The bill
Modern, Clean, and Safe Trucks Act of 2025
HR. 2424, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).
Sponsored by
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
ID: L000578
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 2424, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 661-663 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. LaHood asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2424, a bill originally introduced by Representative LaMalfa, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
April 29, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Modern, Clean, and Safe Trucks Act of 2025 (HR 2424) claims to promote the adoption of newer, cleaner, and safer trucks by repealing the 12% federal excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of trucking industry lobbyists and their congressional puppets.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill repeals the excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers, which would supposedly make newer vehicles more affordable for truckers. However, this move would also deprive the Highway Trust Fund of a significant revenue stream, potentially exacerbating the country's already crumbling infrastructure.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Trucking industry lobbyists, congressional sponsors (LaMalfa, Pappas, LaHood, Carbajal, and Miller), and their campaign donors will be thrilled with this bill. The rest of us? Not so much. Taxpayers will foot the bill for the lost revenue, while the environment and public health will suffer from the increased emissions and pollution.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where industry interests hijack policy to serve their own agenda. By repealing the excise tax, Congress would be subsidizing the trucking industry's profits at the expense of public health and infrastructure. The claimed environmental benefits are dubious, as newer trucks might not necessarily lead to significant emissions reductions.
In conclusion, HR 2424 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that prioritizes special interests over the public good, with a healthy dose of Orwellian doublespeak thrown in for good measure. The real disease here is corruption, and this bill is just another symptom of a system that's terminally ill.
Diagnosis: Legislative Leprosy (a.k.a. "Trucking Industry-itis")
Prescription: A strong dose of transparency, accountability, and public interest advocacy to counter the influence of industry lobbyists and their congressional enablers.
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: P000614
Top Contributors
25
ID: L000585
Top Contributors
34
ID: C001112
Top Contributors
38
ID: M001222
Top Contributors
21
ID: S001196
Top Contributors
24
ID: H001100
Top Contributors
26
ID: C001119
Top Contributors
27
ID: P000605
Top Contributors
20
ID: D000230
Top Contributors
26
ID: V000135
Top Contributors
25
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 45 nodes and 42 connections
Total contributions: $42
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
Section 3 repeals the 12% federal excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers, which directly benefits automotive manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks (e.g., Ford, GM, Stellantis) by reducing vehicle costs and encouraging fleet upgrades.
The repeal lowers costs for trucking companies (e.g., J.B. Hunt, Schneider) and logistics firms (UPS, FedEx) by reducing the purchase price of new heavy trucks and trailers, encouraging fleet modernization.
Findings (10) and (15) state the tax disproportionately impacts electric and alternative-fueled trucks and that repeal would accelerate zero-emission vehicle adoption, benefiting EV manufacturers like Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid.
Heavy trucks and trailers are critical for construction equipment transport and hauling; reducing their cost benefits construction firms (Bechtel, Fluor) and engineering services reliant on timely material delivery.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill promotes newer, cleaner, and safer trucks by repealing a tax that discourages vehicle replacement, which aligns with Project 2025’s concern about aging vehicle fleets reducing safety and increasing emissions. However, the bill does not address fuel economy standards, EV dependencies, or grid strain—core focuses of the Project 2025 excerpt—limiting direct alignment."
— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on realistic cost assessments and balancing emissions reductions with industry burdens, particularly through its goal of encouraging cleaner truck adoption by removing a financial barrier (the excise tax). However, it does not directly address specific Project 2025 proposals such as GHG standards under DOT, life cycle emissions review, or California waiver limitations, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."
— 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.
AI Analysis:
"The bill supports the adoption of cleaner, safer trucks by removing a tax barrier, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing emissions burdens on industry and promoting feasible mobile source regulations under DOT leadership. However, it does not directly address GHG standards, life cycle analysis, or California waiver limitations as specified in the policy."
— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.