SEATTLE (Diya TV) — A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions in electric vehicle infrastructure funding meant for states across the country. The ruling is a major setback for the administration as it tries to roll back programs to support clean energy.
U.S. District Judge Tana Lin issued the order on June 24. Fourteen states sued the administration after it froze $5 billion in funding for electric vehicle chargers. The funding comes from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which was created under the Biden administration. It provides up to 80% of the cost for building electric vehicle charging stations.
In February, the Trump administration’s Department of Transportation abruptly froze the funding. Officials argued they needed time to review the policies of the NEVI program. That move left states with stalled projects and incomplete charging stations.
States that already had operational EV stations also had their plans paused. The administration said it had decided to issue new guidance for the program. However, the Government Accountability Office found in May that this move violated the law. The GAO stated that Congress intended for the program’s funding to be disbursed as originally directed.
Judge Lin agreed with the GAO. Her ruling noted that the states — including California, Colorado, and Washington — had a strong chance of success in their lawsuit. However, she left the District of Columbia, Minnesota, and Vermont out of the injunction because they had not proven they would suffer immediate harm.
The order gives the Trump administration seven days to file an appeal. Otherwise, the injunction will take effect on July 1. Lin, who was appointed to the bench by President Joe Biden, ruled that the administration cannot continue withholding the money while rewriting the program’s guidance.
The administration argued that it was only delaying the program to align it with its new priorities. In a hearing earlier this month, Justice Department attorney Heidy Gonzalez told the judge that officials had no intention of permanently blocking the funding. They simply wanted more time to review the policy.
But lawyers for the states rejected this argument. “This passing reference to revised guidance is simply insufficient to override congressional intent,” said Leah Brown, a lawyer with Washington’s attorney general’s office. “We are not challenging the ability to revise guidance,” she added. “We just believe they cannot do so in this way.”
President Donald Trump has long been critical of electric vehicles. On the campaign trail, he called EVs harmful to the auto industry. At one rally, he told EV supporters they should “rot in hell.” His remarks contrasted sharply with Biden’s focus on green energy and cleaner cars.
Even so, Trump once had close ties with Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Musk even led a short-lived advisory council in Trump’s administration. But their relationship soured after Musk became more vocal in his support for electric vehicle growth. The company’s supercharging network is among the most successful EV projects in the U.S.
The Trump administration must now decide whether to appeal Judge Lin’s ruling. Without an appeal, the freeze on EV funding will end next week. That means states can restart stalled projects and use the money to help build a stronger electric vehicle infrastructure.
More states continue to make progress toward reaching EV goals. According to the EV States Clearinghouse, 16 states already have at least one operational electric vehicle charging station funded by the program.
If the ruling stands, the outcome will help to speed up these efforts. It will also protect states that have already invested time and money into the projects. The case underscores the legal hurdles faced by the Trump administration as it tries to roll back climate programs.
The fight over electric vehicle funding is part of a larger debate on the future of clean energy in America. Courts have often played a key role in deciding whether these policies move forward. This ruling is one more sign that legal challenges will continue to shape climate action, especially as state leaders work to keep their green energy goals on track.
