Wisconsin joins suit against Trump's order cutting off vehicle charging station funds
An electric car charges up at a charging station in New York. Wisconsin has joined 14 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting off federal funds that had been approved for states to build up their electric vehicle charging networks. (Photo by)
A group of states, including Wisconsin, that were promised federal funds to establish electric vehicle charging station networks sued the Trump administration and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy this week for cutting off the promised grants.
'The Trump Administration and Secretary Duffy are singlehandedly trying to block Wisconsin from receiving the investments we were promised,' Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement Thursday. 'It's bad for the people of Wisconsin, it's bad for our infrastructure, it's bad for our economy, and it's illegal.'
The lawsuit alleges that President Donald Trump's executive order blocking electric vehicle charging station grants was illegal.
The lawsuit was filed late Wednesday in federal court in the state of Washington, which is the lead plaintiff among the suit's 15 states and the District of Columbia.
Trump's order 'Unleashing American Energy,' signed the day he was inaugurated, told federal agencies to pause the distribution of funds that were appropriated during the Biden administration as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act or the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.
The order said the pause was 'including but not limited to funds for electric vehicle charging stations made available through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program.' The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, or NEVI, is part of the 2021 infrastructure law.
Wisconsin has been approved for $62.65 million in funding under the program for 15 EV infrastructure projects that were held up after Trump's order. The governor's office said several projects were 'located in the congressional district that now-Secretary Duffy used to represent in the U.S. Congress.'
Trump's order stated that it was written to eliminate an 'electric vehicle (EV) mandate.' No such mandate exists, the lawsuit points out.
'But in the name of eliminating this fictional mandate, the Executive Order directs the Federal Highway Administration … to usurp the legislative and spending powers reserved to Congress by withholding congressionally appropriated funding for electric vehicle ('EV') charging infrastructure required by statute to be distributed to States,' the lawsuit states.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate pushes ahead on Trump tax cuts as nonpartisan analysis raises price tag
By Bo Erickson and Phil Stewart WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Senate version of President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill will add $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt, about $800 billion more than the version passed last month by the House of Representatives, a nonpartisan forecaster said on Sunday. The Congressional Budget Office issued its estimate of the bill's hit to the $36.2 trillion federal debt as Senate Republicans sought to push the bill forward in a marathon weekend session. Republicans, who have long voiced concern about growing U.S. deficits and debt, have rejected the CBO's longstanding methodology to calculate the cost of legislation. But Democrats hope the latest, eye-widening figure could stoke enough anxiety among fiscally-minded conservatives to get them to buck their party, which controls both chambers of Congress. The Senate only narrowly advanced the tax-cut, immigration, border and military spending bill in a procedural vote late on Saturday, voting 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill. Trump on social media hailed Saturday's vote as a "great victory" for his "great, big, beautiful bill." In an illustration of the depths of the divide within the Republican Party over the bill, Senator Thom Tillis said he would not seek re-election next year, after Trump threatened to back a primary challenger in retribution for Tillis' Saturday night vote against the bill. Tillis' North Carolina seat is one of the few Republican Senate seats seen as vulnerable in next year's midterm elections. He was one of just two Republicans to vote no on Saturday. Trump wants the bill passed before the July 4 Independence Day holiday. While that deadline is one of choice, lawmakers will face a far more serious deadline later this summer when they must raise the nation's self-imposed debt ceiling or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. 'We are going to make sure hardworking people can keep more of their money,' Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday. HITS TO BENEFITS Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, said this legislation would come to haunt Republicans if it gets approved, predicting 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance. "Many of my Republican friends know ... they're walking the plank on this and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their convictions," Warner told CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." The legislation has been the sole focus of a marathon weekend congressional session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats seek to slow the legislation's path to passage. Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer called for the entire text of the bill to be read on the Senate floor, a process that began before midnight Saturday and ran well into Sunday afternoon. Following that lawmakers will begin up to 20 hours of debate on the legislation. That will be followed by an amendment session, known as a "vote-a-rama," before the Senate votes on passage. Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the other Republican "no" vote, opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit by an additional $5 trillion. "Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" Trump said on social media. The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Representative Michael McCaul, however, warned that fellow Republicans who do not back Trump on the bill could face payback from voters. "They know that their jobs are at risk. Not just from the president, but from the voting -- the American people. Our base back home will not reelect us to office if we vote no on this," McCaul also told CBS News. Senate Republicans, who reject the CBO's estimates on the cost of the legislation, are set on using an alternative calculation method that does not factor in costs from extending the 2017 tax cuts. Outside tax experts, like Andrew Lautz from the nonpartisan think tank Bipartisan Policy Center, call it a "magic trick." Using this calculation method, the Senate Republicans' budget bill appears to cost substantially less and seems to save $500 billion, according to the BPC analysis. If the Senate passes the bill, it will then return to the House of Representatives for final passage before Trump can sign it into law. The House passed its version of the bill last month. (Writing by Phil Stewart; Editing by Scott Malone and Chris Reese)
Politico
37 minutes ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he has 'a group of very wealthy people' to buy TikTok
President Donald Trump has said he has a buyer for TikTok, the video-sharing app that was banned in the US amid claims it posed a national security risk. In a Fox News interview, Trump said he had a group of "very wealthy people" willing to acquire the platform. "I'll tell you in about two weeks," he teased. A sale would need approval from the Chinese government, but Trump told Fox he thought President Xi Jinping "will probably do it". This month Trump delayed for a third time the enforcement of a law mandating TikTok's sale. The latest extension requires parent company ByteDance to reach a deal to sell the platform by 17 September. The BBC has contacted TikTok for comment. A previous deal to sell TikTok to an American buyer fell apart in April, when the White House clashed with China over Trump's tariffs. It is not clear if the current buyer Trump has lined up is the same as the one who was waiting in the wings three months ago. The US Congress passed a law forcing TikTok's sale in April last year, with lawmakers citing fears that the app or its parent company could hand over US user data to the Chinese government, which TikTok denied. Trump had criticised the app during his first term, but came to see it as a factor in his 2024 election win and now supports its continued use in the US. The law was supposed to take effect on 19 January, but Trump has repeatedly delayed its enforcement through executive actions, moves that have drawn criticism for overruling congressional lawmakers. TikTok challenged the constitutionality of the law, but lost its appeal to the US Supreme Court. Trump confirms further delay to TikTok ban or sale deadline
