Car dealers stuck with unsellable​ EVs have nobody to blame but themselves



When auto dealers began writing impassioned letters to Congress demanding to keep electric vehicle tax credits alive, it was a clear sign the honeymoon phase of EV policy was over.

Behind the public messaging of “going green” and “building the future,” EV dealers and manufacturers are panicking now that President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has ended the incentives propping up weak consumer demand.

Let’s not sugarcoat this. EV incentives overwhelmingly benefit upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans.

It turns out the incentives did less to protect the environment than to protect an industry shift that never had strong grassroots support in the first place.

CarMax, Carvana, and several dealer groups had urged Congress to preserve the subsidies underwriting their investments in EV sales and service. Now that the "big, beautiful bill" is set to eliminate these subsidies on September 30, these groups are scrambling.

Seeing green

But let’s be honest — this hasn't been about saving the environment for a long time, if it ever was. It’s about protecting profit margins and preserving political capital after years of lobbying silence.

These same companies and their lobbying arms didn’t push back when mandates were being written into law. Now that the tide has turned, they want taxpayers to continue footing the bill for what is, at its core, a luxury purchase for high-income households with easy access to charging infrastructure. For most Americans, this is out of their price range, and charging infrastructure isn’t available.

No more cushion

Congressional Republicans, backed by growing public skepticism of EV mandates, removed the taxpayer-funded cushion that made EVs appear more affordable than they actually are.

The Senate version of the “big, beautiful bill” ends EV tax credits by September 30, 2025 — three months earlier than the House version. The credits were initially set to expire in 2032.

Here’s what’s going away:

  • New EVs (under $80,000): up to $7,500 in tax credits;
  • Used EVs (under $25,000): up to $4,000 in tax credits.
Meanwhile, automakers under the 200,000-EV threshold can still qualify for incentives under current law until 2026.

Too little, too late

Dealers and manufacturers had years to challenge the growing federal mandates that funneled billions into EV production and infrastructure. They didn’t. Why? Because the gravy train was still running.

Billions in government contracts, purchase incentives, and sweetheart regulatory deals made it too lucrative to speak out. Now, with the Trump administration's sharp reversal of course, the industry wants the benefits to stay — even if the rules are changing.

Sorry, but this is the cost of doing business. You don’t get to opt out of pushback now that the political winds have shifted. If customers want EVs, they’ll buy them.

That’s how the free market works. What we’re seeing now is an attempt to artificially prop up demand with taxpayer dollars, even as surveys show most Americans still prefer internal combustion or hybrid vehicles, citing price, range anxiety, and lack of infrastructure as major concerns.

Judicial speed bump

In a twist that highlights the tangled relationship between politics and policy, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from halting EV infrastructure funds for 14 states.

These funds, stemming from former President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, were designed to eliminate “range anxiety” by building a nationwide EV charging network. The result was $5 billion spent and seven EV chargers that are live today. A massive waste of your tax dollars.

RELATED: Fudged figures wildly exaggerate EV efficiency

  Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Tana Lin ruled that withholding these funds exceeded federal authority. Because the U.S. attorney general's office failed to appeal the order, states like California, New York, and Colorado will see their EV charging infrastructure plans reinstated.

Still, this judicial intervention doesn’t fundamentally shift the larger momentum. Trump’s Department of Transportation has made it clear: The Biden-Buttigieg National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program was a failure, and it’s being removed. The outcome of this legal battle could delay the administration’s intent to unwind EV mandates and boondoggles. But in the end, the EV mandate and incentives will disappear.

Return to sender

Even the U.S. Postal Service is caught in the EV policy crossfire, as the new legislation has ended its $9.6 billion program to electrify its fleet. A substantial part of this budget went to Ford and Oshkosh Defense to supply the USPS with all-electric Next Generation Delivery Vehicles.

Why does this matter? Because it shows just how embedded (and expensive) this EV experiment has become. Forcing the USPS to go 100% electric is a waste of tax dollars and causes problems and delays of mail deliveries — especially considering that manufacturers were having difficulty meeting the promised deadlines and the agreed upon price.

Cui bono?

Let’s not sugarcoat this. EV incentives overwhelmingly benefit upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans. They’re the ones who can afford $60,000 Teslas or $80,000 Hummer EVs. They can afford home chargers, and they have multiple cars and easy access to public charging. The very Americans who are footing the bill for these incentives — the working class — are the least likely to benefit from them.

Moreover, EVs are not as “clean” as their marketing and mainstream media suggest. The mining of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals comes with serious environmental and human consequences, often in countries with little regulation. And the electricity that powers these vehicles? Still largely generated from coal and natural gas in many parts of the U.S.

Let the market decide

The EV market hasn’t succeeded like the past administration claimed. There’s still minimal demand; drivers want lower-cost gas vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids. But the idea that EVs are the inevitable future and must be subsidized into dominance is not grounded in economic or consumer reality.

Manufacturers and dealers made a business bet. Some will win, others will lose. But the solution isn’t to keep squeezing taxpayers. It’s to give consumers choices — gas, hybrid, diesel, or electric — and let the best technology win in a fair and open marketplace.

Instead of begging Congress to keep the incentives, maybe the industry should have taken a hard look at how it got here. Consumers want freedom of choice, not government mandates wrapped in green marketing. If EVs are truly better, they’ll succeed on their own merits.

  

Trump unplugged! One Big Beautiful Bill ends EV tax credit September 30



President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act just sent a jolt through America’s automotive industry — and this time, it’s not about subsidies or mandates. It’s about getting Washington out of the driver’s seat.

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation is packed with major changes that will affect your next car, your fuel bill, and maybe even your job.

Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works.

Whether you’re a mechanic, a car dealer, or someone simply trying to afford a reliable ride, this bill deserves your full attention. It dismantles a decade of EV favoritism, slashes penalties for automakers, and puts gas-powered vehicles squarely back in the spotlight.

Let’s break it down — without the fluff — and explain exactly why this matters to you.

USPS fleet unplugged

This legislation starts by hitting reverse on the U.S. Postal Service’s $9.6 billion push to electrify its fleet, which began in January 2024 with the purchase of 7,200 Ford E-Transit electric vans, developed especially for the USPS.

Now that this entire program has been marked "return to sender," USPS can get back to delivering mail instead of testing environmental policy.

While an earlier version of the bill called for the USPS to sell off the electric vans, that provision was missing from the final document. 

Hard reset on EPA overreach

Next up: the Environmental Protection Agency.

This bill takes direct aim at overreaching green energy policy eliminating California’s ability to set its own tougher vehicle emissions standards. California’s EPA waiver had long allowed the state to push automakers into building more EVs and hybrids — regardless of what the rest of the country wanted. That’s over. And with it, the ripple effect on nationwide vehicle standards could collapse.

