Senate Republicans seek to end EV tax credit by September 30
US Senate Republicans late Friday released a revised tax and budget bill that would end the $7,500 tax credit on new electric vehicle sales and leases on September 30 as well as the $4,000 tax credit for used EVs.
The prior version would have ended the credit for new sales 180 days after the bill was signed into law, 90 days for used vehicles and immediately ended the credit for leased vehicles not assembled in North America and meeting other requirements.
Republicans have taken aim at EVs on a number of fronts, a reversal from former President Joe Biden's policy that encouraged electric vehicles and renewable energy to fight climate change and reduce emissions.
The House of Representatives version would allow the $7,500 new-EV tax credit to continue through the end of 2025, and through the end of 2026 for automakers that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs before killing it.
The Senate bill also includes a provision to eliminate fines for failing to meet
Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules
in a move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles.
The Republican bill exempts interest paid on auto loans from taxes for new cars made in the US through 2028, but phases it out for individual taxpayers making more than $100,000 annually.
Senate Republicans dropped a bid to force the US Postal Service to scrap thousands of electric vehicles and charging equipment in the bill following a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian.
The US Postal Service has 7,200 electric vehicles, made up of Ford e-Transit and specially built Next Generation Delivery Vehicles built by Oshkosh Defense and warned scrapping its EVs would cost it $1.5 billion.
President Donald Trump this month signed a resolution approved by Congress to bar California's landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, which has been adopted by 11 other states representing a third of the US auto market.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Despite airstrikes, Trump officials quietly courted Iran with $30 billion nuclear deal and sanction relief
Even though US president Donald Trump publicly celebrated the bold strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, his administration is quietly pursuing a very different approach by secretly meeting with Iranian officials and proposing various deals to lure them back to the negotiating table for nuclear talks, as per a report. Trump Administration Holds Secret Nuclear Talks With Iran According to a CNN report, a team of US officials led by special envoy Steve Witkoff have been engaged in private conversations with Iranian officials amid the heightened tensions and conflict with Israel. Sources familiar with the talks told CNN that the Trump administration floated proposals that included the possibility of investing $20 to $30 billion in a civilian non-enrichment nuclear program in Iran, as reported by Daily Beast. The team has reportedly even discussed about the potential of lifting some sanctions so Tehran could access $6 billion which are frozen in foreign bank accounts, according to the report. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mountain Gear for Extreme Conditions Trek Kit India Learn More Undo A Trump administration official told CNN on the condition of anonymity that, 'The U.S. is willing to lead these talks,' adding, 'And someone is going to need to pay for the nuclear program to be built, but we will not make that commitment,' as quoted by Daily Beast in its report. ALSO READ: Trump says Iran warned of missile strike at Al Udeid base: 'They asked if 1 o'clock was OK — I said fine' Live Events Gulf Allies Could Help Rebuild Fordow Site While, two other Trump administration officials revealed that the Trump administration even suggested that US-backed allies in the Gulf could pay to replace the recently bombed Fordow nuclear site with a civilian non-enrichment program, as reported by Daily Beast. CNN's source told the outlet, 'There are a lot of ideas being thrown around by different people, and a lot of them are trying to be creative,' and another source added, 'I think it is entirely uncertain what will happen here,' as quoted by Daily Beast. ALSO READ: Pornhub, XNXX in panic? US Supreme Court ruling lets states crack down on online adult content access Donald Trump Dismisses Urgency of New Nuclear Deal However, the US president told reporters during the NATO Summit on Wednesday that he did not believe a new nuclear deal with Iran was necessary, even though he confirmed that the United States would be holding talks with Iran next week, but the date is not yet been decided, according to the Daily Beast report. Trump mentioned that, 'We may sign an agreement, I don't know,' as quoted in the report. He said, 'They had a war, they fought, now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not,' as quoted by Daily Beast. Previously, talks between Washington and Tehran were supposed to be held in Oman but were cancelled after Israel launched an attack on Iranian targets, as per the report. US Focuses on Promoting a Non-Enrichable Nuclear Future for Iran While Witkoff told CNBC on Wednesday that the United States continues to seek a 'comprehensive peace agreement,' as quoted by Daily Beast. He highlighted that, 'Now the issue and the conversation with Iran is going to be, how do we rebuild a better civil nuclear program for you that is non-enrichable?' as quoted in the report. FAQs Is the US lifting sanctions in Iran? There's discussion of easing sanctions to allow Iran access to $6 billion in frozen assets. Is the US negotiating with Iran while bombing its nuclear sites? According to a CNN report, the Trump administration has reportedly been in secret talks with Iranian officials even after the strikes.
