Environmental Advocates Confront Trump’s Fossil Fuel Agenda

When President Donald Trump announced in December 2025 that his administration would relax emission standards for cars, he argued that the makers of gasoline-powered vehicles would get a break in production costs and families would get cheaper cars.

The executive order relaxes emission standards, a move that fits into Trump’s broader strategy of distancing himself from previous climate policies and reaffirming the traditional auto industry as an economic engine.

But to environmental advocates, the announcement sounded less like relief and more like a bill for working people, one that would result in higher fuel costs, increased pollution, and a slower path to clean energy. Critics warn that the decision represents a blow to the energy transition and a significant setback in the fight against climate change overall.

A Direct Attack

The rollback is “a direct attack on Latino and other low-income communities.”

Andrea Marpillero-Colomina, the policy, research, and data analytics advisor at GreenLatinos, explained to NPQ that the Trump administration’s actions on vehicle regulations were hardly unexpected. Since Trump took office, she said, federal authorities have “systematically rolled back or relaxed vehicle regulations related to emissions and air quality.”

She pointed to the rollback of tailpipe emission standards, the attempt to revoke California’s waiver to set stricter air quality rules, and policy efforts aimed at undermining the EPA’s Endangerment Finding—moves that, she emphasized, carry significant consequences for transportation and public health.

GreenLatinos also underscored in a public statement that the rollback is “a direct attack on Latino and other low-income communities,” warning that it strips families of savings at the pump and worsens exposure to harmful emissions.

Nonprofit organizations such as the Sierra Club warned that Trump’s proposal would force Americans to pay more for gas, worsen pollution, and entrench fossil fuel dependence. They framed the rule as a giveaway to oil companies, undermining public health and climate goals, and echoed that communities (especially low‑income households) would bear the brunt of higher costs and dirtier air.

For these groups, the rollback is not just a regulatory adjustment but a direct assault on clean‑air protections and a deliberate attempt to stall the transition to electric vehicles.

Trump’s announcement followed another major intervention earlier in the year. In the summer of 2025, Trump reset the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, undoing Biden‑era efficiency rules that had set ambitious fuel economy targets. By lowering the benchmarks, the administration ensured that automakers could continue producing gasoline and diesel vehicles without facing penalties for failing to meet stricter efficiency thresholds.

The White House again framed the move as relief for families and manufacturers, while environmental advocates described it as a short‑sighted bet that undermines progress on energy efficiency and accelerates dependence on fossil fuels.

Impact on Families

In a conversation with NPQ, Katherine García, director of the Clean Transportation for All campaign at the Sierra Club, explained that the rollback of fuel economy standards would have a direct impact on American households.

By weakening the CAFE program, she noted, families will be forced to buy more gasoline and burn more fuel.

“Gutting the CAFE program means American families will have to spend more every time they fill their cars with fuel,” she said. “It forces vehicles to burn more gas, which is bad for people’s wallets and bad for the planet.”

She added that the rollback would be harmful to the auto industry, since it discourages innovation and prevents US manufacturers from keeping pace with competitors around the world.

Beyond the regulatory debate lies a structural problem: The use of gasoline in vehicle manufacturing and operation significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Oil extraction and refining are energy‑intensive processes that release carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other pollutants. Producing fuel-burning internal combustion engines requires more metals and industrial steps, increasing the carbon footprint.

And while electric cars carry a higher initial cost due to battery production, internal combustion engine vehicles emit greenhouse gases throughout their entire life cycle. The cumulative impact accelerates global warming, raises CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, worsens urban air pollution, and delays the transition to a sustainable energy model.

States Engage

In this scenario, states can act as a counterbalance. In August 2022, California approved a landmark decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2035. The measure, driven by the California Air Resources Board, seeks to accelerate the shift toward electric vehicles and cut transport emissions, which account for nearly 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gases. The plan set interim targets: 35 percent of new cars sold in 2026 must be electric or plug‑in hybrids, rising to 68 percent by 2030.

The initiative was hailed as a milestone in climate action, with expectations that other states would follow suit, given California’s track record of setting environmental trends.

