California sues Trump over $5bn EV infrastructure funding freeze

Lawsuit claims Trump unlawfully blocked federal EV funds allocated under Biden’s infrastructure act.

Tesla Superchargers are pictured in a mall parking lot in Hawthorne, California, on May 2, 2025. Photo by Jay L. Clendenin/Getty Images

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

California and 16 other Democratic-led states have launched a legal battle against the Trump administration, filing a federal lawsuit that accuses the president of unlawfully halting $5 billion in congressional funds intended to support the expansion of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. The move marks a significant escalation in tensions between progressive states and the federal government as President Donald Trump seeks to reverse several climate and energy policies enacted during the Biden administration.

Legal showdown over EV infrastructure funds

The core of the lawsuit centers around an executive order issued by Trump on his first day back in office, directing all federal agencies to immediately halt disbursement of funds under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—legislation passed under former President Joe Biden. According to the plaintiffs, this executive directive is not only unconstitutional but also represents an overreach of presidential power, as it attempts to override funding decisions made by Congress.

The 17-state coalition argues that this funding freeze, particularly targeting the EV infrastructure program, directly undermines state-level climate goals and clean energy industries. The Federal Highway Administration, acting on Trump’s order, froze more than $300 million in funding already earmarked for California—money that was expected to finance thousands of EV charging stations across the state and create new green jobs.

California leads the charge against federal overreach

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Wednesday that Trump’s actions amount to “illegally stripping away billions of dollars in federal support for EVs.” He described the move as a deliberate attack on environmental progress and an attempt to prop up outdated fossil fuel industries.

“California will not back down, not from Big Oil and not from federal overreach,” Bonta declared, signaling the state’s intent to aggressively defend its clean energy ambitions.

Governor Gavin Newsom echoed those sentiments in a sharply worded statement. Describing Trump’s move as “another gift to China,” Newsom accused the president of sabotaging American innovation and stifling a rapidly growing sector of the economy. “Instead of hawking Teslas on the White House lawn, President Trump could actually help Elon [Musk] — and the nation — by following the law and releasing this bipartisan funding,” he said.

Political resistance to Trump’s energy rollback

The lawsuit is part of a broader resistance movement by Democratic leaders who are increasingly turning to the courts to challenge Trump’s sweeping rollbacks of climate and energy regulations. Since Trump took office in January, California has filed at least 19 separate lawsuits targeting various executive actions, from energy to immigration policy.

Earlier this week, California joined 16 other states in a legal bid to stop the administration from freezing new wind energy developments, arguing that the action was both arbitrary and economically damaging. In another high-profile case last month, California and 11 other states filed a joint lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s new import tariffs, contending that the president had bypassed congressional authority in imposing the measures.

These lawsuits reflect a broader power struggle between states that are aggressively pursuing green energy and a federal administration determined to roll back many of the environmental regulations and investments initiated under Biden.

Economic and environmental stakes

The stakes of this lawsuit go far beyond legal arguments. California is home to the nation’s largest EV market, with over two million zero-emission vehicles sold—accounting for approximately 34% of all EVs in the United States. The state has invested heavily in clean energy infrastructure, including solar, wind, and EV charging networks, and has positioned itself as a global leader in sustainable transportation.

The freezing of funds, according to California officials, not only disrupts this progress but also jeopardizes thousands of jobs tied to the green economy. EV manufacturers, charging station developers, and renewable energy firms across the state are expected to feel the ripple effects of the funding halt, with some warning of potential layoffs and project delays.

The lawsuit also comes at a time when many states are racing to meet aggressive emissions targets and prepare for a future dominated by electric mobility. With the federal government backing away from key investments, state leaders argue they are being forced to pick up the slack—without the resources they were promised.

National implications and legal precedent

Legal experts say the outcome of this case could set a significant precedent regarding executive authority over congressionally approved funds. Historically, presidents have limited power to unilaterally block the disbursement of funds already approved by the legislative branch.

“This lawsuit presents a serious constitutional question,” said Janet Mueller, a law professor at Stanford University. “Can a president override appropriations made by Congress simply because they disagree with the policy goals of the previous administration? The courts will have to weigh in.”

If California and its allies are successful, it could force the Trump administration to release the frozen EV funds and restrain future executive attempts to alter the trajectory of federal spending without legislative backing. It would also reaffirm the power of Congress in determining the nation's budgetary priorities—especially in areas like climate investment where the stakes are high and the politics contentious.

Federal agencies remain silent

As of Wednesday evening, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Highway Administration had not commented publicly on the lawsuit. The White House also declined to issue a formal statement. However, insiders close to the administration defended the funding freeze as a necessary “pause” to review the fiscal and strategic merits of the EV charging network.

Despite the silence from Washington, the legal pressure is mounting. With multiple lawsuits now targeting Trump’s environmental policy rollbacks, the courts will likely become a key battleground over the future of U.S. climate and energy strategy.

A growing divide in America’s energy future

At its core, the lawsuit filed by California and its allies is about more than just electric vehicle chargers. It represents a growing rift between a federal government seeking to return to fossil-fuel dominance and a coalition of progressive states determined to lead on climate action. Whether this legal challenge succeeds or not, it underscores a broader question for the nation: who controls the direction of America’s energy future?

With the world watching and global climate goals at stake, the outcome of this legal standoff could have lasting consequences not just for California, but for the trajectory of U.S. environmental policy in the years to come.