A heated legal and political battle is brewing after the U.S. Senate voted to revoke California’s ability to set its own vehicle emissions standards, effectively blocking the state’s plan to phase out gas-powered cars by 2035. In response, California’s leadership is preparing a legal challenge, arguing that the vote oversteps federal limits and undermines longstanding environmental protections.

At the heart of the dispute is California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act — a federal provision that has, for decades, allowed the state to set stricter air pollution standards than those imposed at the national level. Historically, these waivers have shaped broader U.S. environmental policy and helped advance vehicle efficiency standards across the nation.

On Thursday, a Republican-led vote in the Senate reversed a key waiver approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the previous administration. That waiver enabled California to pursue an ambitious plan to eliminate the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035, replacing them with electric alternatives in an effort to reduce emissions and promote cleaner air.

The rollback has sparked swift backlash from California’s leadership, who view the Senate’s action as an unconstitutional infringement on state rights. Governor Gavin Newsom issued a strongly worded statement denouncing the decision and signaling the state’s intent to take legal action.

“This vote undermines decades of bipartisan policy and threatens our right to protect the health of our communities,” Newsom said. “California has always led the way on clean air, and we won’t back down now.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed the sentiment, saying that California will defend its waiver in court. “This is more than a policy debate — it’s about preserving the authority we’ve had for over 50 years to safeguard our environment and public health.”

Supporters of the rollback argue that the federal government should maintain consistency in vehicle regulations across all states, warning that allowing individual states to set separate standards could lead to confusion and increased costs for manufacturers and consumers.

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, a vocal critic of California’s mandate, called the state’s electric vehicle plan unrealistic and potentially harmful to rural communities. “California’s targets don’t reflect the reality of many parts of the country,” he said. “We should not force ranchers, truckers, and everyday families into vehicles that don’t meet their needs or budgets.”

Currently, electric vehicles make up about 7% of the national market. In California, that figure is higher — around 20% — but experts note that achieving 100% EV sales by 2035 will require significant investment in infrastructure, supply chains, and consumer incentives.

The legal battle also raises constitutional questions. Critics of the Senate’s move argue that undoing an EPA waiver through legislative action sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future Congresses to override expert agency decisions without thorough scientific review or stakeholder input.

“This tactic could be used to challenge not just environmental regulations but any specialized agency decision,” said a legal scholar at a California-based policy institute. “If this stands, we could see a wave of reversals across health, safety, and labor regulations.”

Adding to the tension, the political implications are significant. While the current administration has supported EV expansion as part of a broader clean energy strategy, this vote reflects sharp divides in Congress over how — and how fast — the country should transition away from fossil fuels.

Senate Democrats voiced frustration over what they saw as a circumvention of normal legislative processes. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico warned of “regulatory chaos” if such votes become a pattern. “This isn’t just about California — it’s about the integrity of our national regulatory framework.”

Meanwhile, some lawmakers defended the vote as a necessary check on what they view as federal overreach and one-size-fits-all mandates. “We’re ensuring that federal agencies can’t be used to advance radical state agendas,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota.

The situation remains fluid. While the rollback has passed the Senate, it may still face hurdles in the House or a presidential veto. In the meantime, California’s legal team is preparing to challenge the action in federal court, likely setting the stage for a lengthy legal dispute.

At stake is not only the future of California’s clean air initiatives but the broader authority of states to lead in areas where they have historically taken the reins.

As the dust settles from the vote, one thing is clear: the road to an electric future in the U.S. is anything but smooth — and the fight over who gets to steer that direction has only just begun.