More importantly, the bill removes the penalties automakers faced for missing fuel economy targets. Companies like Stellantis paid nearly $191 million in fines during just one two-year window (2019–2020) under CAFE standards. Now, those penalties are set to zero.

This gives automakers breathing room — and the ability to focus on building vehicles Americans actually want to buy: SUVs, trucks, and gas-powered cars with real utility or hybrid vehicles. Not battery-powered compliance boxes.

EV tax credits ending sooner

Here’s the part that really flips the EV market upside down: The tax credits are going away — and sooner than expected.

The $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs will vanish after September 30, 2025 — a full three months earlier than the House originally planned. And it gets more aggressive: Leased EVs from non-U.S. automakers lose their credits immediately. The EV charger tax credit also ends in June 2026.

What remains? A manufacturing tax credit for U.S.-built EV batteries, but even that excludes any company with links to China.

This is a major economic pivot. With EVs costing an average of $9,000 more than gas-powered vehicles, losing these incentives could price many buyers out of the market. Analysts are forecasting a 72% drop in projected EV sales over the next decade, along with a possible loss of 80,000 U.S. jobs and $100 billion in expected investment.

Tesla may survive the fallout. But other automakers — like Ford and Hyundai — will likely delay or scale back future EV development. Expect fewer EV ads, slower rollouts, and more conventional models hitting showrooms.

More choice, more questions

So what does all this mean for you, the driver?

Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works. Expect more variety, lower prices, and vehicles designed for the actual demands of American families and businesses.

RELATED: WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off 250th anniversary of the US with patriotic rally

  

Fuel demand is expected to stay high — and that’s good news for domestic energy production. Oil and gas industries have long warned that EV policy was artificially distorting the market. Now, that distortion is being corrected.

The bill also helps car buyers more directly with a proposed tax deduction for buyers saddled with auto loan interest — a nod to the growing number of Americans financing vehicles in a high-rate environment. It’s a way to offer relief without distorting the product landscape.

And while an annual $250 EV road-use fee didn’t make it into the final bill, don’t be surprised if that resurfaces in the next round of negotiations. Right now, gas drivers pay federal fuel taxes that help fund roads and infrastructure. EVs pay nothing. That imbalance may not last. This fight could be taken up by the EPA or the Department of Transportation.

Winners and losers

This legislation favors automakers willing to build vehicles Americans want — not those chasing regulatory credits. It’s a win for traditional manufacturers, oil and gas workers, and dealers in heartland states where EV demand has always been low.

It’s a loss for global automakers betting big on electric growth in the U.S. market — especially those with heavy investment in Chinese battery supply chains. And it’s a headache for urban planners, utilities, and environmental groups counting on mass EV adoption to hit clean energy targets.

The National Automobile Dealers Association, CarMax, and others were pushing for a longer transition period. They feared a sudden market disruption. Meanwhile, critics of the bill claimed it jeopardizes climate goals, raises future utility bills, and hands the EV lead to countries like China.

Why you should care

This isn’t just a debate about cars or clean air — it’s a fight over how much control government should have over your choices, your money, and your mobility.

Do you want a vehicle that fits your life, your budget, and your needs? Or do you want a central planner in Washington — or Sacramento — dictating your options? That’s the question this bill forces us to ask.

By pulling back mandates, cutting artificial market manipulation, and letting consumers — not bureaucrats — drive the demand, this bill aims to restore sanity to an industry that’s been distorted by politics and ideology for too long.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.

So think carefully about what this means, not just for the next car you buy — but for the future of freedom on America’s roads.

For more, check out my video here.

Were Biden’s strict fuel economy standards illegal? Sean Duffy says yes.



Could the rules behind your car’s fuel economy be hiding a big secret?

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says Biden-era fuel economy standards were illegal, and he’s rolling them back. This move could lower car prices and give you more options. But what does it mean for your wallet and your drive?

Biden’s rules, Duffy argues, assumed massive EV growth, inflating fleet efficiency targets and effectively mandating more EVs.

The Trump administration is shaking up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which set miles-per-gallon targets for automakers.

In June 2025, Duffy announced that Biden’s rules requiring an average of 50 mpg for light-duty vehicles by 2031 were illegal. Those standards, finalized in 2024, demanded 2% annual efficiency gains for cars starting in 2027 and light trucks in 2029, banking on a surge in electric vehicle sales.

Duffy’s new interpretive rule, “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program,” doesn’t change standards yet but empowers the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise them soon. It argues that Biden’s team violated federal law by factoring EVs into CAFE calculations, something banned under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Adding fuel to the fire, Senate Republicans proposed scrapping fines for automakers missing CAFE targets with gas-powered vehicles, part of a June 2025 tax bill. These moves aim to ease burdens on carmakers and shift away from EV-heavy policies, but they’re sparking fierce arguments about cost, choice, and environmental impact.

Why ‘illegal’?

At the heart of Duffy’s claim is how Biden’s CAFE standards were set. Federal law requires NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” mpg goals for gas-powered vehicles, weighing technology, cost, and energy savings. But it explicitly prohibits counting EVs — classified as “dedicated alternative fuel vehicles” — in these calculations.

Biden’s rules, Duffy argues, assumed massive EV growth, inflating fleet efficiency targets and effectively mandating more EVs. This raised costs for automakers, who had to invest heavily in electric models or face hefty fines.

Supported by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Duffy says this approach broke statutory limits, making the standards unlawful. Major automakers like GM, Ford, and Stellantis agree, arguing that Biden’s targets were unrealistic and forced them to prioritize EVs over popular gas-powered SUVs and trucks. The Trump administration claims resetting CAFE will cut manufacturing costs, make cars more affordable, and let you choose what you drive, whether it’s gas, hybrid, or electric.

Inside Biden’s ambitious plan

To grasp the rollback, consider what Biden’s rules demanded.

Set in June 2024, they aimed for 50.4 mpg for light-duty vehicles by 2031, saving 64 billion gallons of gas and cutting 659 million metric tons of emissions by 2050. Heavy-duty pickups and vans faced tougher goals, with 10% yearly efficiency jumps from 2030 to 2032. These standards were part of a push to halve vehicle emissions by 2032, with EVs expected to dominate new car sales.

Biden’s team argued the rules would save drivers about $600 per vehicle in fuel costs over its lifetime, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and fight climate change. Environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund cheered, citing cleaner air and energy security.

But automakers weren’t convinced, citing sky-high compliance costs and a market where EVs, despite heavy investment, remain pricier and less popular than gas vehicles. A credit-trading system let EV makers like Tesla sell excess credits to others, earning billions but adding costs for traditional carmakers, who called it unfair. Duffy’s rule challenges this system, aiming for a fairer market.

