84-month car loans: Smart move or financial trap?



Car buying has never been more complicated — or more expensive. The average new car price has climbed to nearly $49,000, compared to just under $34,000 a decade ago, according to Kelley Blue Book. That kind of sticker shock leaves many buyers asking: “How can I possibly afford this?”

Dealers are quick to provide an answer: the 84-month car loan.

For years, the buyer will owe more than the vehicle is worth. If they try to sell or trade in the car, they’ll need to pay the bank just to get out of the loan.

It sounds simple at first, but it’s a trap. Spread across seven years, the monthly payments shrink to a number that feels manageable to most people. A $50,000 vehicle suddenly seems affordable when the cost is sliced into smaller installments, but is this really a smart solution, or does it carry consequences that can trap buyers in years of financial frustration?

No accident

The rise of 84-month loans is no accident. Dealerships benefit enormously from pushing buyers into longer financing terms. Smaller monthly payments make it easier for salespeople to convince customers to move up to pricier trims, tack on optional packages, or select luxury features that would otherwise be out of reach.

For the financing office, stretching out the term makes it easier to close deals with so-called payment shoppers — those who focus only on whether they can afford the monthly bill, not the total cost of the vehicle. In addition, a lower monthly car payment improves the buyer’s debt-to-income ratio, which helps more customers qualify for loans they might not have secured under traditional 36-month terms.

On the surface, this seems like a win-win arrangement. The buyer gets the car they want at a payment they can afford, while the dealer locks in a bigger sale. But what feels like an opportunity on day one quickly becomes a burden as the true cost of the loan takes shape. And in the end, you will pay a bigger price.

Costly trade-off

Why? The most obvious issue is interest you pay. When a car loan stretches across seven years, there are far more months for interest charges to accumulate. Only the finance company wins.

Consider a buyer who finances $40,000 at 7% interest with a traditional 60-month loan — they’ll pay roughly $7,500 in interest. With an 84-month loan, that interest expense number climbs to more than $10,700.

In other words, the buyer pays over $3,000 more for the privilege of lowering their monthly bill. For most households, that’s a costly trade-off.

And higher interest rates themselves don’t remain equal. Lenders know that a seven-year loan carries more risk than a five-year loan, so the rate is higher. Over that longer period, economic conditions could change, inflation could rise, or the borrower’s financial situation could deteriorate. To protect themselves, banks and credit unions often attach higher rates to longer loans. That means buyers aren’t just paying interest for more years — they’re paying higher interest rates, and the only one that makes out is the financial institution.

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

Blaze Media

Much depreciated

The financial pitfalls don’t stop there. Vehicles are depreciating assets. The moment a new car leaves the dealership, it loses about 20% of its value. Within the first year, that loss can climb to 30%.

With long-term loans, the first several years of payments go mostly toward interest, with very little progress made on the loan principal. The result is what’s known as negative equity, or being “upside down.” For years, the buyer will owe more than the vehicle is worth. If they try to sell or trade in the car, they’ll need to pay the bank just to get out of the loan. This forces you to keep the vehicle for a longer period of time or take the big financial penalty.

Warranty warning

This problem is compounded by warranties. Most new vehicles come with a bumper-to-bumper warranty that lasts three years or 36,000 miles, and a powertrain warranty that typically extends to five years or 60,000 miles.

Those timelines don’t come close to covering a seven-year loan. That means a buyer still making monthly payments could face a transmission or engine failure with no warranty protection. They would be paying for expensive repairs on top of paying down the car itself, a double hit that can wreck household budgets. And these extended warranty companies are not worth the money either, which would increase your monthly payment on top of the car payment.

With prices rising for both new and used vehicles, long loan terms are more than just a temptation — they are, for many families, the only way to fit a car payment into the monthly budget.

But while the appeal is easy to see, the long-term risks are just as clear. Stretching a loan to seven years often leaves buyers paying thousands more in interest, trapped in negative equity, and financially vulnerable if their circumstances change. In the event of job loss, medical bills, or an unexpected expense, they may be stuck with a car they can’t afford to keep but also can’t afford to sell.

