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.

Why used cars are getting so expensive — and what you can do about it



The dream of driving off in an affordable used car is slipping away fast.

If you’ve been browsing used car lots or checking online listings, you’ve likely noticed prices are climbing rapidly. According to Cox Automotive’s Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index, wholesale used car prices in April 2025 hit their highest level since October 2023, with the index surging 4.9% year over year to 208.2.

Even older cars are commanding higher prices, as buyers focus on value over low mileage.

That’s a 2.7% jump from March alone, far exceeding the typical 0.2% monthly increase.

Surge ahead

What’s driving this price surge? A combination of new auto tariffs, shrinking supply, and changing consumer behavior is shaking up the used car market.

The main trigger is a 25% tariff on new imported vehicles and parts, introduced in April 2025, which is impacting the entire auto industry.

While these tariffs don’t directly affect used cars, they’re pushing new car prices — averaging $48,000 — out of reach for many buyers. As a result, more Americans are turning to the used market, where prices average around $25,000.

Cox projects retail used car sales will reach 20.1 million in 2025, a 1.2% increase from 2024, partly due to consumers shifting to used vehicles. April’s retail sales were up 13% year over year, despite a 1.7% dip from March, showing strong demand for used cars.

This increased demand has dealers competing fiercely at wholesale auctions to stock their lots. As Cox Automotive’s Jeremy Robb, senior director of economic and industry insights, explains, “The ‘spring bounce’ usually ends by mid-April, but this year, wholesale appreciation trends continued for the entire month and were much stronger than we typically observe.”

The result is clear: Wholesale prices are soaring, and retail prices are following, with used car listings up 2% in just four weeks.

Price hikes

Let’s look at what this means for your budget. According to iSeeCars.com, the average used car now costs $31,400, a $317 increase from last month.

Their analysts calculated the potential impact of further price hikes on popular models: A 10% increase could add $1,700 to a Kia Forte or $5,000 to a Chevy Tahoe.

That’s a significant burden for families already dealing with inflation and high interest rates. ISeeCars.com compares this to the pandemic, when used car prices rose 8.95% in eight months due to supply chain issues.

Supply shortages are worsening the situation. A key issue is the decline in off-lease vehicles returning to the market. Many lessees are buying out their leases instead of returning their cars, leaving dealers with fewer vehicles to sell.

Higher mileage

Cox reports that wholesale inventory in April was at 41 days’ supply, down from 46 days a year ago. To fill the gap, dealers are selling higher-mileage vehicles — cars with over 90,000 miles are now common, as modern engineering allows vehicles to last up to 250,000 miles.

This means even older cars are commanding higher prices, as buyers focus on value over low mileage. Tariffs are cutting into new car margins, so dealers are raising prices across the board — used cars included. The data confirm this, creating a tough environment for bargain hunters.

Electric slide

One segment is avoiding this price surge: electric vehicles, or EVs.

While gas-powered used cars see steady price increases, used EV prices dropped by $3,865 year over year.

One reason for this exception is that used car buyers tend to prioritize cost-efficiency over environmental goals, reducing demand for EVs despite their increased presence on dealer lots. EVs made up 3.4% of Manheim’s auction sales in April. For EV enthusiasts, this could be an opportunity to find a deal, but for most buyers, the used car market is increasingly expensive.

Looking ahead, the future is uncertain. Cox economists predict a volatile summer, with high prices and interest rates possibly slowing sales. However, slower sales could lead to dealer incentives, which might boost demand again.

ISeeCars.com analysts are cautious, noting that even auto industry leaders like Elon Musk are avoiding firm predictions in this unpredictable market. One thing is certain: With limited supply and strong demand, used car prices are unlikely to drop soon. Cox expects less depreciation than usual in the second quarter, so buyers should prepare for higher costs.

Plan ahead

For those shopping for a used car, strategic planning is essential.

Consider less popular models or EVs to avoid the steepest price increases. Timing can also help — waiting for potential dealer incentives later this year might save money.

However, the low prices of a few years ago are unlikely to return. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index fell 8.4% in April, reaching its lowest level since 2009, as concerns about inflation and rising costs grow.

With gas prices down 13% year over year but still fluctuating, and inflation expectations rising to 6.7%, buyers are rushing to secure deals before prices climb further. This urgency is driving the price surge, with tariffs adding to the pressure.

The used car market in 2025 is a challenging landscape, shaped by tariffs, supply shortages, and shifting consumer priorities. Whether you’re looking for a reliable sedan or a rugged SUV, expect to pay more — and plan carefully. By staying informed and choosing wisely, you can still find value amid all the rising prices.

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



While Barack Obama and his liberal cronies were busy eulogizing American manufacturing back in 2012, President Donald J. Trump was plotting the return of the automotive industry in America.

Last week, Trump delivered a masterstroke by greenlighting Nippon Steel’s $28 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel.

Nippon’s investment ensures a steady supply of high-quality steel, critical for carmakers who have been battered by supply chain chaos under Biden.

The terms of the deal, which Trump referred to as a "partnership," guarantee a U.S. CEO and a U.S.-majority board, according to Republican Senator David McCormick of Pennsylvania, home to U.S. Steel's main office.

This isn’t just a win for steelworkers — it’s a turbocharged boost for the auto industry, taxpayers, and the forgotten men and women of the Rust Belt.

Results, not dogma

Let’s get one thing straight: This deal was dead on arrival under Joe Biden, who caved to union bosses whining about “foreign takeovers” while ignoring the rank-and-file steelworkers who support Nippon’s plan.

Trump voiced skepticism during the campaign, but Nippon sweetened the pot with an $8 billion investment hike since November — a move that screams confidence in America’s future.

Trump flipped his stance because he’s focused on results, not dogma — and no wonder. The deal brings a massive cash infusion for U.S. Steel, new plants, upgraded facilities, and a training center that’ll keep American steel competitive for decades.

RELATED: EV mandate killed in 'biggest day of deregulation in American history'

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Lifeline for carmakers

This deal is also a lifeline for the auto industry, which I’ve spent my career championing. First, Nippon’s investment ensures a steady supply of high-quality steel, critical for carmakers who have been battered by supply chain chaos under Biden. No more waiting on overpriced imports or subpar alternatives.

Second, it stabilizes jobs in steel-heavy states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — key auto manufacturing hubs and political swing states — keeping assembly lines humming.

Third, Nippon’s tech upgrades mean stronger, lighter steel alloys, perfect for building safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles without the “green” nonsense that jacks up costs for consumers. As the Detroit News noted, automakers are cheering this deal because it secures their supply chain and keeps production domestic.

Political grand slam

This deal is also a political grand slam. Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — swing states that handed Trump his mandate — stand to gain thousands of jobs. One Pennsylvania official estimated 11,000 jobs saved and 14,000 created, from construction to permanent steel gigs.

Goodbye, green grifters

U.S. Steel’s stock has spiked over 20% since the announcement, signaling market confidence in Trump’s vision. He’s already planning a rally to tout this win, showing America’s open for business and not beholden to union bosses or green grifters.

RELATED: Meet the dealership owner turned senator out to save the auto industry

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The left will cry about “selling out” to Japan, but let’s be real: Nippon is not some shadowy conglomerate. It’s a world-class steelmaker investing in America’s future, not stripping it for parts. This isn’t the steel industry of the mid-20th century. It’s high tech, high wage, and high impact. Trump’s deal ensures our steel and auto industries aren’t just surviving but thriving, free from the clutches of “green” pipe dreams that produce nothing but red ink.

As a car enthusiast, I’m thrilled to see President Trump steer us back to greatness. This deal means more jobs, better cars, and a stronger America. The art of the deal is alive and well, and the Nippon Steel partnership proves it. So to the naysayers still clutching their pearls: Buckle up. Trump’s just getting started, and the Rust Belt is riding shotgun.

California gas-car ban overturned by Senate



We have some huge news that directly affects your freedom and your ability to drive your car.

The U.S. Senate just voted on a bill to halt the California EV mandate, which requires 80% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2035 and has been adopted by 11 other states.

The Senate’s vote isn’t just about cars — it’s about protecting a $100 billion sector of the US economy.

The outcome affects vehicle options, prices, and fuel choices for drivers nationwide. This is a pivotal moment for the auto industry.

This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a decision that will ripple through car lots, gas stations, and your wallet. From vehicle prices to fuel choices, the Senate’s move is a game-changer, and you’ll want to stick with me to understand why this matters and what’s next.

A win for consumer choice

Yesterday the Senate passed a hat trick of resolutions with a 51-44 vote to cancel California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which aimed to phase out new gasoline-only vehicle sales by 2035.

H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 strike down the three waivers that allowed states to adopt stronger vehicle pollution standards than those required federally. In English, this removes the electric vehicle mandate.

Enabled by a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency waiver, this mandate didn’t just affect California — it influenced a dozen states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, covering roughly 40% of the U.S. population.

The Senate’s decision, following a 246-164 House vote on May 1, sends the bill to President Donald Trump’s desk, where it’s expected to be signed into law.

This isn’t just about electric vehicles versus gas-powered cars. It’s about consumer choice, economic stability, and the future of an industry that employs millions.

Setting the tone

The Congressional Review Act, used to repeal the EPA waiver, limits judicial review, making this decision more concrete than an executive action. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) spearheaded the effort, arguing that California’s mandate overstepped federal authority, inflated vehicle costs, and risked straining the nation’s power grid.