How this affects you

This isn’t just a policy debate — it impacts your next car purchase.

Duffy says scrapping Biden’s rules will lower production costs, letting automakers offer cheaper vehicles, especially affordable models for families and small businesses. High CAFE standards drove up prices by requiring costly tech like turbochargers or hybrids. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation suggests this could revive entry-level cars. However, less efficient vehicles could mean bigger fuel bills, potentially wiping out savings.

The rollback could also expand your choices. Strict standards pushed carmakers toward EVs, sidelining gas-powered SUVs and trucks that lead U.S. sales. Looser rules might bring more variety, including heavier, safer designs, as data shows these fare better in crashes. But environmentalists like Katherine Garcia of the Sierra Club warn this could limit clean vehicle options, frustrating eco-conscious buyers. Older, less efficient cars — more common if prices drop — may also pose safety risks, creating a complex trade-off.

Biden’s rules promised major cuts in emissions, but in some cases they could actually stall progress. In coal-heavy regions like the Midwest, EVs aren’t always cleaner than efficient gas vehicles. Curious? The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator shows how your local grid affects EV emissions — it’s worth a look.

Policy meets politics

This fight goes beyond mpg — it’s a battle of priorities. Biden used CAFE to speed up EV adoption, tying it to climate goals and the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV subsidies. Trump, backed by automakers and oil interests, sees it as government overreach. His January 2025 executive orders “Unleashing American Energy” and “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” directed agencies to ditch EV mandates and boost fossil fuels.

The timing adds intrigue. Duffy’s rule landed amid a public clash between Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, with Trump suggesting that Musk opposed a budget bill cutting EV tax credits. Musk pushed back, but it highlights tensions as EV policies unravel. The EPA, now led by Lee Zeldin, is also rethinking emissions rules and California’s 2035 gas car ban, signaling a wider retreat from green policies.

Environmentalists are alarmed. Garcia warns that weaker standards will raise fuel costs, increase pollution, and harm health. Automakers, however, see relief after struggling with EV investments and sluggish sales. Stellantis, for instance, delayed its electric Ram pickup and doubled down on gas models post-election, reflecting the industry’s shift.

What's next?

Duffy’s rule is a starting point. NHTSA will soon propose new standards, likely easing mpg targets and excluding EVs. Senate plans to eliminate fines could further relax enforcement, giving carmakers room to breathe. But legal battles are brewing — environmental groups may sue, arguing that NHTSA must set “maximum feasible” standards. California’s tougher rules could also trigger a federal-state clash.

For now, the rollback aligns with Trump’s promise of affordability and choice. Whether it delivers cheaper cars or dirtier air depends on NHTSA’s next steps and consumer response. Fuel economy standards, born during the 1970s oil crisis, remain a flashpoint for energy, economics, and the environment.

Why you should care

This story hits your driveway, your budget, and the world you live in. Biden’s CAFE rules aimed high but, per Duffy, broke the law by banking on EVs. The Trump rollback could make cars cheaper and give you more options, but it risks higher fuel costs and emissions.

Stay tuned for NHTSA’s next moves and tell policymakers what matters to you. Whether you love gas, lean electric, or ride hybrid, you deserve rules that balance cost, choice, and a cleaner future.

  

Fudged figures wildly exaggerate EV efficiency



It's quasi consumer fraud on a global scale.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s electric vehicle mileage ratings are misleading millions, inflating EV efficiency and hiding the true energy cost of driving green. And it all comes down to one little number.

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

It’s time to pull back the curtain on the EPA’s Miles Per Gallon equivalent figure, a metric that’s been covering the truth about EVs for years. This flawed foundation overstates efficiency while shortchanging hybrids and traditional cars. This isn’t just a technical glitch; it’s a distortion that could sway your next car purchase and sabotage the resale of your electric car.

Stick with me as we dig into the numbers, uncover the truth, and explore why this scam happened. And make sure to share this with anyone who’s ever wondered if EVs are really as green as they’re made out to be.

MPGe: A flawed metric

The Obama administration EPA introduced MPGe to help consumers compare the efficiency of electric vehicles to traditional gas-powered cars. It’s supposed to represent how far an EV can travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.

On paper, it’s a tidy way to level the playing field. For example, the EPA rated the 2011 Nissan Leaf at 99 MPGe, suggesting it’s nearly three times as efficient as a typical gas car getting 35 MPG. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: The EPA’s calculation assumes a perfect world, where gasoline is converted to electricity with no energy loss.

That’s not just optimistic — it’s physically impossible.

The EPA’s methodology takes the energy content of a gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTUs) and divides it by the energy in a kilowatt-hour of electricity (3,412 BTUs), arriving at a conversion factor of 33.7 kWh per gallon. Using this, it calculates how far an EV travels per kWh and converts it to MPGe.

The problem? This assumes 100% efficiency in turning fossil fuels into electricity at power plants, ignoring the messy reality of energy production. According to the EPA’s own data from October 2024, the average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. is just 36%. That means 64% of the energy is lost as heat, friction, and other forms of energy waste before it ever reaches your EV’s battery.

RELATED: 10 reasons not to buy an electric car

  Getty Images/Xinhua News Agency

The Department of Energy’s reality check

Contrast this with the Department of Energy’s approach, which accounts for real-world power plant efficiencies and the fuel mix used to generate electricity. The DOE also factors in the energy required to refine and transport gasoline for traditional cars, creating a fairer comparison.

When you apply the DOE’s methodology, the numbers tell a different story. That 99 MPGe Nissan Leaf? It drops to a much humbler 36 MPGe — still respectable but far less impressive. This is roughly equivalent to a good hybrid like the Toyota Prius or even some efficient gas cars like the Honda CR-V. Suddenly, EVs don’t look like the runaway efficiency champions they’re made out to be.

So why does this discrepancy matter? The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures create a false impression that EVs are seven times more efficient than gas-powered cars, which can mislead consumers and policymakers. It’s not just about bragging rights; these numbers influence fuel economy standards, tax incentives, and even what cars automakers prioritize. If you’re shopping for a car, you deserve the truth about what you’re getting — not a rosy picture that glosses over real-world energy costs.

A violation of physics

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

Power plants, whether coal, natural gas, or oil-fired, lose significant energy as heat during electricity generation. Transmission lines and battery charging add further losses. By ignoring these, the EPA’s MPGe paints an unrealistically efficient picture of EVs.

Meanwhile, gas-powered cars and hybrids are judged strictly on their tailpipe efficiency, with no such generous assumptions. This double standard tilts the playing field, making EVs appear far superior when the reality is different.