Mint
32 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Runs Up Supreme Court Winning Streak, Amassing More Power
The US Supreme Court's just-completed term had a clear winner: President Donald Trump. With a 6-3 ruling Friday restricting the power of judges to issue nationwide blocks on presidential initiatives, the court put an exclamation mark on a term dominated by Trump victories. The court's conservative supermajority sided with Trump on both broad legal questions and an unprecedented barrage of emergency requests to let his policies take effect right away. The end result was a stack of decisions deferring to Trump. The court let him discharge transgender people from the military, fire top officials at government agencies and open hundreds of thousands of migrants to deportation. The Supreme Court repeatedly reinstated Trump policies found by lower courts to be illegal, and it undercut judges who said the administration had violated their orders. At times, the court gave little if any explanation for its actions, even as liberal justices blasted the majority for rewarding what they said was Trump's lawlessness. 'The court treated him as if he were a normal president, and I think that was probably a mistake,' said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. The court has yet to grapple with 'what to do with the president who does not seem to be motivated by public spiritedness or the good of the country and doesn't necessarily subscribe to American values like due process and liberty and equality.' The ruling Friday gives the administration a new tool to try to stop judges from putting policies on hold. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted three trial judges for issuing so-called nationwide injunctions halting Trump's plan to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' said Barrett, one of three Trump appointees on the court. Trump, who thanked by name the six Republican-appointed justices in the majority, declared the decision a 'monumental victory.' He said the administration would move to lift holds judges have placed on a number of his policies, mentioning fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending and so-called sanctuary cities. 'The Supreme Court has finally put a stop to this judicial activism, which has abused our constitutional separation of powers for too long,' Alabama's Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in an emailed statement. The decision was one of five rulings the court released Friday as it issued the term's last opinions in argued cases. Among other decisions was one that backed Trump's position by declaring that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school lessons for religious reasons. Earlier in the month, the court agreed with Trump in another culture-war clash, upholding state bans on certain medical treatments for transgender children. The court on Monday and Thursday will likely indicate new cases the justices will hear in their next nine-month term, which will start in October. Trump suffered a rare setback in May when the court blocked the administration from using a rarely used wartime law to send about 176 Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison before they had a chance to make their case to a judge. 'This ruling was particularly significant because it showed the court's willingness to enforce constitutional constraints even on immigration enforcement — typically an area where the court defers strongly to executive authority,' said Stephanie Barclay, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law School. But the following month, the court appeared to undercut the decision when it let the administration resume quickly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The court gave no explanation for the decision, which lifted a judge's order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to argue they would be at risk of torture. The birthright citizenship case didn't directly concern the legality of the restrictions, which would upend a longstanding constitutional right. Trump seeks to jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. The executive order would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The practical effect of the ruling remains to be seen. The 22 states challenging the citizenship plan can still argue at the lower court level that they need a nationwide halt to avoid the financial costs and administrative headaches that would result if the restrictions applied in neighboring jurisdictions. And Barrett explicitly left open the prospect that people challenging policies can press class action lawsuits. A prominent critic of nationwide injunctions, Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray, hailed the decision — but also predicted a surge of class action suits and new court orders blocking the citizenship policy. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' Bray said in a statement. Barrett cast the ruling as a nonpartisan one, noting that the Biden administration also sought to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions. 'It's easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached 'a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court,' Barrett wrote, quoting from a law review article co-written by Bray and University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Critics of the court said that characterization missed a key point. 'It is true, of course, that universal injunctions have bedeviled both prior Democratic and Republican administrations,' Michael Dorf, a professor who teaches constitutional law and federal courts at Cornell Law School, said in an email. 'But the court fails to recognize the fact that eliminating a tool for courts to rein in the executive branch is especially perilous at this particular moment, when we have an administration that is already inclined to take a casual attitude towards judicial orders.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
33 minutes ago
- Mint
You Should Be Able to Tell Who's an ICE Agent
