

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"There is no reason politicians in Washington should be stepping in at this late date to try and undercut states' protections for their residents," said one climate advocate.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed multiple Congressional Review Act resolutions that target California's efforts to adopt electric vehicles statewide and phase out gas-powered cars, in a move that one climate campaigner called "Trump's latest betrayal of democracy."
Trump reversed a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waiver granted to California during the waning days of the Biden administration that allowed the state to enforce tougher vehicle pollution standards. That decision allowed California to require that gasoline-powered cars be phased out, and implement a ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered cars completely in 2035.
The other resolutions signed by Trump revoked waivers for a policy that required half of all new trucks sold in California be electric by 2035, and overturned a policy that placed limits on "allowable emissions of nitrogen oxide from cars and trucks," according to The New York Times.
Congress, which is Republican-controlled, passed a measure in May that paved the way for Thursday's signing. At the time, the Senate parliamentarian, the unelected arbiter of the chamber's procedures, said that the EPA waivers did not qualify as federal rules for the purpose of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The Government Accountability Office has also said they aren't subject to the law.
The CRA gives lawmakers a limited window to overturn federal rules, and resolutions brought under the law are not subject to the Senate filibuster.
Green groups sharply condemned Trump's signing of the resolutions.
"Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets," said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, on Thursday.
Simon Mui, managing director for transportation at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Thursday that "California's vehicle standards reduce costs for drivers, increase customer choice, boost domestic manufacturing, improve air quality, and help address the climate crisis."
"There is no reason politicians in Washington should be stepping in at this late date to try and undercut states' protections for their residents," Mui continued. "The oil industry may be celebrating today, but the rest of us are going to continue to keep fighting for cleaner air, lower energy bills, and a safer climate."
Katherine García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign, said on Thursday that "instead of investing in electric vehicle manufacturing here in the U.S. and leading us towards a healthier future, the administration is dead set on pushing us backwards and ceding EV innovation and leadership to China."
Shortly after Trump signed the resolutions, California officials announced they had filed a lawsuit over the move. A statement from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office called the resolutions "illegal."
"The president's reckless, politically motivated, and illegal attacks on California continue, this time with his attempt to trample on our longstanding authority to maintain more stringent clean vehicle standards," said California Attorney General Bonta in a statement Thursday announcing the legal challenge. "The president is busy playing partisan games with lives on the line and yanking away good jobs that would bolster the economy—ignoring that these actions have life or death consequences for California communities breathing dirty, toxic air."
California also recently filed a legal challenge over Trump's decision to order the deployment of National Guard members and Marine troops to Los Angeles in response to protests that sprang up in response to federal immigration raids.
By voting to overrule the Senate parliamentarian last week, the chamber's Republicans handed their political opponents a procedural weapon that could be used to hold off or even kill the House-passed reconciliation package that's central to President Donald Trump's legislative agenda.
The question is: Will Senate Democrats take advantage?
Last Thursday, Senate Republicans used the filibuster-proof Congressional Review Act (CRA) to approve a resolution revoking a federal waiver that allowed California to set tougher vehicle pollution standards. In doing so, the GOP majority ignored the parliamentarian's determination that the waiver did not qualify as a rule subject to the CRA.
Both before and after the vote, Senate Democrats warned their Republican colleagues that the move could come back to bite them in the future.
"Is this really the path we want to go down?" Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) asked in a floor speech earlier this month. "A future Democratic administration could submit every oil and gas lease issued since 1996 as a rule, as the subject of disapproval resolutions... Is it worth going nuclear, knowing full well the Pandora's Box this would open?"
The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote Wednesday that because the Senate "operates largely on precedent," Republicans' vote effectively means that "virtually any action the executive branch takes could be construed as a rule, and therefore subject to fast-track congressional review."
"For this reason, Democrats could subject the Senate to time-consuming resolution votes repeatedly, to such a degree that the Senate would not have time to do anything else for the rest of this session of Congress," Dayen wrote. "In other words, Democrats could respond to the waiver vote by paralyzing the Senate, and stopping the giant Trump tax bill from ever reaching the floor."
While Democrats are in the Senate minority, it only takes 30 senators to force a CRA resolution of disapproval to the floor of the upper chamber. Under CRA procedures, "any senator may make a nondebatable motion to proceed to consider the disapproval resolution on the floor." If that privileged motion is approved, the disapproval resolution would be subject to up to 10 hours of debate.