The Biden administration’s push for EVs, including stringent emissions standards aiming for 67% of new car sales to be electric by 2032, amplifies the issue. These policies rely on MPGe to justify EV mandates, but the DOE’s more realistic calculations suggest hybrids and efficient gas vehicles could achieve similar reductions in fossil fuel use without forcing a wholesale shift to EVs. The DOE’s method shows that EVs, while efficient in their own right (using 87%-91% of battery energy for propulsion compared to 16%-25% for gas cars) don’t deliver the massive efficiency leaps MPGe suggests when you account for the full energy cycle.

'Lightning' in a bottle?

The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures aren’t just a technical oversight — they have real-world consequences. Federal fuel economy standards, like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, use MPGe to determine compliance. High MPGe ratings allow automakers to offset less efficient gas-powered vehicles with fewer EVs, which sounds good but can mask the true environmental impact.

For instance, the Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup was credited with 237.7 MPGe under old rules, but a more realistic DOE estimate drops it to 67.1 MPGe — still efficient but not a miracle worker. This inflates automakers’ fleet averages without necessarily reducing fossil fuel use as much as claimed.

Consumers feel the pinch, too. EVs are often marketed as the ultimate green choice, but the EPA’s numbers obscure the fact that most U.S. electricity (about 60% in 2024) comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In regions heavy in coal production, like parts of the Midwest, charging an EV can produce as much greenhouse gas as a gas-powered hybrid. The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator, developed with the DOE, lets you check emissions by zip code, revealing how your local grid affects an EV’s true environmental impact. This is critical information the MPGe figure conveniently ignores.

Hybrids, which combine gas and electric power, often get shortchanged in this narrative. A hybrid like the Toyota Prius can achieve 50 MPG or more in real-world driving, rivaling the DOE’s adjusted MPGe for many EVs without relying on a charging infrastructure that’s still spotty in rural areas. Yet, the EPA’s MPGe metric makes hybrids look less impressive, potentially steering buyers away from a practical, cost-effective option.

Policy or politics?

The Biden administration’s aggressive EV agenda, including the 2024 emissions standards aiming for a 50% reduction in light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, leaned heavily on MPGe to justify its goals. These rules projected that EVs could account for 35%-56% of new vehicle sales by 2030, a target that shrunk after pushback from automakers and unions worried about job losses and consumer choice. The administration also adjusted DOE’s EV mileage ratings in 2024, gradually reducing them by 65% through 2030 to better reflect real-world efficiencies, but the EPA’s MPGe figures still dominate public perception.

RELATED: Paul Brian, 1951-2024

  Lauren Fix

Critics argue this focus on EVs, propped up by inflated MPGe, prioritizes political goals over practical solutions. The Trump administration’s EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has since moved to reconsider these rules, citing overreach and costs exceeding $700 billion. It argues that mandating EVs limits consumer choice and raises costs for all vehicles, as automakers offset EV losses with higher prices on gas-powered models. Recently, President Trump signed into law the removal of the EV mandate, and this is a win for consumer choice.

Transparency and choice

So is the EPA’s MPGe a deliberate scam? Not exactly, but it’s a misleading metric that overpromises EV benefits while undervaluing alternatives. And it's been tricking almost everyone for years!

The EPA’s methodology needs to be corrected. The honest numbers would let consumers compare EVs, hybrids, and gas cars on equal terms. The Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator is a step in the right direction, showing how local grids affect EV emissions, but it’s underutilized compared to the flashy MPGe sticker on new cars.

You deserve to know the true energy cost of your vehicle — whether it’s plugged in, filled up, or both. The EPA’s MPGe has skewed perceptions, making EVs seem like a silver bullet when hybrids and efficient gas cars often deliver comparable benefits without the infrastructure headaches. With the Trump administration now removing EV mandates and reducing CAFE standards, there’s a chance to reset the conversation. Policies should prioritize innovation and consumer choice, not inflated metrics that favor one technology over another.

This isn’t just about car shopping; it’s about the future of transportation and energy. It's better to tell consumers the truth and not inflate MPGe figures that can mislead you into purchasing a vehicle that doesn’t go the promised distance. Hybrids, efficient gas cars, and EVs all have a role to play, but only if we judge them fairly.

Share this article with friends who are car shopping or curious about the EV hype — it could save them thousands and spark a conversation. The EPA must ditch MPGe and give drivers the unfiltered truth about vehicle efficiency.

  

$8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda



California drivers, brace yourselves. Starting July 1, 2025, you could be paying 65 cents more per gallon — pushing gas prices to a staggering $8 by 2026.

Why? Because California regulators, fresh off the repeal of the federal electric vehicle mandate, are going full speed ahead with stricter clean fuel standards — which critics say amount to a hidden tax and a deliberate attempt to force drivers into electric vehicles.

'This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.'

Back in November, the California Air Resources Board — an unelected group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — voted to update the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The new rules penalize gasoline and diesel producers and reward low-carbon fuel options like EV charging infrastructure.

 

Cleaner fuels, higher prices

 

CARB’s goal is to cut the carbon intensity of transportation fuels 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. Fuel producers that exceed carbon limits must purchase credits, a cost that gets passed straight to you at the pump. While regulators tout benefits like reduced air pollution and $4 billion in new clean energy investments, experts project these rules will raise gas prices by 47 to 65 cents per gallon next year — and possibly $1.50 more by 2035.

Meanwhile, two major California refineries are shutting down, reducing capacity by over 8%. That means less supply and even higher prices. Some forecasts, including one from the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, warn of $8 gas by 2026.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calls it “blatant price gouging" by an "unelected board of wealthy bureaucrats.” He’s filed a public records request to expose what he says is a coordinated effort to bypass voters and crush gas-powered mobility.

 

About climate — or control?

 

The timing of this update is no accident. It came just days after the 2024 election, ignoring nearly 13,000 Californians who petitioned for a delay. Republican Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the changes, warns that rural and working-class Californians can’t afford the hike.

Even after the Office of Administrative Law paused the plan in early 2025 due to procedural issues, CARB was given 120 days to revise and resubmit — keeping the threat alive.

RELATED: California gas-car ban overturned by Senate

  The Enthusiast Network/Getty Images

Despite growing backlash, CARB has refused to revise its original 47-cent cost estimate, even as outside experts warn it could be far higher. Climate economist Danny Cullenward slammed the board’s secrecy, saying it erodes public trust.

Jones put it more bluntly: “This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.”

 

California in charge?

 

California’s policies don’t stop at its borders. About a dozen other states — covering 35% of the U.S. population — have adopted its EV sales targets, including the 2035 gas vehicle ban. States like New York, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts are now weighing how to enforce similar goals without federal backup.

While none of these states has matched California’s aggressive LCFS update, many use credit-based emissions programs that punish traditional fuels. Meanwhile, California’s refinery closures could send regional gas prices up 10 to 20 cents, even in states that don’t adopt LCFS-style rules.

The result? A creeping increase in gas prices across the country, driven not by market forces but by regulatory agendas.

 

Not buying it

 

An AAA survey earlier this month found that 63% of Americans are unlikely to buy an EV, citing cost, insurance, and lack of charging stations. In California, where electricity rates are double the national average, even charging an EV isn’t much cheaper than filling a tank. With EV financing averaging $783 per month and $105 billion in taxpayer subsidies on the line, the current system favors wealthier households — while working families pay more for both gas and electricity.

And it’s not just pump prices. The added costs ripple through the economy — affecting groceries, shipping, manufacturing, and transportation. The combined impact of the LCFS hike, refinery closures, and a scheduled excise tax bump could raise gas prices by as much as 90 cents per gallon in 2025.

 

Meeting consumers, not mandates

 

The auto industry is responding to real-world demand — not government mandates. With the federal EV mandate repealed, manufacturers are shifting their focus to hybrids and fuel-efficient gas cars while scaling back some EV plans. While new EV factories are still being built, carmakers are hedging their bets, giving consumers more options, not fewer.

That’s a refreshing contrast to California’s top-down approach.

 

Freedom vs. forced transition

 

California defends its LCFS update as a critical step toward its 2045 net-zero target. But critics argue that the environmental benefits are exaggerated and the economic burden is real. EVs, for instance, release 26% more tire particulate pollution than gas cars, posing their own environmental risks.

And if gas really hits $8 per gallon, the state’s policies may not just be unaffordable — they’ll be unsustainable.

Whether you live in California, Nevada, Arizona, or a state following California’s lead, this is about more than gas. It’s about who decides how you live and what you drive. With the federal EV mandate off the table, it’s time to ask: Should unelected regulators in Sacramento get to control the fuel in your tank?

 

Taking back the wheel

 

Will lawmakers block the 65-cent hike? Will other states follow California’s lead? If you care about affordability and choice, now’s the time to make your voice heard. This isn’t just about a gallon of gas — it’s about the freedom to drive what works for you.

For more on this, check out my video here.

Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry?



When it comes to tariffs on foreign cars, President Trump seems to have a simple philosophy: “The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here."

This bold strategy is already showing results, with foreign automakers investing billions of dollars in American production. But it's also raising costs for automakers and consumers.

When automakers build plants in the US, they create jobs not only in manufacturing but also in related industries like steel, logistics, and technology.

So what does this mean for the cars we drive, the jobs we create, and the prices we pay? Let’s dive into the details and unpack why this story matters to every American — and why you’ll want to understand the full impact.

Tariffs as a catalyst for US investment

Trump’s tariff strategy is straightforward: Make it more expensive to import vehicles, and automakers will have no choice but to build factories in the United States.

It’s a high-stakes chess move, and early signs suggest it’s working. General Motors recently announced a $4 billion investment in three U.S. plants, including a shift of some SUV production from Mexico to American soil.

Hyundai, too, made headlines in March with a $21 billion commitment, which includes a new U.S. steel plant. Trump didn’t mince words when he credited these moves to his tariff policies. “They wouldn’t have invested 10 cents if we didn’t have tariffs,” he said, pointing to the ripple effect on industries like American steel, which is seeing a resurgence.

RELATED: Revving up America: Trump’s Nippon Steel deal puts the pedal to the metal

  Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images

These investments are more than just numbers — they translate into jobs, economic growth, and a renewed sense of pride in American manufacturing. For communities hit hard by decades of outsourcing, the prospect of new factories is a beacon of hope. But the story isn’t all rosy. Automakers are feeling the pinch, and some of those costs are trickling down to consumers. The question is: Will the long-term gains outweigh the short-term pain?

The auto industry’s pushback

Not everyone is cheering Trump’s tariff plans. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis have been vocal about their concerns, urging the White House to roll back the 25% tariffs imposed on imported autos. They argue that these tariffs drive up costs, making it harder to compete in a global market.

Adding fuel to the fire, automakers are frustrated by a recent deal that reduces tariffs on British car imports but leaves Canadian and Mexican production facing the full 25% levy. This discrepancy has created tension, as North American supply chains are deeply integrated, with parts and vehicles crossing borders multiple times before reaching showrooms.

Mexico, however, has secured a partial reprieve. Cars assembled in Mexico and exported to the U.S. will face an average tariff of 15%, thanks to reductions tied to the value of U.S. content in those vehicles. This compromise shows the complexity of Trump’s tariff strategy — it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, and automakers are navigating a maze of regulations to keep costs down. Still, the pressure is on, and companies are being forced to rethink their global production strategies.

The cost of tariffs: Who pays the price?

Tariffs are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they’re spurring investment in U.S. factories; on the other, they’re driving up costs for automakers and, ultimately, consumers.

Ford Motor recently raised prices on some models, citing tariff-related costs that are expected to shave $1.5 billion off its adjusted earnings.

General Motors is grappling with an even bigger hit, estimating its tariff exposure at $4 billion to $5 billion, with roughly $2 billion tied to affordable Chevrolet and Buick models imported from South Korea.

Subaru of America has also hiked prices, a move that reflects the broader industry trend.

For car buyers, this could mean sticker shock at dealerships. Higher production costs often lead to pricier vehicles, especially for entry-level models that rely on imported components.

The average American family shopping for a reliable sedan or SUV might feel the squeeze, particularly as inflation and supply-chain challenges already strain household budgets.

But there’s a silver lining: As automakers shift production to the U.S., new jobs and economic opportunities could offset some of these costs over time. The trade-off is real, and it’s worth exploring how this balance will play out.

It’s also important to note that there are over 2.5 million cars that are ready to sell that are pre-tariffed. So there are some deals out there if you shop around.

Why tariffs matter to you

You might be wondering: Why should I care about tariffs if I’m not in the auto industry?

The answer lies in the broader impact. Tariffs don’t just affect car prices — they shape the economy, influence job creation, and even touch on national pride. When automakers build plants in the U.S., they create jobs not only in manufacturing but also in related industries like steel, logistics, and technology. These are the kinds of jobs that sustain communities, from small towns in the Midwest to bustling industrial hubs.

Moreover, Trump’s tariff push is part of a larger conversation about America’s place in the global economy. By incentivizing domestic production, the administration aims to reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing, a move that resonates with many Americans who want to see “Made in the USA” mean something again.

But it’s not without risks. Higher tariffs could strain trade relationships with allies like Canada and Mexico, and they might invite retaliatory tariffs on American exports. The stakes are high, and the outcome will shape the auto industry — and the economy — for years to come.

The road ahead: What to watch for

As Trump hints at raising tariffs soon, all eyes are on how automakers will respond.

Will they increase U.S. investments, as GM and Hyundai have done, or will they find ways to absorb or pass on the costs? The Detroit Big Three are already under pressure to compete with foreign automakers, which may have more flexibility in navigating global supply chains. Meanwhile, consumers will be watching their wallets, weighing the benefits of American-made vehicles against the reality of higher prices.

Another key factor is the global response. Countries like Mexico and Canada, integral to the North American auto industry, may push back against U.S. tariffs, potentially escalating trade tensions.

At the same time, the steel industry, a beneficiary of Trump’s policies, could see further growth as demand for American-made materials rises. It’s a complex web of cause and effect, and the next few months will be critical in determining whether Trump’s gamble pays off.

Why you should share this story

This isn’t just an auto industry story — it’s an American story. Whether you’re a car enthusiast, a worker in a manufacturing town, or just someone who cares about the economy, Trump’s tariff strategy affects you. It’s about jobs, innovation, and the future of American industry. Stay informed about policies that could reshape the way we buy and drive cars.

So what’s the bottom line? Trump’s tariff push is a bold move to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., and it’s already yielding results with billions in new investments. But it comes with challenges — higher costs for automakers and consumers, trade tensions, and an uncertain road ahead. By reading this far, you’ve gotten a front-row seat to one of the most consequential economic debates of our time.

So let's keep the conversation going. What do you think about Trump’s tariff strategy? Will it drive American innovation, or is it a risky bet? The answers are still unfolding, and you won’t want to miss what happens next.

  

Quick Fix: What's the safest used car for my teenager?



Hi, I'm Lauren Fix, longtime automotive journalist and a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Welcome back to "Quick Fix," where I answer car-related questions you submit to me.

Today's question comes from Sarah in Tampa, Florida.

Hi Lauren:

We are helping our teenager buy his first car so he can drive himself to his job this summer. We want something safe, inexpensive, and reliable.

Can you 1) recommend where to look for such a car? And 2) suggest any makes or models that buyers tend to have good luck with?

Thank you!

Great question, Sarah — and I think I've got some good answers for you.

When it comes to buying a used car, dealers are always a good bet: buy a certified pre-owned vehicle and you're protected by a warranty.

If you want buy from a private seller, I recommend you get the vehicle you're considering up on a lift so an ASE certified mechanic can look at. Have him or her give the car one of three rankings:

Green: This means "go," of course. It's well-maintained, no rust, the engine and brakes are in good working order. An easy decision to buy.

Yellow: Cars like this might have been in a minor fender-bender, or have some concerning but repairable issues to deal with. Worth a buy if you know what you're getting into.

Red: Avoid. This includes severe accidents, flood damage, a salvage title, and the kind of problems (transmission, for example) that can cost more than the value of the car.

As far as car safety goes, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) maintains a wealth of ratings online.

Now for where the rubber meets the road. Here are a few of my car recommendations at different price points.

New

  • Kia K4
  • Mazda CX 30
  • Toyota Prius
  • Honda Civic

Used under 20k

  • 2017 Toyota RAV4
  • 2018 Mazda CX 5
  • 2017 Honda CR – V
  • 2021 Toyota Corolla

Used under 15k

  • 2018 Kia Sportage
  • 2019 Kia Soul
  • 2017 Toyota Corolla
  • 2018 Mazda3

And, for some real bargains (keep in mind, however, that with cars 10-15 years old you're sacrificing safety and/or reliability):

Used under 10k

  • 2009 Toyota RAV4
  • 2010 Honda element
  • 2011 Toyota Avalon

Much more information where that came from. Just click the video below:

  

Got a car-related question? Email me at getquickfix@pm.me.

GM head touts EV-only future — while pouring $1 billion into gas engines



Americans aren't buying them and Trump wants to take away their $7,500 tax credit — but General Motors CEO Mary Barra still thinks electric vehicles are the future.

Never mind the $888 million her own company just poured into gas-powered V-8 engines — Barra seems to think they'll go the way of the dinosaurs sooner rather than later.

Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

"I see a path to all EV," she announced at the Wall Street Journal's Future of Everything conference late last month. "I do believe we'll get there because I think the vehicles are better.”

Barra's commitment to phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 has made GM one of the frontrunners in the EV race.

Consumer doubts

Meanwhile, actual consumers still bring up the rear. A recent AAA survey reveals that 63% of Americans are skeptical about EVs, citing high costs, higher insurance premiums, and inadequate charging infrastructure.

Then, there's that almost billon-dollar investment in gas-guzzlers. Something tells us Barra's not exactly putting her money where her mouth is.

Can she have it both ways? As some automakers resist the all-EV push and others cling to outdated mandates, the auto industry is at a crossroads. Let’s unpack the contradictory strategy, consumer hesitancy, and the brands charting their own paths in this high-stakes debate.

This could impact the economy, your driving choices, and where you spend your money..

RELATED: Introducing 'Quick Fix': Practical answers to all your car questions

  Blaze Media

The rubber meets the road

Barra has positioned GM as an EV leader, boasting, “We have more EVs in the market right now than anyone else in this country.” GM’s lineup includes nine electric models, such as the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Cadillac Escalade IQ, and GMC Hummer EV, with four more planned.

The Equinox EV, priced around $35,000, aims to make EVs accessible to everyone. To support this, GM has invested $35 billion through 2025 in EV and autonomous vehicle development, including a battery cells factory outside Nashville.

In contrast, last December, GM announced it would sell its stake in the Ultium Cells plant in Lansing, Michigan, to LG Energy Solution. Partnerships with EVgo and Pilot Company aim to expand fast-charging stations, with Barra asserting, “Charging is just going to continue to get better.” GM has dropped the “Ultium” brand name for EV batteries.

Hedging bets

Yet, GM’s actions tell a different story. In a surprising move, the company announced an $888 million investment in its Tonawanda Propulsion plant, outside of Buffalo, New York, to produce the sixth generation of V-8 engines for full-size trucks and SUVs.

These engines promise stronger performance, better fuel economy, and lower emissions through new combustion and thermal management innovations.

This follows a $579 million investment in January 2023 to upgrade the Flint Engine plant for the same V-8 engines, marking Tonawanda as the second facility to produce them.

Barra defended the move, saying, “Our significant investments in GM’s Tonawanda Propulsion plant show our commitment to strengthening American manufacturing and supporting jobs in the U.S.” She added that the Buffalo plant, operational for 87 years, will deliver “world-class trucks and SUVs to our customers for years to come.”

This dual strategy raises questions. Is GM truly committed to an all-electric future, or is Barra hedging her bets to meet consumer demand for gas-powered vehicles?

