason (May 13, 2026) confirms it 'has been effectively impossible for American consumers to purchase a Chinese car' under a maintained 100% tariff plus the connected-vehicle import prohibition. MIRROR TEST: an opposite-party promise with an executive order, three enacted CRA resolutions, a reconciliation-statute repeal of the subsidy, and a finalized agency rule eliminating the underlying standard would be scored FULL under the same standard; downgrading this one would be partisan harshness. CORRECTIONS TO THE PRIOR RATIONALE (do not change the outcome): two side-claims could not be substantiated and are dropped — the cited Reason article contains NO mention of a Volvo or Polestar connected-vehicle waiver, and I could not locate any PolitiFact tracker entry rating this promise 'In the Works' (the URL pattern resolves to the 2016 Trump-O-Meter, which does not list it). RESIDUAL CAVEATS that justify holding confidence at 0.83 rather than higher: NHTSA's CAFE rewrite was still only a proposed rule (Dec 5, 2025 NPRM) and final standards are not yet issued, though OBBBA already zeroed CAFE civil penalties so the standards are functionally unenforceable; and California v. United States, No. 4:25-cv-04966-HSG (N.D. Cal.), filed by California and 10 states the same day the CRA resolutions were signed, remains pending with no ruling — nothing has been reversed, but the legal outcome is not final. Also noted for fairness: the 100% Section 301 EV tariff and the Commerce connected-vehicle final rule originated under Biden, so that leg of the promise rests partly on maintained inherited policy rather than new action — but the promise is outcome-phrased ('preventing the importation'), and the outcome holds. Rating stands.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →