UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Chairman

Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson

Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak and Commissioner Mark R. Meador

In the Matter of The Clean Truck Partnership Investigation

Matter Number 2510054

August 12, 2025

Today the Commission announces commitments by four major U.S. semitruck

manufacturers—Daimler Truck North America LLC, International Motors, LLC (formerly known

as Navistar, Inc.), PACCAR Inc, and Volvo Group North America, LLC (collectively, the

“OEMs”)—as well as the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (“EMA”), to end an

agreement to reduce the output of internal combustion engine trucks and to refrain from entering

another such agreement in the future. These four OEMs control approximately 99 percent of the

U.S. heavy-duty truck market. 1 Collectively, their commitments are a massive win for businesses

and consumers—they preserve competition in American trucking and protect Americans’ access

to affordable diesel-powered trucks to transport everyday goods.

The Commission’s closing statement in this matter lays out the history of the agreement in

detail. 2 Stated generally, California regulators promulgated emissions standards designed to phase

out diesel-powered trucks. 3 The California Air Resources Board and the OEMs further entered into

the now-largely defunct Clean Truck Partnership. The Clean Truck Partnership required semitruck

manufacturers to make and sell so-called “zero-emission” trucks. 4 These trucks are powered by

batteries or fuel cells, rather than an internal-combustion engine. Zero-emission trucks are far more

1 Fleets Explained: History of the 7 Major Heavy-Duty Truck Manufacturers in the U.S., FleetOwner (Oct. 4, 2024),

https://www.fleetowner.com/fleets-explained/article/55127030/fleets-explained-history-of-the-7-major-heavy-dutytruck-manufacturers-in-the-us (“Today, seven brands from four global companies account for 99.9% of all new Class

8 truck sales in the U.S.”); Economic Factors Bombard Truck Makers from All Angles, Transport Topics News (May

23, 2025), https://www.ttnews.com/articles/truck-makers-economics (displaying a graph that shows Daimler, Paccar,

Volvo, and International Motors account for 98.5% of the U.S. market for heavy-duty freight trucks); Gov. Gavin

Newsom, Executive Order N-27-25, Executive Department of the State of California (June 12, 2025) (“[O]n July 5,

2023, the California Air Resources Board reached an agreement with manufacturers that represent over 90 percent of

California's truck market ….”).

2 Statement of the Fed. Tr. Comm’n Regarding the Clean Truck Partnership Investigation, In re Clean Truck

Partnership Investigation, Matter No. 2510054, at 1–4 (Aug. 11, 2025).

3 See Press Release, Cal. Air Res. Bd., CARB and Truck and Engine Manufacturers Announce Unprecedented

Partnership to Meet Clean Air Goals (July 6, 2023), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-and-truck-and-enginemanufacturers-announce-unprecedented-partnership-meet-clean-air (“The Clean Truck Partnership comes as

California prepares for implementation of its landmark rules that put in place a phased-in transition toward 100% sale

and use of zero-emissions technology for medium- and-heavy [sic] duty vehicles under CARB’s Advanced Clean

Trucks and Advanced Clean Fleets rule by 2045.”).

4 See Compl. ¶¶ 1–7, Nebraska v. Daimler Truck et al., No. CI 24-570 (Neb. D. Ct. Nov. 19, 2024).

1

expensive than diesel-powered trucks, and they cannot travel long distances without needing to be

charged. 5

California regulators recognized that courts or lawmakers could reject the desired

emissions standards. So, they hedged. The Clean Truck Partnership Agreement included a

provision that OEMs must phase-out diesel-powered trucks “irrespective of the outcome of any

litigation challenging” California’s regulations. 6 In other words, the Clean Truck Partnership is

intended to eliminate diesel-powered trucks no matter what happens to California’s emissions

regulations.

Of course, diesel-powered trucks comply fully with federal laws and regulations. 7 But

California set stricter emission standards for trucks. In practice, California’s regulations ultimately

reached far beyond California’s borders because California is such a large part of the American

economy. 8 Businesses across the country therefore faced the prospect of having to replace their

fleets with costly zero-emission vehicles. At President Trump’s urging, Congress overturned

California’s regulations in a bipartisan vote. 9 Nearly three dozen Democrats voted alongside

Republicans to ensure American consumers and businesses can continue to benefit from lowercost, diesel-powered trucks. 10 Yet, the question remains whether under the terms of the Clean

Truck Partnership, U.S. manufacturers must nevertheless shift production to zero-emission trucks.

