
Trump wants to kill NYC's congestion pricing, but a judge just said he can't—yet
New York City's congestion pricing program has only been in place for a few months, but it's already reduced traffic, increased public transit ridership, led to fewer delays for school buses—and drawn the ire of President Donald Trump. Trump has taken steps to kill the program, but on Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked that effort, keeping the toll program alive until at least early June.
Congestion pricing—which implements tolls on drivers who enter specific (and often gridlocked) areas of Manhattan in order to reduce traffic, lessen air pollution, and raise money for public transit—went into effect on January 5. In the first three months of the program, congestion pricing collected $159 million —funds that will go toward badly needed transit upgrades, including infrastructure repairs and accessibility additions. It was the first program of its kind in the U.S., though congestion pricing has already been successful in cities like London, Stockholm, and Singapore.
When Trump took office, his administration quickly took aim at congestion pricing. In February, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said he was revoking federal approval for the initiative. (Congestion pricing was approved under President Joe Biden.) The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which oversees congestion pricing, sued to block that move.
Duffy then told New York Governor Kathy Hochul in April that if the state didn't end congestion pricing, it could see 'serious consequences,' including withholding funding and approvals for highway projects beginning May 28.
But a federal court judge in Manhattan has ruled to keep the program running—until at least June 9. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman issued a temporary restraining order to the Trump administration's efforts. Liman ruled that the Trump administration could not immediately kill congestion pricing, nor could it retaliate against the state by withholding DOT funding.
'We've won—again,' Hochul said in a statement. Though Hochul delayed the implementation of congestion pricing in the summer of 2024, she has since become a supporter of the program, especially as it has come under attack by Trump. Congestion pricing, she says, is the solution for clearing up traffic, cleaning city air, and investing in public transit. 'So here's the deal: Secretary Duffy can issue as many letters and social media posts as he wants,' she added, 'but a court has blocked the Trump administration from retaliating against New York for reducing traffic and investing in transit.'
The MTA's lawsuit against the Trump administration will now decide the future of congestion pricing. Judge Liman, a Trump appointee, said in Tuesday's ruling that New York 'would suffer irreparable harm' without a restraining order against the Trump administration's efforts to kill congestion pricing, the New York Times reported. Liman may issue a longer-term protective order beyond the June 9 date, per the Times.
Congestion pricing imparts a $9 toll on drivers during peak hours in a zone that covers most of Manhattan below 60th street. In just one month of the program, the impact was 'undeniably positive,' transit officials said. During afternoon peak hours, drivers in the entire congestion relief zone are seeing travel times drop up to 59%. As of February, weekday bus ridership had already grown 6%, while weekend ridership was up 21%, compared to January 2024.
In May, a New York Times analysis looked at the impact further, citing how local buses, and school buses, were less delayed, car crash injuries were down, parking violations were down, and fire response times were also 'slightly down.' Public support for congestion pricing has also been on the rise.
Danny Pearlstein, policy and communications director for the Riders Alliance, a nonprofit that supports public transit in New York City, echoed the governor's statement that Judge Liman's ruling was a victory for the city, and for transit riders specifically. 'Congestion relief is perfectly legal and thoroughly vetted. Opponents exhausted all plausible arguments against the program and now the increasingly outlandish theories are falling flat too,' he said in a statement. 'We are eager to keep saving time on the bus and look forward to more reliable and accessible subways thanks to this policy that continues to win support.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines
The US Supreme Court turned away a fresh gun-rights appeal, refusing to question the District of Columbia's ban on large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices. The justices on Friday rejected arguments from four firearms owners who said the ban violates the gun-rights protections in the Constitution's Second Amendment.


Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
'The Five' touts need for 'transparency' following Biden's doctor being subpoenaed
All times eastern Special Report with Bret Baier Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage MOMENTS AGO: Trump takes questions as Abrego-Garcia faces human trafficking charges


CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Proud Boys members suing Justice Department for January 6 prosecutions
Members of the Proud Boys who were convicted by a jury on several counts related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack – each of whom were later pardoned or had their sentences commuted by President Donald Trump – are now suing the Justice Department for what they say was a 'political prosecution.' The individuals, including several former leaders of the group, say the prosecution in the case amounted to an 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.' Four of the five men – Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the group; Joseph Biggs; Ethan Nordean; Trump Zachary Rehl; and Dominic Pezzola – were convicted of seditious conspiracy and each received lengthy sentences prior to Trump's absolution. The group wants the government to pay $100 million in restitution for the criminal prosecution and has asked for a jury trial in the matter. In the wake of Trump's election for a second term, the administration granted full clemency to hundreds of people convicted of felony crimes like destroying property and assaulting police on January 6. Trump's reelection also brought with it a complete about-face on investigations into those who attacked the Capitol that day, effectively ending the largest ever investigation conducted by the FBI. Trump's Justice Department also recently announced it had reached a settlement in the lawsuit brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by an officer on January 6 after attempting to breach the Speaker's Lobby near the House chamber. CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. Republicans and Trump allies have long argued that the hundreds of cases brought against people who participated in the January 6 attack often amounted to political persecution from Joe Biden's Justice Department because they targeted Trump supporters. The lawsuit filed Friday could either force the administration to defend its prosecution of the Proud Boys or settle with the men. One of the men suing the Justice Department, Dominic Pezzola, was the first rioter to break open a window at the Capitol, allowing scores of protestors to enter the building, prosecutors said during the trial. Prosecutors argued that the other four men were leaders of the group and helped coordinate and helm elements of the attack. 'Now that the Plaintiffs are vindicated, free, and able to once again exercise their rights as American citizens, they bring this action against their tormentors for violations of their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Rights,' the lawsuit says. The lawsuit argues that prosecutors went after the five men despite knowing they never organized or coordinated the events of January 6. Prosecutors, the lawsuit alleges, invented 'a whole new legal theory,' stacked the jury and breached attorney-client communications.