President Donald Trump approved new fuel-economy standards on Saturday, a move designed to roll back Biden-era vehicle efficiency rules. The administration argues this will lower new-car prices and give automakers greater flexibility in production.

The Transportation Department is expected to formally finalize the standards on Monday. The new rules substantially lower fuel-economy requirements for model years through 2031. While the Trump administration contends the changes will cut vehicle costs, critics warn they could increase gasoline consumption.

Trump targets Biden-era EV rules

In a Truth Social post, Trump called the announcement a "BIG DAY FOR AMERICAN AUTO WORKERS AND CAR BUYERS!" He stated that the new standards "TERMINATE Sleepy Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg's ridiculous EV Mandate."

Trump accused the previous administration of costing automakers billions and forcing Americans into vehicles they did not want. He claimed the new policies would remove waste from car building in America, leading to lower prices for families.

The President noted that automakers including General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), and Stellantis NV (NYSE: STLA) have expressed interest in expanding U.S. production. He cited over $100 billion in investments in American autos under his administration, with plants and jobs returning to states like Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.

Critics warn of competitive risks

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg criticized the move, stating that U.S. manufacturing and auto jobs have declined under Trump. He argued that lowering fuel economy standards would weaken U.S. clean-tech competitiveness.

Buttigieg asserted that the strategy hands the clean-tech future to China and forces Americans to pay more at the pump. He described the approach as a failure of economic strategy.

Tariffs and manufacturing revival

Last month, Trump said his tariffs helped revive the U.S. auto industry, citing Ford’s Detroit plant as running 24/7 and being one of the most profitable car plants worldwide. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick supported this view, stating that tariffs are bringing auto manufacturing home.

Lutnick pointed to expansions by Ford and Toyota Motor Corp (NYSE: TM) in the U.S., claiming thousands of jobs were returning to America. The administration maintains that these policy shifts are central to restoring domestic manufacturing strength.

President Donald Trump canceled $810 million in congressionally approved federal funding on Friday through a rare "pocket rescission," only the second such action in 49 years. The move targets immigration, education, and housing programs across seven federal agencies, leveraging the proximity to the September 30 fiscal year end to bypass standard congressional review.

In a notice to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump cited the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to report 11 rescissions of budget authority totaling the stated amount. A pocket rescission occurs when funding is canceled so close to the fiscal year deadline that Congress lacks the time to complete its usual 45-day review period before the funds expire. Critics argue this timing allows the executive branch to circumvent legislative oversight.

Funding cuts target specific social programs

The reductions eliminate 11 distinct funding pools, with the largest cut directed at health and social services. The White House justified these actions by citing reduced border crossings and other administrative priorities.

Other targeted areas include foreign academic fellowships and smaller allocations from minority business and climate-related initiatives. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the specific breakdown of the smaller sums.

Legal challenges and precedent

The Government Accountability Office, Congress's nonpartisan watchdog, has previously ruled that pocket rescissions are illegal because they deny lawmakers their constitutional review period. The Trump administration disputes this interpretation, arguing for executive authority in budget execution.

This legal conflict echoes a recent Supreme Court decision. In September 2025, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump in a separate case involving an approximately $4 billion foreign aid rescission. The majority opinion held that presidential authority over foreign affairs outweighed procedural objections raised by Congress. This precedent now influences potential legal challenges to the current $810 million cancellation.