"The bottom line is this: If you found something like 1,000 current or former agency actions—a reasonable number considering all the work executive branch agencies do—you would probably have enough to keep the Senate debating and voting on CRA resolutions through the duration of this Congress," Dayen wrote. "Given the high stakes of the budget bill—soaring inequality as benefits for the poor are slashed to finance tax cuts for the rich—every tool at Senate Democrats' disposal should be employed. Republicans just handed them a big one."
As Dayen pointed out, Senate Democrats—including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—are aware of the hugely disruptive potential of the precedent set by their Republican counterparts.
In a May 1 letter to top Senate Republicans, Schumer and 19 other Democrats warned that if the GOP moved ahead with their plan to bypass the parliamentarian, "the CRA could be weaponized to retroactively invalidate decades of agency actions—including adjudications, permits, and licensing decisions that were never previously considered 'rules'—and effectively hijack the Senate floor."
It's far from clear that Democrats would be open to exploiting the procedural loophole Republicans created, even as members of the minority party face growing pressure from their base to fight back more aggressively against the Trump-GOP agenda—which includes catastrophic cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and green energy programs.
In a piece for the Prospect earlier this month, former House Oversight Committee staffer Todd Phillips outlined the potential CRA strategy. Asked by the Prospect on Wednesday, Phillips said he had not yet received any response on the idea from congressional Democrats.
"But we know they're aware of it; they have said it out loud," wrote Dayen on Wednesday. "They could start the campaign any day now."
With Trump in office and the wholesale dismantling of democracy underway, one watchdog called what Republicans are planning "the last thing the country needs right now."
But critics warned that the implications of the Republican plan, which the party's leadership is still discussing, are far-reaching and could enable the GOP to advance other unpopular elements of their pro-corporate, far-right agenda.
"If senators are willing to overrule the Senate parliamentarian and circumvent Senate rules on the filibuster for the Congressional Review Act, there is nothing to stop them from going nuclear over and over with policies that would harm Americans and destabilize our democracy," said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, on Thursday. "This could happen with other CRA proposals or in the reconciliation process."
The CRA allows lawmakers to review and—with the support of a simple majority in both chambers of Congress—overturn federal rules within a limited timeframe. CRA resolutions of disapproval are not subject to the Senate's 60-vote filibuster, a relic of the Jim Crow era that Republicans have selectively defended or scrapped depending on whether they're in the majority.
Republicans want to use the filibuster-proof CRA to block California's Clean Air Act waivers, but the Senate parliamentarian—the chamber's unelected arbiter of Senate rules and procedures—has said the waivers don't qualify as rules subject to the CRA.
Defying the parliamentarian—something Republicans have already done as they craft their bill to slash safety net programs and taxes for the rich—to undo the waivers would effectively gut the filibuster, opponents of the GOP plan warned. Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled House voted to revoke the California waivers using the CRA.
"Anti-democratic and authoritarian measures, corporate giveaways, and rights infringements that could never become law if normal Senate rules were followed—legislation making it harder to vote, repealing core environmental standards, stripping abortion rights, and more—might suddenly become law," Gilbert warned Thursday. "A backdoor nuclear option sets an atrocious precedent and must not be allowed. Critical checks hang in the balance."
"Think about how the Trump administration might abuse this."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, echoed those concerns, saying in a floor speech Thursday that "the import of overruling the parliamentarian extends far beyond CRA resolutions."
"Think about how the Trump administration might abuse this," said Whitehouse. "Everyone knows by now that President Trump has a beef with a whole host of media outlets, some of which are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. What's to stop the FCC from submitting CBS' license as a 'rule' and members from introducing a disapproval resolution? Is this really the path we want to go down?"
In a floor speech of his own, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) directly quoted Senate Majority Leader John Thune's (R-S.D.) warning earlier this year against overruling the parliamentarian.
"That's totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there," Thune said in January. "People need to understand that."

Earlier this week, Thune said his caucus is "still looking at" voting on a CRA resolution to revoke the California waivers. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Axios last week that the upper chamber would "absolutely" take up the House-passed CRA resolution.
Gilbert of Public Citizen said Thursday that "this backdoor nuclear option would not only make the Senate more like the House—it would make the Senate more like the chaotic, make-it-up-as-you-go White House."
"That's the last thing the country needs right now," she added.