The White House recently withdrew the nomination of Ann Carlson to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) following criticisms that she was unqualified for the role. Despite serving as the acting administrator since September, Carlson was accused by the Senate Commerce Committee of being a career environmentalist with no formal background in roadway safety. However, it’s worth noting that similar accusations could be thrown at the current United States Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, who was the mayor of a town in Indiana prior to being appointed by the Biden administration.
Buttigieg has attempted to implement modern environmental concerns into the Department of Transportation, but this has been an obligatory issue for the administration since taking office. President Biden set a national goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030 and set aside billions of dollars to incentivize the transition. While Buttigieg has been criticized for being unqualified, the pushback against Carlson seemed more focused.
Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee were particularly perturbed with Carlson’s role in the development of fuel-economy standards in 2021. Accusations revolved around how rampant environmentalism served as a distraction from roadway safety, with members citing rising traffic fatalities over the last few years. “Based on your record, we are deeply concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will follow the EPA’s lead and propose similarly radical vehicle fuel economy standards that run contrary to the law, diminish vehicle choice, impose higher costs on American families, and undermine our national and energy security all while [benefiting] China,” Republicans on the Commerce Committee told Carlson in a letter.
The Biden administration has been encouraging numerous federal agencies to focus on environmentalism, with the DOT and NHTSA being no different. However, under the Trump administration, an emphasis was made to keep automobiles affordable by not over-regulating the industry. The theory here was that lighter, fuel-efficient gas vehicles would be environmentally sound and help retain domestic jobs. The move was also supposed to serve consumers by ensuring the vehicles they preferred remained prevalent and on the market.
However, both schemes (Republican or Democrat led) seem to focus on issues that supersede the fundamental tenets of promoting safety. Instead, they’re targeting broader market issues and the potential economic ramifications of trying to mandate all-electric vehicles. Carlson’s previous role as an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles makes it clear which side of the fence she’s on. She has likewise expressed her appointment as evidence that the Biden administration wants serious climate experts overseeing federal agencies. However, that failed to make her popular with influential people.
Numerous industry groups pressured Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell (D-WA.) and ranking member Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to block Carlson’s nomination. While many of these were predictably tied to the oil and gas industry, several farming groups and agricultural lobbies were also on board with concerns that she may promote a restrictive regulatory environment.
The backlash seems to have worked, with the White House pulling Carlson’s nomination without expressing exactly why the decision was made. However, it’s likely that the above criticisms and lobbying influence played a meaningful role in the decision.
In conclusion, the withdrawal of Ann Carlson’s nomination to lead the NHTSA highlights the ongoing tension between promoting safety and addressing broader market issues such as environmentalism and economic ramifications. While the Biden administration has been encouraging federal agencies to focus on environmentalism, there are concerns that this may come at the expense of roadway safety. It remains to be seen who will ultimately lead the NHTSA and how they will balance these competing priorities.