Consumers might argue she’s trying to have it both ways — pushing a government-favored EV agenda while quietly acknowledging that Americans still want gas trucks and SUVs. Barra’s claim of “choice” feels like a nod to market freedom, but it’s hard to ignore the influence of past presidential administrations’ heavy-handed EV mandates.

If GM is serious about consumer choice, why not let the market — not bureaucrats — set the pace?

'No' to top-down mandates

Americans aren’t buying the EV hype. AAA’s latest survey shows only 16% of U.S. adults are “very likely” or “likely” to buy an EV as their next car, the lowest interest since 2019. Meanwhile, 63% are “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to go electric, up from 51% last year.

Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering, noted, “While the automotive industry is committed to long-term electrification and providing a diverse range of models, underlying consumer hesitation remains.”

The reasons are clear: high battery repair costs (62%) and purchase price (59%) top the list. AAA’s "Your Driving Costs 2024" analysis confirms EVs’ higher upfront costs, despite long-term savings. Additionally, 57% see EVs as unsuitable for long-distance travel, 56% cite insufficient public charging stations, and 55% fear range anxiety. Safety concerns trouble 31%, 27% struggle with home charging (especially in apartments), and 12% worry about losing tax credits.

These numbers reflect a market rejecting top-down mandates. Consumers aren’t anti-EV — they’re anti-being told what to buy when the infrastructure and affordability aren’t there. Barra’s EV push aligns with policies mandated by past administrations, but her V-8 investment suggests she knows the market isn’t ready to abandon gas. This contradiction exposes a flaw in centrally planned transitions: You can’t force consumers to want what doesn’t work for them.

Hybrid theory

While GM straddles both worlds, other automakers are rejecting the all-EV narrative.

Toyota has been vocal about its skepticism, focusing on hybrids like the Prius, which deliver fuel efficiency without charging hassles. Toyota’s investment in hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks positions it as a pioneer in alternatives to battery EVs.

RELATED: Toyota, Jeep, and the big emissions scam

  Camerique/Getty Images

Mazda, with its MX-30 EV, prioritizes gas engine improvements and hybrids, citing battery production costs and environmental concerns.

Subaru, offering the Solterra EV, emphasizes hybrids and awaits better charging infrastructure.

Hyundai is navigating the shifting auto landscape with a pragmatic strategy that prioritizes consumer demand over government mandates, a move drivers can applaud. The company’s $7.6 billion Metaplant in Georgia is now expanding to include hybrids, with Kia models joining the lineup in 2026.

Hyundai’s focus on hybrids, like the 2026 Palisade, reflects growing demand for fuel-efficient options that don’t rely on sparse charging infrastructure. Meanwhile, Hyundai continues to produce gas-powered vehicles, recognizing that internal combustion engines still dominate consumer preferences in many markets.

Unlike GM’s Barra, who pushes an all-EV future while investing in gas engines, Hyundai’s approach avoids hypocrisy by openly embracing a mix of EVs, hybrids, and gas vehicles. This flexibility shields Hyundai from policy swings — like potential tariff hikes or the loss of EV subsidies — while giving drivers the freedom to choose what fits their lives, not what bureaucrats dictate.

Stellantis, parent of Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler, balances plug-in hybrids like the Jeep Wrangler 4XE with gas vehicles, catering to diverse consumer needs.

These brands are listening to the market, not bureaucrats. By offering hybrids and gas options, they’re giving consumers what they want — freedom to choose — while GM’s $888 million V-8 investment suggests even Barra knows gas isn’t going away soon. In addition, GM currently does not offer a hybrid powertrain in its vehicles.

This resistance to EV mandates reflects buyers' common sense: Let the market, not the government, decide what drives America.

The road to freedom?

Barra’s vision for 2035 is ambitious, but her actions betray uncertainty. GM’s EV efforts for affordable models, batteries, and charging partnerships are serious, but the $1.4 billion combined investment in V-8 engines for Tonawanda and Flint shows she’s not ready to abandon gas.

AAA’s survey proves consumers aren’t convinced, and brands like Toyota, Stellantis, Mazda, Hyundai, and others are betting on hybrids to bridge the gap. Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

If you’re eyeing an EV, the lineup is diverse, but AAA’s data urges caution. Can you charge reliably? Can you afford the cost? Does the range work for your life? If not, you’re among the 63% holding back — and that’s your right.

You're in the driver's seat; where you go should be up to you — not bureaucrats.

Trump to kill $7,500 EV credit ... and Elon agrees?



No more $7,500 tax credit for electric cars.

That crucial proposal is tucked away in Trump's big, beautiful bill — and even Elon Musk likes it. (At least, that's what he's saying.)

As Stellantis Ram brand manager Tim Kuniskis says, “Americans like to count cylinders.”

If passed, it would spell the end of up to $7,500 in federal subsidies per EV and would shut the door on an increasingly controversial and costly pillar of the Biden administration’s transportation policy.

Cash for Clunkers 2.0

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about disliking innovation or electric vehicles. Some people love them. Americans love tech and efficiency. But many are waking up to the realization that we’ve been here before — back in 2009 — with the infamous “Cash for Clunkers” program.

That federal boondoggle was touted as a win-win: Stimulate the economy, clean up the roads, and help Americans afford new, fuel-efficient cars. Instead, it destroyed perfectly good vehicles, reduced the used car supply, inflated car prices, and ultimately did little for emissions.

RELATED: Extend your EV battery's lifespan with two simple steps

  Education Images/Getty Images

Fast-forward to today, and the government is repeating history with a different name and a different agenda. This time, it’s EVs that are being pushed through incentives, tax breaks, and regulations. The problem? Americans aren’t buying it — literally. According to AAA’s latest 2024 survey, only 16% of U.S. adults say they’re likely to purchase an EV as their next vehicle, the lowest percentage since 2019. A staggering 63% say they’re unlikely or very unlikely to go electric.

Not buying it

The reasons are clear and reasonable. High purchase prices, unreliable charging infrastructure, battery range anxiety, higher insurance rates, and sky-high repair costs are all legitimate concerns. Add to that the challenge of charging at home — especially for apartment dwellers — and you have a product that’s simply not ready for mass adoption.

That hasn’t stopped the federal government from funneling billions of your tax dollars into EVs, much of it to automakers who were already profitable. What’s worse, companies that don’t even manufacture in America are reaping the rewards, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

No EV-only future

Brands like Toyota and Stellantis (which includes Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, and Jeep) have already expressed skepticism about a full-EV future. Toyota's and Hyundai’s leadership continues to advocate for a mixed drivetrain approach — hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, and even internal combustion — arguing that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't make sense globally or domestically.

They aren’t alone. Honda and Mazda have also taken more cautious steps, resisting the full-EV tunnel vision. It’s not resistance for the sake of rebellion; it’s an approach that represents the truth, rooted in economics, infrastructure, and real consumer behavior.

