Do you agree with Congress’ decision to revoke waivers allowing California to set its own vehicle emissions standards?

Yes (37%) – "While I eventually think we'll get to a point where the majority of cars are EV, that isn't happening in the next 10 years. This country does not have the infrastructure to support that, and a singular state shouldn't be able to ban all cars except EVs. I live in the Midwest and my parents' county has ONE charger. I bought a gas hybrid in 2023, and until I can charge my car as quickly as I can fill my tank, I won't consider an EV. Especially in a place where natural disasters happen more regularly, like California."

• "The average American is just not into have the mandate to purchase a new car, let alone an electrical one. If California had been allowed to pursue this mandate, it would have had potentially negative consequences for the rest of America, as other states would have possibly followed suit."

"California is a state. For California to be singled out as the only state to have an ability to set regulations is unfair to others. The ability to join California is not the same as setting you own regulations levels. So, I agree with returning order of rule. The argument of California creating more polution and therefore needs tighter rules is interesting. But there are so many other things they can do - tax a vehicle, create marketing campaigns, provide subsidies, limit parking... and if the number of gas powered cars still grows, the people have spoken."

• "I had no idea this was even a thing and I'm definitely open to knowing more of the arguments on either side, but I'm baffled by the fact that California gets different rights than other states and see no reason why the federal government can't reinstate its policies on CA."

No (56%) – "States have had the ability to make laws that affect certain aspects of their environment for a very long time. California has the annual wealth of an entire country all by itself. If Trump imagines he can dictate to them important issues like air quality, I think he may find it a bigger fight than he can handle."

• "The Senate needs to operate under the rules they have established for themselves in all instances, not just when it is beneficial for the majority party. This fast and loose with rules when they can’t find necessary consensus is only going to lead to a wider divide between the parties and voters. Both parties are guilty of this and are weakening the structure of our government."

"Do I agree with everything California gets up to? Absolutely not; I think they've gone pretty far off the deep end. However, this override is the Federal government taking power from the state, and that's the epitome of federal overreach. I do recognize there's an argument to be made that California is acting as executor for about half the country's auto market, and that's a problem in and of itself, but giving the Fed the power to override their decisions is not great precedent."

• "The rest of us benefit from California's climate change policies no matter where we live, who our leaders are, our politics, or whether we accept climate science or not. Every little bit helps and California was able to do a lot."

"Why does the Fed need to meddle in the affairs of states at this level? The 10th amendment is crucial no matter who is in power in DC. States operating with different tax structures, business environments, school choice (goodbye, US Dept of Education)... these all give people OPTIONS. Back off this one, Congress. There are far more important fights that need your attention."

Unsure/other (7%) – "One national emissions standard makes it easier for automakers to build cars because they don’t have to deal with different state rules. This can cut costs and streamline production. However, the bigger issue is whether individual states, like California, should have the power to set stricter rules to deal with their unique pollution problems or if the federal government gets the final say. This sets up a classic clash between states' rights and federal authority, and it could ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. At the same time, California’s push for stricter regulations, such as requiring more electric vehicles, raises concerns about limiting consumer choice. People should still be able to decide whether to drive a gas-powered or electric car."