In a political tug-of-war that has gripped Washington this summer, Congressional Republicans are intensifying their campaign to halt the Biden-era drive to electrify the U.S. Postal Service’s aging fleet. The initiative, once hailed by climate advocates as a bold move toward sustainability, now finds itself at the heart of a heated debate over government spending, environmental priorities, and the very future of federal mail delivery.
Back in December 2022, the Biden-Harris administration announced with fanfare a $9.6 billion investment to modernize the Postal Service’s delivery vehicles, with $3 billion earmarked from the Inflation Reduction Act. The plan was to deploy over 66,000 battery electric vehicles (EVs) by 2028—a move that would have created one of the largest electric fleets in the nation, according to the Associated Press.
The scientific community quickly rallied behind the effort. A 2022 University of Michigan study projected that the transition could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 million tons over the vehicles’ 20-year lifespan. Professor Gregory A. Keoleian, co-director of the university’s Center for Sustainable Systems, emphasized, “We’re already falling short of goals for reducing emissions. We’ve been making progress, but the actions being taken or proposed will really reverse decarbonization progress that has been made to date.”
But as the months ticked by, the rollout began to sputter. Despite the Postal Service’s pledge, by July 2025 only about 250 electric vehicles had been produced—a far cry from the tens of thousands promised. The Postal Service, for its part, insisted that “deliveries of new NGDVs to the Postal Service remain on track to the contracted schedule,” as a spokesperson told Fox News Digital earlier this year. The agency noted that production ramp-up was always intended to be gradual, allowing time to resolve early manufacturing or supplier hiccups.
Yet for many Republicans, patience has run thin. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a leading critic, has been particularly vocal. At the Iowa State Fair on August 17, 2025, she declared, “It didn’t make sense for the Postal Service to invest so heavily in an all-electric force.” She labeled the project “a textbook example of waste,” citing high costs, production delays by Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense—the federal contractor—and concerns over cold-weather performance. “You always evaluate the programs, see if they are working,” Ernst said. “But the rate at which the company that’s providing those vehicles is able to produce them, they are so far behind schedule, they will never be able to fulfill that contract.”
Her frustration is not isolated. Representative Michael Cloud (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the legislative effort to claw back the remaining funds, echoed the sentiment. “Three years later, taxpayers are still waiting while the Postal Service refuses to provide basic transparency on where the money went. The Return to Sender Act takes back the $3 billion in taxpayer money that has been wasted in this project,” Cloud stated in March. He has repeatedly blasted the EV program for “delays, defective trucks, and skyrocketing costs.”
The Republican push reached a pivotal moment in June 2025, when the Senate parliamentarian blocked a GOP proposal to force the Postal Service to sell off its new electric vehicles and infrastructure, effectively revoking the remaining federal funding. Still, the effort to rescind the $3 billion allocated from the Inflation Reduction Act is far from over. Ernst has vowed to pursue additional legislation to pull the plug on the initiative and “return the money to the sender, the American people.”
Not everyone agrees with this approach. Donald Maston, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, warned that canceling the program now would be a costly mistake. “I think it would be shortsighted for Congress to now suddenly decide they’re going to try to go backwards and take the money away for the EVs or stop that process because that’s just going to be a bunch of money on infrastructure that’s been wasted,” Maston told The Hill. He argued that abandoning the project midstream would squander millions already spent on charging stations and other essential infrastructure.
The Postal Service’s modernization effort is part of a broader $40 billion, 10-year plan to overhaul its operations and finances. The so-called “Deliver for America” initiative aims to replace the notoriously inefficient Grumman Long Life Vehicles—many of which date back to 1987 and average just 9 miles per gallon. The new Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDVs), produced under a 2021 contract with Oshkosh Defense, promise improved safety features, air conditioning, and greater package capacity—creature comforts that postal workers have long gone without.
So far, the government has ordered 51,500 NGDVs, including 35,000 battery-powered models, according to the Associated Press. As of August 2025, the agency had received 300 battery electric vehicles and 1,000 gas-powered ones, with more than 8,200 of 9,250 Ford E-Transit electric vehicles also delivered. The Postal Service maintains that these purchases have been “carefully considered from a business perspective” and are being deployed where they will save the most money.
For climate advocates, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Maxwell Woody, lead author of the University of Michigan study, argued, “It’s the perfect application for an electric vehicle, and it’s a particularly inefficient application for an internal combustion engine vehicle.” Postal delivery routes, which average under 30 miles and involve frequent stops and starts, are ideally suited for electric vehicles’ strengths, including regenerative braking and predictable battery usage.
Yet, many GOP lawmakers remain unconvinced. Echoing former President Donald Trump’s skepticism of the Biden administration’s green energy push, they argue that the Postal Service should stick to its core mission of delivering mail. Ernst, for her part, suggested that gas-powered vehicles using ethanol—a boon for Iowa’s corn farmers—would be “wonderful.”
Meanwhile, critics of the Republican rollback warn that reversing course now could undermine both environmental progress and postal reliability. Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union, described the current fleet as “well past their projected 24-year lifespan and prone to breakdowns and even fires.” He praised the new vehicles’ design and safety features, noting the transformation of an old North Carolina warehouse into a state-of-the-art assembly plant.
The debate over the Postal Service’s EV program has become a microcosm of the broader national conversation about climate change, government spending, and the future of American infrastructure. As both sides dig in, the fate of the nation’s mail trucks—and a significant piece of its climate policy—hangs in the balance. With billions of dollars and the credibility of federal modernization efforts at stake, the outcome will likely resonate far beyond the local post office.
For now, the mail keeps moving, but the question of how it moves—on gas, ethanol, or battery power—remains fiercely contested in the halls of Congress.