California’s plan wasn’t just a West Coast experiment — it set the tone for the auto market nationwide. If this rule had stayed in place, it would have forced manufacturers to only sell EVs in the U.S., because it wouldn't be worth the cost to build one car for half the population and a different car for the other.

And this isn't speculation. We've seen statements from the auto manufacturers and know that this was the plan. Repealing these regulations preserves your choice.

Easing sticker shock

Also, EVs come with sticker prices thousands higher than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. For example, the average EV costs about $66,000, compared to $48,000 for a gas-powered car.

Federal tax credits of up to $7,500 have helped bridge that gap, but House Republicans are now proposing to eliminate those credits, potentially making EVs even pricier. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Then there’s the infrastructure issue. With only about 64,000 public charging stations nationwide — compared to over 145,000 gas stations — rural drivers and long-distance commuters could face serious hurdles.

Thune warned that the mandate could overload the power grid, especially in areas with limited charging options. Imagine being stuck in a small town with no charger in sight. That’s not just inconvenient; it’s a deal-breaker for many.

'No authority'

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers offered these comments:

Congress has made clear that California regulators have no authority to dictate what cars Americans can buy or to ban internal combustion engine vehicles. President Trump can now deliver on a major part of his campaign promise to end EV mandates in the United States. This is a massive win for consumers and working families all across the country.

The National Automobile Dealers Association backed the Senate’s move, arguing that the mandate distorted the vehicle market. NADA President and CEO Mike Stanton stated, “This unrealistic mandate, coupled with an insufficient and unreliable charging infrastructure, would have drastically reduced consumer choice and raised prices for new and used cars and trucks for all Americans.”

Even General Motors, once a vocal EV supporter, is reportedly pushing to revoke the mandate after April 2025 EV sales dipped, signaling consumer hesitation.

The empire strikes back

California isn’t going down without a fight. Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have vowed to sue the federal government, calling the Senate’s vote “illegal” and a violation of decades of precedent under the Clean Air Act.

Newsom said, “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent.”

Bonta agreed, accusing Senate Republicans of weaponizing the Congressional Review Act to undermine California’s efforts to curb pollution. The state argues that its waivers are critical for reducing emissions and combatting climate change.

California’s regulations have historically been aggressive, but critics, including Thune, argue that the state’s outsized influence limits consumer choice and burdens automakers with costly compliance.

Saving jobs

The Senate’s vote isn’t just about cars — it’s about protecting a $100 billion sector of the U.S. economy. The specialty automotive aftermarket, which relies heavily on ICE technology, supports over 330,000 jobs. By halting California’s mandate, Congress has safeguarded this hub of American innovation, ensuring stability for workers and businesses.

This decision also raises questions about the federal EV push. While the Senate vote targets state-level mandates, the Biden administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — raised to 50.4 miles per gallon in 2024 — have been criticized as an indirect EV mandate.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy stated that these standards “illegally” drove up car prices. Over 120 House Republicans echoed this, arguing that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration overstepped its authority by factoring EVs into its calculations.

The Senate’s vote reshapes the auto market, but it’s not the final word. California’s lawsuit could delay or complicate implementation, though the CRA’s limited judicial review strengthens Congress’ position.

For drivers, this means more choices at the dealership. Gas-powered and hybrid vehicles will remain widely available, preserving options for those who can’t afford EVs or live in areas with sparse charging infrastructure.

Credit check

Back to the $7,500 tax credit.

President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” cleared the House of Representatives. Now it has to go to the Senate, where it faces an equally hard fight.

And here’s what the auto industry is watching carefully. The legislation, as it stands now, phases out the $7,500 sales rebate for new EVs, the $4,000 rebate for used EVs, and the $40,000 rebate for clean commercial vehicles at the end of this year.

That’s seven years earlier than they were originally set to expire. Same goes for the $1,000 tax credit for installing a Level II charger in your home. If passed, all this goes away on December 31. The bill also tacks on a $250 annual federal fee to all EVs, which we talked about last week. Maybe some of this will get changed under reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.

This story is far from over.

The Senate also voted 51-45 to cancel EPA waivers for California’s heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules and 49-46 to address nitrogen oxide regulations, signaling a broader push against stringent environmental policies. These votes, combined with the ACC II repeal, reflect a Republican-led effort to prioritize consumer choice and economic stability over aggressive mandates.

Balancing priorities

But the fight isn’t just in Washington.

California’s legal challenge could set a precedent for how states balance local priorities with federal oversight. And with automakers like GM reassessing their EV strategies amid fluctuating demand, the industry is at a crossroads.

For now, drivers can expect more choices at the dealership, but costs could rise if EV subsidies end. This story is still unfolding, and its impact will be felt from showrooms to highways.

This is a defining moment for the auto industry, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether you’re a car enthusiast, a daily commuter, or just someone who cares about the future of transportation, this decision affects you. Share this article with friends, family, and fellow drivers, and stay informed.