Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2025

HR 2165, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2025, was introduced on March 14, 2025 by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill amends Section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the EPA from prescribing tailpipe regulations that (1) mandate the use of any specific technology (i.e., EVs), or (2) result in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on engine type (i.e., ICE). The EPA is required to revise any existing regulations within 24 months of enactment to conform to this restriction. As of April 30, 2026, the bill has 11 cosponsors, all Republican, and has had four actions total — the most recent being sponsor introductory remarks on March 27, 2025. The bill authorizes zero dollars in spending; it is a regulatory rollback, not a funding vehicle.

The money trail here is indirect but clear: the bill removes a catastrophic regulatory risk to the ICE vehicle market. Under the current EPA tailpipe rule (the Multi-Pollutant Rule, set for model years 2027-2032), automakers face a de facto EV mandate requiring 67% EV sales by 2032. HR 2165 would nullify that rule's authority to effectively ban ICE vehicles, protecting approximately 15 million US auto sales per year from forced electrification. This preserves $100s of billions in annual ICE-related revenue for automakers, and protects the ~10 million barrels per day of US gasoline demand from regulatory-driven erosion.

Structural winners are traditional automakers with large ICE production bases: Ford ($F) with its F-Series dominance, GM ($GM) with its Silverado/Sierra trucks, and Stellantis ($STLA) with Ram and Jeep. All three have been under massive capital pressure to electrify; this bill relieves that pressure and protects high-margin truck profits. Oil and gas majors are secondary winners: Exxon ($XOM), Chevron ($CVX), and midstream operators Kinder Morgan ($KMI) and Energy Transfer ($ET) benefit from preserved gasoline/diesel demand that would otherwise face a regulatory phase-out.

Real market data through April 30, 2026 shows a striking divergence: automotive tickers have sold off significantly in the past week — Ford -4.28%, GM -0.49%, Stellantis -10.55% — while energy tickers have rallied sharply at the same time — Exxon +3.68%, Chevron +3.89%, Kinder Morgan +2.74%, Energy Transfer +4.56%. This disconnect is notable given that HR 2165 favors both sectors equally. The auto sell-off may reflect broader macro concerns or company-specific issues (Ford's ongoing quality costs, Stellantis's market share losses), while the energy rally is supported by the recent Presidential Determinations invoking the Defense Production Act to boost domestic petroleum, natural gas, and coal infrastructure — a separate but thematically aligned policy signal.

Timeline: HR 2165 remains in the early stages. It needs to pass the House Energy and Commerce Committee, then the full House floor, then the Senate (companion bill not yet identified), then be signed by the President. With a Republican House majority and Republican House leadership paying close attention to auto industry concerns (Michigan delegation, in particular), committee action is plausible in the current session, but Senate passage faces a higher bar with the filibuster. The bill's probability of becoming law in the 119th Congress is moderate but uncertain — it represents a clear messaging bill for the Republican majority on the EV mandate issue.