The state of Texas is intervening in California's attempts to implement stricter vehicle emissions standards than those set by the federal government. 

After Congress and Trump revoked three waivers the Biden administration granted California, which allowed the state to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those at the federal level, Newsom immediately sued and issued an executive order directing state agencies to continue pushing the heightened standards. California's attempt to circumvent Congress could impact other states, since provisions of the federal Clean Air Act allow them to adopt California's tougher emissions regulations as opposed to the federal baseline. 

Meanwhile, a few weeks after Newsom's executive order, the Trump administration announced it would sue California in an effort to prevent them from trudging forward with the "unlawful" emissions standards. Now Texas is joining that fight with the help of pro-Trump legal group America First Legal (AFL).

NEW RESEARCH REVEALS HOW EV, EMISSIONS MANDATES ARE INFLATING COSTS FOR GAS-POWERED CARS, UTILITIES

"California’s crusade is not about innovation—it is about abusing the legal system to flout federal law and impose its radical agenda on all Americans," said Daniel Epstein, vice president of America First Legal. "America First Legal stands proudly with the State of Texas to defend competition, consumer choice, and the rule of law. We will not let Gavin Newsom remake America in California’s image."

Texas' motion to intervene, filed Friday with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Oakland Division, asks the court to allow Texas to become a party to the case so it can defend the interests of Texans, which state Attorney General Ken Paxton and AFL say would be impacted by California's attempt to impose strict electric vehicle mandates that can have an effect on the rest of the country. 

"I am standing with President Trump in his effort to stop Gavin Newsom and California from shoving its insane so-called ‘green energy’ vehicle standards down the nation’s throat," said Paxton. "Texas will not look the other way while the failed state of California undermines our sovereignty, attacks America’s energy independence, and intentionally adopts destructive policies that would harm the other States."

Currently, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have chosen to adopt at least part of California's vehicle emissions standards, according to a report released this month by the California Air Resources Board. The same report notes that, collectively, these states represent 40% of the nation's light-duty vehicle market, and 25% of its heavy-duty vehicle market.

TRUMP V. CALIFORNIA: SANCTUARY CITIES TO EV BANS, TRUMP PUTS LEFT-WING STATE UNDER REPEATED SCRUTINY

California's efforts to implement stricter car emissions regulations would effectively outlaw the sale of new gas- and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035, AFL argued in a press release accompanying their Friday filing. Subsequently, AFL notes, the strict regulations would then impact car manufacturers because they would "dictate the requirements for all cars sold throughout the United States" since manufacturers typically do not produce different vehicle lineups for different states.

"That means fewer choices for families, skyrocketing costs, and an America remade in California’s image," AFL stated in its press release. 

In addition to the state of Texas, a major pro-business group, the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree), has also taken action to intervene in the case on the side of the Trump administration, with several agricultural and trade organizations backing the move.

"It's clear this is not one of those issues that is like 'the Trump administration doing something completely novel' and 'courts having to wrestle with that,'" said Michael Buschbacher, the lead attorney working with AmFree. "This is like squarely, ‘Congress passed the law. You can't undo that law unless it's unconstitutional and there's nothing unconstitutional here.'"

Fox News Digital reached out to Gov. Newsom's office for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

The House Oversight Committee took significant steps to widen its probe into Jeffrey Epstein on Monday, including subpoenaing the late pedophile's estate.

Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., sent a letter to attorneys representing Epstein's estate, requesting a slew of documents by Sept. 8.

"The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is reviewing the possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein’s death, the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways for the federal government to effectively combat them, and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials," Comer wrote.

"It is our understanding that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein is in custody and control of documents that may further the Committee’s investigation and legislative goals. Further, it is our understanding the Estate is ready and willing to provide these documents to the Committee pursuant to a subpoena."

MAXWELL SAYS SHE NEVER SAW TRUMP DO ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE, NEW DOJ DOCS REVEAL

Comer also announced that the committee would hear from Alexander Acosta, a former Trump administration Labor Secretary who also served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the federal government in 2008.

Acosta is appearing before the committee for a closed-door transcribed interview on Sept. 19. He was not compelled via subpoena. 

The controversial agreement, which Acosta signed off on, was concealed from more than 30 of Epstein's underaged victims, according to The Miami Herald.

Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to two state charges in Florida of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution, avoiding more severe federal charges. He ended up serving 13 months in county jail with the benefit of a work-release program, made confidential settlements with some victims, and registered as a sex offender. 

It also allowed co-conspirators to avoid charges – a major point of contention during his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's federal trial in late 2021. It's also the basis of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn her guilty verdict.

Documents subpoenaed by Comer include all entries in a book compiled by Maxwell for Epstein's 50th birthday, Epstein's will, and information on the non-prosecution agreement.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL SAYS NO JEFFREY EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST EXISTS AS DOJ RELEASES INTERVIEW RECORDINGS

Information is being sought on Epstein's financial transactions, call and visitor logs, and "any document or record that could reasonably be construed to be a potential list of clients involved in sex, sex acts, or sex trafficking facilitated by Mr. Jeffrey Epstein," according to a copy of the subpoena viewed by Fox News Digital.

The House Oversight Committee sent a flurry of subpoenas regarding Epstein earlier this month, kicking off a bipartisan investigation into the late pedophile.

Comer sought depositions from former FBI directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, ex-attorneys general Bill Barr and Loretta Lynch, as well as former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Barr testified last week.

The subpoenas were directed via a bipartisan vote during an unrelated House Oversight subcommittee hearing on illegal immigrant children in late July.

Renewed interest in Epstein's case has gripped Capitol Hill after the DOJ's handling of the matter spurred a GOP revolt by far-right figures.

The DOJ effectively declared the case closed after an "exhaustive review," revealing Epstein had no "client list," did not blackmail "prominent individuals," and confirmed he did die by suicide in a New York City jail while awaiting prosecution.

Democrats seized on the discord with newfound calls for transparency in Epstein's case, spurring accusations of hypocrisy from their Republican colleagues.

Indeed, the bipartisan unity that the investigation was kicked off with quickly disintegrated after the first witness, Barr, was deposed last week.

Reps. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., and Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who attended part of Barr's deposition, left the room roughly halfway through the sit-down and accused Republicans of insufficiently probing questions during their allotted time to depose Barr.

Comer, who argued those accusations were baseless, implored Democrats not to politicize a bipartisan investigation.

Divisions deepened after Comer said Barr had no knowledge of, nor did he believe, any implications of wrongdoing on President Donald Trump's part related to Epstein.

House Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., who was not in the room, released a statement after the deposition, claiming Barr did not clear Trump.