DOJ Whistleblower Cites Trump Tweets As Leading To CA Emissions Probe

A Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into California’s efforts to reduce vehicle emissions appeared to be politically motivated, a DOJ whistleblower wrote in testimony to lawmakers that was released Tuesday.

John Elias, one of two whistleblowers testifying in Wednesday’s hearing about political interference at the Justice Department, says in prepared testimony that the since-abandoned probe into Ford, BMW, Honda and VW initiated on Aug. 22, 2019, did not follow the typical procedures.

“The day after the tweets, Antitrust Division political leadership instructed staff to initiate an investigation that day,” Elias said, noting that it was “generated by the division’s policy staff, which does not conduct enforcement investigations of this type.”

California’s agreements with BMW, Ford, Honda and Volkswagen commit automakers to producing vehicles that could average 50 miles per gallon by 2026, while the Trump plan asks automakers to reach 40 mpg in the same time frame.

“Car companies should know that when this administration’s alternative is no longer available, California will squeeze them to a point of business ruin,” Trump tweeted in August.

The DOJ Antitrust Division immediately began investigating whether the agreement violated the nation’s competition laws against collusion — prompting an outcry from Democratic lawmakers in D.C. and California. 

Elias, the acting chief of staff for DOJ’s Antitrust Division for the first half of the Trump administration, said the investigation was unusual in that well-established antitrust precedent gives states wide latitude to regulate while “companies are free to collectively lobby the government for regulation.” 

“Enforcement staff expressed concerns about the legal and factual basis for the investigation,” Elias wrote. 
According to Axios, Elias will also testify that at the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the antitrust division launched 10 full-scale reviews of merger activity taking place in the cannabis industry that did not meet “established criteria for antitrust investigations.”