Making it make sense

This doesn’t mean long-term loans are never justified. There are a few situations where they can make sense. Some automakers offer 0% financing for qualified buyers, which eliminates the concern over accruing interest. Others may find themselves on a fixed budget where the choice is either a longer loan or no car at all. And in cases where a buyer plans to keep a reliable, higher-quality vehicle for a decade or more, the extra interest paid over time may balance out in the long run. You have to be honest and consider the true costs.

Still, for the majority of consumers, financial experts consistently recommend avoiding 84-month loans. The smarter move is to aim for 48- or 60-month loan terms, which not only save on interest but also keep buyers closer to a car’s actual value throughout the life of the loan. Car shoppers should also consider more affordable vehicles, make larger down payments, or explore certified pre-owned options to keep their finances in check.

Cars may be getting more expensive, but debt traps don’t have to be part of the deal. Buyers who look beyond the monthly payment and focus instead on the total cost of ownership will be far better positioned to protect both their wallets and their peace of mind.

The finance manager at any dealer is going to try and close the sale. That’s their job. Yours is to understand just what you’re getting into when you sign a long-term loan.

Ford shifts gears, leaves EVs in the rear view



Ford is stepping back from an all-electric future and leaning hard into gasoline and diesel vehicles.

This is a huge pivot, setting the stage for a potential profit surge starting in 2026. This isn’t just a corporate maneuver — it’s a move that could redefine the American automotive landscape.

If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of the EV mandate

For years, Ford’s profits took a hit from federal regulations pushing electric vehicles. The U.S. government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions rules forced automakers to sell an increasing share of EVs, with mandates aiming for near-100% EV sales during the 2030s.

These policies brought steep fines and costly carbon credits, requiring Ford to subsidize unprofitable EVs with revenue from gasoline vehicle sales. The result? Higher prices for consumers and fewer of the vehicles Americans actually wanted.

That’s all changing. In July 2025, a budget reconciliation bill became law, easing these regulatory pressures. The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a step expected to eliminate GHG fines and credits by late 2025.

During a recent earnings call, Ford CEO Jim Farley highlighted the financial windfall, projecting $1.5 billion in savings for 2025 alone, with billions more to follow in 2026 if these credits disappear. These savings far outweigh potential tariff-related costs, positioning Ford for a profitability boom.

Why EVs haven’t won over America

EVs aren’t vanishing entirely, but their role in Ford’s U.S. lineup is shrinking. The reason is straightforward: Most Americans aren’t interested. Despite heavy subsidies, EVs remain unprofitable for automakers. Consumers face high up-front costs, rapid depreciation, and low residual values, making gasoline vehicles a more practical choice. Ford’s sales data confirms this, showing EVs as a small fraction of demand while gasoline engines remain popular.

To comply with EV mandates, Ford had to inflate gasoline vehicle prices to offset losses. Technologies like start-stop systems, turbochargers, and electrification added thousands to production costs, which were passed on to buyers. Production quotas also limited how many profitable gasoline vehicles Ford could build. The outcome was a market where consumers paid more for vehicles they didn’t fully want, and Ford’s bottom line suffered.

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

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Back to what works

With regulatory constraints fading, Ford is realigning production to match consumer demand. The company is phasing out costly technologies like start-stop systems and turbochargers, which were required to meet fuel economy standards.

Without CAFE fines, these features are no longer necessary, paving the way for lower prices. Ford is also bringing back naturally aspirated engines, which are cheaper to produce and known for their reliability — qualities American buyers value. The 5.0-liter V-8, found in the F-150 and Mustang, is a standout example, and Ford may expand its use to models like the Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, Ranger, and Bronco.

While Ford isn’t abandoning EVs entirely, its focus will shift. EVs will remain for international markets, niche applications, and research to stay competitive if they become viable without subsidies. This strategic shift allows Ford to prioritize affordable, reliable vehicles that align with what Americans want.