What does all of this have to do with the antitrust laws? The Clean Truck Partnership is an

example of companies agreeing to eliminate competition and reduce output under the guise of

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) objectives. Some of these ESG-driven business

decisions may have been well-intentioned, although I doubt it. Most of the ESG craze has been

using progressive buzzwords to justify the underhanded acquisition of increased profits. Either

way, ESG goals can never justify unlawful collusion. ESG collusion by competitors threatens the

exact harm the antitrust laws are intended to prevent: higher prices, diminished quality, and less

5 According to

one report, a diesel-powered Class 8 truck (meaning a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating

exceeding 33,000 pounds) costs approximately $180,000, while a comparable battery-electric truck costs

approximately $400,000. Press Release, Am. Trucking Ass’ns, New Report Pegs Cost of Electrifying U.S. Commercial

Truck Fleet at $1 Trillion (Mar. 19, 2024), https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/new-report-pegs-cost-electrifyingus-commercial-truck-fleet-1-trillion (last accessed Aug. 8, 2025).

6 See

Clean

Truck

Partnership

Agreement

at

¶2

(last

visited

Aug.

11,

2025),

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/202307/Final%20Agreement%20between%20CARB%20and%20EMA%202023_06_27.pdf

7 See Statement of the Fed. Tr. Comm’n Regarding the Clean Truck Partnership Investigation, In re Clean Truck

Partnership Investigation, Matter No. 2510054, at 1–2 (Aug. 11, 2025).

8 See Statement of the Fed. Tr. Comm’n Regarding the Clean Truck Partnership Investigation, In re Clean Truck

Partnership Investigation, Matter No. 2510054, at 1–2 (Aug. 11, 2025).

9 Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7, slip op. at 4, n.1 (U.S. June 20, 2025) (“Acting under the

Congressional Review Act, Congress recently passed and the President signed legislation to block [California’s]

regulations.” (citing H.J. Res. No. 88, 119th Cong., 1st Sess. (2025))); see also Briefings & Statements, The White

House, Congressional Bills H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, H.J. Res. 89 Signed into Law (June 12, 2025),

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/06/congressional-bills-h-j-res-87-h-j-res-88-h-j-res-89signed-into-law/.

10 Why 35 House Democrats Joined Republicans Against a Major Climate Policy, N.Y. Times (May 6, 2025),

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/climate/democrats-california-ban-electric-vehicles.html.

2

choice. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, “social justifications proffered for [a] restraint of

trade . . . do not make it any less unlawful.” 11 ESG justifications are no exception.

This clear principle is why I have long warned that there is no ESG exemption from the

antitrust laws. 12 And since becoming Chairman, I’ve directed Commission resources to stopping

such conduct. For example, the Commission filed a statement of interest supporting thirteen State

Attorneys General, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in holding financial asset managers

accountable for colluding to drive down coal production in the name of ESG. 13 Earlier this month,

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas agreed that these asset managers

may have violated the antitrust laws and allowed the suit to proceed, citing the Commission’s brief

more than seven times in its order. 14 Today’s OEM commitments give the Trump-Vance FTC its

second win against ESG collusion this month.

Today’s commitments not only protect competition; they advance President Trump’s

mission to unleash American energy dominance. President Trump has made clear from day one

that fossil fuels are key to America’s prosperity and national security. 15 Efforts by States to ban

gas- and diesel-powered vehicles, such as California’s Clean Truck Partnership, will weaken our

economy and leave Americans poorer and less safe. 16 The Commission must remain vigilant

against ESG-driven practices that unlawfully eliminate competition in the use of oil, coal, and

natural gas to power the American economy.

I commend the Commission’s staff for working tirelessly to investigate anticompetitive

ESG practices. I am proud that under my leadership, the Trump-Vance FTC remains committed to

protecting consumers from companies that seek to use environmental goals as an excuse to

eliminate competition and raise prices.

11 FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411, 424 (1990).

Comm’r Andrew N. Ferguson, FTC, Remarks at the 2024 Taiwan International Conference on Competition

Policy/Law Innovation Competition and Sustainability (June 26, 2024) (“I am concerned about competition-law

enforcers creating exceptions for horizontal conduct with a sustainability goal for two reasons. … I fear that

competitors will not limit their collusion to environmental issues. Adam Smith—rarely invoked in defense of robust

antitrust enforcement—famously warned that ‘people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and

diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.’

Exemptions for environmental collusion may lead to collusion on other topics, and the exemption for the former will

make the prohibition against the latter more difficult to enforce.”).

13 Statement of Interest of the Federal Trade Commission and the United States of America, Texas v. BlackRock, Inc.,

No. 6:24-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2025); see also Press Release, FTC, FTC and DOJ File Statement of Interest

in Energy Collusion Case Against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard (May 22, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/news/press-releases/2025/05/ftc-doj-file-statement-interest-energy-collusion-case-against-blackrock-statestreet-vanguard.

14 Texas v. BlackRock, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2201071 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2025).

15 Exec. Order No. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,353 (Jan. 20, 2025).

16 See Exec. Order No. 14260, Protecting American Energy from State Overreach, 90 Fed. Reg. 15,513 (Apr. 8,

2025).

12

3