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Back in March, when masked, hoodie-clad federal immigration agents were caught on camera grabbing a Tufts University student off a sidewalk and forcing her into an unmarked vehicle, it was shocking. 'Why are you hiding your faces?' a bystander can be heard asking. It hasn't taken long for such aggressive tactics to become the norm in many US cities. But perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in and around Los Angeles, where President Donald Trump has decided to focus his administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, going so far as to bring in the National Guard and Marines over the objections of California officials. LA is full of agents, from Border Patrol and Immigration to Customs Enforcement to Homeland Security Investigations, many of whom aren't easy to identify. In the resulting confusion, police officers are getting mistaken for those agents. The trust that's so critical for local law enforcement to persuade people to report crimes, regardless of their immigration status, is eroding. And fear and paranoia are high that some of the masked people walking around with guns and chasing people aren't federal agents at all, but criminals pretending to be law enforcement. There's a real worry about the overall impact on public safety. California state Senator Sasha Renee Perez, who is sponsoring a bill to make federal agents display identification, told me police chiefs recognize the 'very dangerous' situation the Trump administration has created with its raids. She says she introduced her bill because she didn't know what to tell constituents after masked agents caused a panic in her district by pulling a high-powered rifle from the trunk of a car in a busy parking lot. 'They were asking, 'How will we be able to identify whether or not somebody's actually an ICE agent?' And 'I'm just supposed to get in a car with any masked person with a gun who claims that they're ICE?'' Numerous elected officials have been asking the same questions, given that criminals have been known to impersonate ICE agents. Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger is convinced that a staffer's Latino godson was approached by two impersonators in an unmarked car. They told him he had a 'nice truck for someone with that surname' and tried to open the door. Lately, not a day seems to pass without a new viral video showing armed men in ski masks or neck gaiters climbing out of unmarked vehicles with out-of-state plates. Sometimes they wear tactical vests that say 'POLICE,' but almost never with name tags or badge numbers. And when bystanders ask whether they are federal agents, which agency they work for and whether they have a warrant, the men – and it's mostly men – typically refuse to answer. There are many reasons these tactics are problematic, including the basic affront to civil liberties. Americans, after all, are accustomed to seeing the faces of law enforcement and being able to demand identification. That transparency goes a long way toward creating the conditions for public safety. What's required is not just trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, but also some level of communication and coordination among government agencies. Little of the latter is happening though, California Democrats continue to say. The Trump administration would likely blame the state's 'sanctuary' law for that. But nothing prohibits notifications to city or state officials about upcoming operations. Nevertheless, in that vacuum of information, tension and confusion have been allowed to build between the public and federal immigration agents. In suburban Pasadena, for example, elected officials have been left to guess about the identity of a man in a 'POLICE' vest who aimed a gun at a group of pedestrians. They assume he was a federal agent because he turned on the car's red and blue emergency lights before driving away. But local police weren't told of any operations. 'One question is this a law enforcement agent or someone pretending to be a law enforcement agent, and there is no good answer here,' Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo told the Los Angeles Times. Elsewhere, protesters have confronted undercover police detectives, thinking they were federal agents. 'It is not safe for our officers, or for others involved in any active police operations if misrepresentations or misunderstandings lead to inappropriate engagement,' Michael Dorsey, police chief of the city of Fontana, wrote on Facebook. The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department reported that its fleet of unmarked vehicles has been targeted, too. 'All white vehicles are NOT ICE,' it posted -- and then deleted – on X. And the mayor of Huntington Park has gone so far as to propose directing his city's police to make federal agents identify themselves before raids, which he called 'state-sanctioned intimidation.' California state Senator Scott Wiener, who has introduced a bill to prohibit federal agents from covering their faces, called the situation 'combustible.' (If enacted, such a bill, much like Perez's, would probably be impossible to enforce.) Why the secrecy? Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, insists it's not about 'intimidation.' It's 'because they've been doxxed by the thousands,' he recently told the New York Times podcast The Daily. 'Their families have been doxxed. ICE officers' pictures have shown up on trees and telephone poles. Death threats are sky high.' That is probably true, and if so, it's a problem. Nevertheless, letting law enforcement operate in masked secrecy, chasing down people without having to provide warrants or identification, is not a viable solution. 'Who are these people?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass asked at a recent press conference. 'And frankly, the vests that they have on look like they ordered them from Amazon. Are they bounty hunters? Are they vigilantes? If they're federal officials, why is it that they do not identify themselves?' These are questions that deserve answers. That there are none forthcoming from the Trump administration is just further evidence that despite what Trump says about upholding 'law and order,' the administration's deportations of random dishwashers, day laborers and landscapers has nothing to do with public safety. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Erika D. Smith is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. She is a former Los Angeles Times columnist and Sacramento Bee editorial board member. More stories like this are available on