Additionally, García explained to NPQ that there are still opportunities to rebuild a more ambitious climate agenda at the state level. She highlighted the Affordable Clean Cars Coalition, led by a group of governors working to make electric vehicles more affordable and to reduce transportation emissions through new regulations at the state and regional levels.

She added that even after the expiration of federal incentives in September 2025, state‑level programs remain in place, and the Sierra Club is pressing for them to be expanded.

Colorado’s recent push on electric vehicle sales is one example of how states continue to lead, she said, while the Sierra Club focuses on educating the public about the advantages of clean transportation.

Broadening Support

Environmental nonprofits have emphasized that beyond litigation and policy advocacy, public awareness campaigns remain their most powerful tool. Groups like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Earthjustice argue that mobilizing citizens through education and storytelling is essential to counter the administration’s deregulatory agenda. By framing the rollback of emission standards as a direct threat to families’ health and budgets, they seek to broaden the coalition of support for climate action.

“We are trying to make sure Americans know what is happening and to find ways they can express their discontent and pressure public officials.”

Yosef Robele, federal policy manager at WE ACT for Environmental Justice, explained to NPQ that the organization has focused on ensuring that its voices—and those of the communities it represents, along with allied environmental justice groups—are heard at every stage of the regulatory process.

He noted that even as the Trump administration pursues rollbacks, federal law requires public input at certain points. For that reason, WE ACT and its partners testify during hearings and submit technical comments to agencies, often collaborating with other groups to strengthen their advocacy.

Robele emphasized the importance of “creating awareness that these things are happening in the first place, through different narrative stories—whether in blogs, in the news, or simply on social media. We are trying to make sure Americans know what is happening and to find ways they can express their discontent and pressure public officials that this is not exactly what we want.”

He added that all of this work is carried out in coalition with other environmental justice and environmental organizations, because building alliances is essential to amplify the message and increase impact.

Marpillero-Colomina of GreenLatinos reinforced this, reflecting that advocacy groups must keep pressing and reminding the public of how harmful regulatory rollbacks can be. She observed that it is one thing for an administration not to prioritize new climate‑friendly policies, but quite another to dismantle existing protections or replace strong standards with weaker ones.

“That’s a really aggressive way to go about it,” she noted, warning that such actions will inevitably harm communities, worsen public health outcomes, and lead to more emergency room visits—costs that are especially burdensome for families given the high price of healthcare in the United States.

Awareness Work

Advocacy groups have invested heavily in communication strategies that highlight the human dimension of deregulation. Campaigns focus on the everyday consequences of weaker standards: higher fuel costs, increased asthma rates among children, and disproportionate pollution burdens on low‑income communities.

The NRDC has underscored that connecting climate policy to household economics makes the issue tangible, and Earthjustice stresses that storytelling rooted in community experiences can galvanize public opinion more effectively than technical arguments alone.

Coalition building also relies on awareness work. Nonprofits partner with state governments and local groups to amplify messages that show alternatives are already possible. California’s 2035 ban on gasoline cars is often cited in campaigns as proof that ambitious climate policy can coexist with economic growth. By aligning advocacy with state‑level initiatives, nonprofits demonstrate that federal deregulation is not the only path forward.

Many nonprofits say that consciousness raising is the cornerstone of their strategy. Legal challenges and lobbying are important, but without sustained public engagement, they argue, policy victories cannot endure. As the Sierra Club has repeatedly stated, “lasting change comes when communities understand that clean air, affordable energy, and climate stability are not abstract goals—they are everyday necessities.”

Beyond domestic debates, Trump’s rollback of emission standards reverberates globally. At a time when many nations are tightening climate commitments, the United States’ retreat from stricter rules undermines its credibility as a leader in environmental policy. Allies who once looked to Washington for momentum in climate negotiations now question its reliability, while rivals seize the opportunity to portray the United States as backsliding on its obligations.

For nonprofits, this international dimension is crucial: They argue that weakening standards not only harms American families but also erodes the country’s standing in global climate diplomacy, making it harder to build coalitions and secure ambitious agreements.

For More on This Topic

How to Power Good Union Jobs in the Clean Energy Economy

Net Zero: How Far Have We Really Come?

Deep Rising and the Dark Price of Powering Electric Vehicles