California, along with 16 other states and the District of Columbia, has filed a federal lawsuit against the administration of former President Donald Trump, alleging the unlawful withholding of over $3.3 billion in funding allocated for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
The funds were originally approved by Congress under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Programme, created through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
According to the lawsuit, led by the attorneys general of California, Colorado and Washington, the suspension of the programme by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in February 2025 lacks legal foundation, as only Congress is authorised to amend or revoke budget allocations.
The legal action aims to restore funding flows so that states can proceed with their EV charging infrastructure rollout plans.
States joining the legal challenge include Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs argue that the decision severely undermines efforts to expand access to EVs, tackle climate change, reduce harmful emissions and promote green economic development.
In California, over $300 million in funding is at stake, earmarked for the installation of more than one million chargers for light-duty EVs and around 157,000 chargers for medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the federal measure as an illegal action that directly threatens the state’s environmental and economic strategies.
The Trump administration has justified the suspension as part of a broader review of federal infrastructure priorities, though no clear criteria or timeline for this review has been disclosed. The FHWA has not commented on the lawsuit to date.
The legal dispute highlights ongoing tensions between federal and state governments over energy and transport policy, particularly concerning the transition to zero-emission vehicles. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for the future of EV charging infrastructure across the United States.