Profits in sight

Ford’s second-quarter 2025 financials offer a glimpse of the road ahead. The company reported a record $50.2 billion in revenue but a $36 million net loss due to special items.

Its EV division, Ford Model e, recorded a $1.3 billion loss, up $179 million from last year. However, Ford is optimistic. By redirecting resources from EVs to commercial trucks and full-size SUVs, the company sees a multibillion-dollar opportunity.

To brace for potential challenges, Ford secured a $3 billion line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, despite holding $20 billion in cash and $14 billion in liquid securities. This cautious move signals confidence in its long-term strategy. If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of EV mandates is a win for affordability. New vehicle prices have soared in recent years, with basic models jumping from $16,000 six years ago to much higher today, partly due to EV-related costs. As Ford shifts to naturally aspirated engines, gasoline vehicle prices could drop by thousands. Meanwhile, EVs will reflect their true cost, likely making them less competitive without subsidies.

This shift restores consumer choice. Whether you prefer the reliability of a gasoline truck, the power of a Mustang, or the utility of an SUV, you’ll find more options at better prices. Ford’s emphasis on commercial trucks and SUVs also caters to businesses and families, key drivers of demand.

Driven by demand

Ford’s pivot underscores a fundamental truth: markets thrive when they reflect consumer preferences, not government mandates. The EV push forced automakers to prioritize unprofitable products, raising prices and limiting choice. Its rollback lets Ford invest in what Americans want — affordable, dependable vehicles. This could spark a revival for the U.S. automotive industry, with Ford at the forefront.

Other automakers are likely watching. If Ford’s profits soar, competitors may follow, reinforcing the trend toward gasoline and diesel. EVs will continue to evolve where they make economic sense, but for now, the U.S. market is hitting the gas.

Ford’s decision signals lower prices, more choices, and a market that listens to consumers. Whether you’re a truck driver, a family on the go, or a car enthusiast, this shift could mean better vehicles at better prices. Share this story with friends who love cars or hate high costs — they’ll want to know.

Why we still need car dealerships



When you think about buying a car, you probably picture the final step — walking into a dealership, shaking hands, and driving off in something new.

But what you might not think about is the incredibly complex process that got that vehicle into your hands. And even more overlooked? The vital role that middlemen like car dealerships play in making that possible.

Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle?

We live in an era obsessed with “cutting out the middleman.” The phrase gets thrown around like it’s inherently virtuous. Tech companies promise lower costs and better service by eliminating dealers and distributors.

In defense of the middleman

Some automakers, especially those in the electric vehicle space, push hard for direct-to-consumer sales, arguing that it's the modern way to sell cars.

But that narrative skips over something critical. Without middlemen — like your local car dealer and the shipping company that brought the car to your part of the world — the entire automotive experience would be slower, more expensive, and far less accountable.

Let’s admit it: Americans use middlemen every day. Whether it’s Amazon getting packages to your door or your grocery store stocking fresh produce, these companies act as connectors. They’re the ones that bring products from point A to point B — efficiently, reliably, and at scale. Amazon may be seen as a tech giant, but it’s really a supply chain company, built on logistics and distribution.

Adding value

It's the same with the auto industry. Cars don’t go straight from the factory to your driveway, nor do you have to drive to Detroit to buy from the manufacturing plant. They move through a massive network — raw materials, parts suppliers, assembly plants, transportation hubs, and finally, your local dealer. Each step adds expertise, accountability, and value to the customer.

This stands in sharp contrast to direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla, which operate without traditional dealerships. Instead, customers place orders online or in company-owned showrooms, often without ever driving the vehicle first.

The company controls everything — from pricing to delivery to service — which might sound efficient, but it removes the local relationship and accountability that dealerships offer. When problems arise, buyers are often left waiting for corporate to respond on its own timeline, without any local recourse or advocacy.