RELATED: Gas car ban by 2035? EPA sets stage for electric-only future

  Raul Arboleda/Getty Images

Meanwhile, EVs sit on dealer lots for months at a time. Automakers are slowing production. Ford slashed its F-150 Lightning production goals by half. GM is backpedaling on its EV transition timeline, delaying new launches, and many brands are following. Even Tesla, the king of EVs, is feeling the squeeze, with fluctuating demand and concerns about long-term profitability.

Stuck on green autopilot

And yet, the federal government has remained stuck on green autopilot. The current EV tax credit system — expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act — is projected to cost more than $200 billion over the next decade, according to Capital Alpha Partners. These aren’t small subsidies; they’re massive market distortions. And like Cash for Clunkers, the unintended consequences may haunt us for years.

The Republicans’ proposal doesn’t stop at EV credits. It also seeks to eliminate incentives for commercial EVs, used EVs, and other so-called clean energy projects. But don’t confuse this with an anti-tech or anti-progress stance. It’s about rebalancing the market, restoring consumer choice, and stopping the flood of taxpayer dollars toward an agenda that simply doesn’t align with how Americans drive — or want to drive.

As Stellantis Ram brand manager Tim Kuniskis says, “Americans like to count cylinders.”

Americans deserve a transportation future that prioritizes freedom, innovation, and infrastructure that works. That means more choices — not mandates. It means supporting vehicles people actually want and can afford, not forcing premature transitions through subsidies.

President Trump’s new tax plan could do more than balance the books — it could finally bring some sanity back to our roads. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

  

Commuter beware: 68 bridges across US at risk of collapse!



March 26, 2024. It's a pitch black, wintry night in Baltimore. Frigid winds batter the maintenance workers patching potholes on the Francis Scott Key Bridge, a 1.6-mile lifeline high above the icy Patapsco River.

Then: disaster.

Since the Panama Canal expansion in 2016, vessels like the Dali haul up to 24,000 TEUs — making them massive floating cities older bridges weren’t built to endure.

The Dali, a 984-foot ship out of Singapore loaded with 4,700 containers, loses power leaving the Port of Baltimore.

No propulsion, no steering — just a 95,000-ton steel giant drifting. Minutes after a desperate mayday call at 1:27 a.m., it crashes into a pier at 6.5 knots.

The bridge collapses instantly. Built in 1977, it simply wasn’t designed to withstand impact from a ship that size.

Eight workers fall into the icy river; only two survive. Fifty thousand tons of debris now block Baltimore's port, eventually causing the regional economy a $1 billion loss.

RELATED: Wife of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse victim remembers father of three as always 'fighting for us'

  Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

One year later, reconstruction of the bridge is still underway and not expected to be completed until 2028 — at a price of $2 billion.

Is the Golden Gate next?

Now imagine the same thing happening to any one of dozens of other bridges across the country. According to a recent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, the danger is all too real.

The NTSB report calls for 68 bridges across 19 states to undergo urgent “vulnerability assessments” to determine if they can withstand a ship strike.

These bridges — including California’s Golden Gate Bridge, New York’s Brooklyn Bridge, and Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Bridge — have two things in common: They all span major shipping lanes and were all built before 1991, predating the modern safety standards meant to address growing ship sizes.

The NTSB has given the bridge owners — an assortment of 30 different state departments of transportation, port authorities, and other entities — 30 days to provide updated evaluations of these structures.

Big ships, big problems

A bridge’s vulnerability stems from its age, design, and exposure to ship traffic. The Key Bridge, completed in 1977, handled smaller vessels in the 1980s — like one that grazed it in 1980 with minimal damage.

Today’s ships, however, are far larger. In the 1970s, they carried 800 containers. Since the Panama Canal expansion in 2016, vessels like the Dali haul up to 24,000 TEUs — making them massive floating cities older bridges weren’t built to endure. The NTSB found the Maryland Transportation Authority never adjusted its risk calculations for these modern giants.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has required updated assessments since 1991, following the NTSB's investigation of the 1980 collapse of Florida’s Sunshine Skyway, which killed 35. Maryland helped craft those rules but didn’t apply them to Key Bridge.

A vulnerability assessment uses a mathematical model, factoring in ship size, speed, traffic patterns, and bridge strength to produce a risk score. If it exceeds AASHTO’s limit, solutions like pier reinforcements or tugboat escorts can lower the danger.

New bridges have followed this federal mandate since 1994, but many older ones remain untested — until now.

Not urgent ... until it is

The NTSB doesn’t claim these 68 will fail tomorrow. The Golden Gate’s owners hired consultants in 2025, and New York’s Department of Transportation notes the East River rarely sees Dali-sized ships.

Still, the risk persists. Since 2021, over 300 ships lost propulsion in U.S. waters, often near bridges. The Key Bridge collapse serves as a stark warning, with six lives lost and massive economic and societal disruption that persists to this day.

Retrofitting bridges with pier reinforcements or tugboat escorts could cost millions per structure. The new Key Bridge carries a price tag of $1.7 to $1.9 billion, largely federally funded, with completion set for 2028. If several of the 68 bridges fail, losses could climb into the billions, disrupting ports like Long Beach or Miami and hammering national trade.

RELATED: Why Johnny can't build

  nojustice/Getty Images

Maryland’s MDTA argues the Dali’s owners bear responsibility, citing negligence. It settled with the Justice Department for $102 million in October 2024 after evidence of poor maintenance — faulty transformers and disabled backups.

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy countered Maryland’s stance, noting that the state had decades to realize how vulnerable the bridge was to a ship strike.

"Not only did MDTA fail to conduct the vulnerability assessment on the Key Bridge, they did not provide, nor were they able to provide, NTSB the data needed to conduct the assessment," Homendy said. "We asked for that data, they didn't have it. We had to develop that data ourselves."

For commuters, crossing one of these 68 — like the Verrazzano-Narrows or Sunshine Skyway — means staying alert. Near-term changes might include stricter tugboat requirements or adjusted shipping lanes.

No more 'Green New Scam'

One promising sign is U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's recent announcement of nearly $4.9 billion in available funding from the Federal Highway Administration for major bridge projects (the Bridge Investment Program) and up to $500 million for repairing or replacing bridges in rural areas (the Competitive Highway Bridge Program).

According to Duffy, the removal of Biden-era environmental restrictions will make such spending far more effective than in the past:

The previous administration handcuffed critical infrastructure funding requirements to woke DEI and Green New Scam initiatives that diverted resources from the Department’s core mission. Under the Trump administration, America is building again.

Like all man-made structures, bridges testify both to our ingenuity — and to our all-too-human frailty. The NTSB's findings are a sobering reminder that we must never ignore the latter.