Local connection

And here’s where it matters most to you: the dealership.

Dealers aren’t just there to hand you the keys. They’re your local connection to a global system. When you walk into a showroom, you’re gaining access to a support system. Dealers offer real-time comparisons between different trims and models. You can see the options, test drive them, ask questions, and get answers from someone who knows the product and knows your local driving needs.

You’re not left clicking through an app or talking to a call center on the other side of the country. You're dealing with someone who wants your repeat business — which is why they also help you navigate the often-complicated world of financing and paperwork.

You’re not navigating the labyrinth of paperwork and regulations for loans, titles, warranties, and insurance on your own. From the time you walk in the door to the time you leave the lot, dealers are making sure your investment is protected. And you’re supporting local businesses, which means jobs and improving the economy around you.

Help desk blues

That’s something direct-to-consumer models can’t replicate. Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle? What if you need help when the battery range underperforms in winter driving?

Without a local dealer, you’re often stuck dealing with a corporate help desk, hoping for a response, with no one nearby to step in. Or you're waiting for weeks to get your vehicle serviced if it can’t be repaired remotely.

There’s also a bigger issue here — consumer choice. Dealers create competition. When you can walk into several dealerships in your area, compare prices, and negotiate, that gives you leverage. When everything is sold directly through the manufacturer, there’s no competition — only a fixed price and a one-size-fits-all approach.

RELATED: Looking to save big on a car? Dealerships have never been more desperate to sell

David Goddard/Getty Images

Good jobs

Let’s not forget the economic role dealerships play. They employ over a million Americans, often in communities where good jobs are hard to come by. Many are family-owned, multigenerational businesses that reinvest in their towns through local sponsorships, community events, and charitable giving. When you remove them from the equation, you're not just changing how cars are sold — you're pulling economic activity away from local communities and concentrating it in corporate headquarters and tech platforms.

At a time when so much of life is becoming impersonal and centralized, local dealerships remain one of the last industries where consumers can actually engage face-to-face, get personalized service, and make informed decisions. This contrasts sharply with Tesla, where a car that doesn’t run gets the “we’ll repair it when we can” treatment.

So the next time you hear someone say we should “cut out the middleman,” stop and think about what that really means. Because in the auto industry, the middleman — your local dealer — isn’t just a convenience. He's your advocate, your partner, and your safety net.

Eliminating dealers may streamline the process, but in doing so, it strips away the layers of protection and personal service that American car buyers have come to rely on for over a century.

Let’s not make that mistake.

Trump’s EPA set to scrap Biden’s $1 trillion EV mandate



The Environmental Protection Agency has just set off what may be the most consequential policy shift in the auto industry in over a decade.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposal to rescind the controversial 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal foundation that has been used for 16 years to justify greenhouse gas emissions regulations impacting every car, truck, and bus sold in the U.S.

If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.

If finalized, this proposal would dismantle more than $1 trillion in regulatory mandates, including President Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle requirements, and restore consumer choice to a market long constrained by unelected bureaucrats. It would also put the brakes on unpopular mandates like engine start-stop systems and costly EV infrastructure requirements that automakers say have driven up vehicle prices.

Why this proposal is so significant

The Endangerment Finding gave the EPA unprecedented power to regulate six greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It asserted that these gases — carbon dioxide among them — posed a threat to public health and welfare, opening the door for sweeping emissions mandates on the auto industry.

Since then, the EPA has used the finding to justify a series of regulations designed to force automakers toward electric vehicles and away from gasoline-powered cars. Biden’s 2024 standards, for example, require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions in half by 2032 and predict that between 35% and 56% of all new vehicles sold will be electric within the next decade.

California and 11 other states have piggybacked on these standards with even stricter rules, including outright bans on gasoline-only cars by 2035.

Critics say these mandates amount to a de facto EV requirement that Congress never approved. They also argue that the Endangerment Finding was based on flawed legal reasoning and exaggerated climate risk assumptions.

Under Obama and Biden, the EPA "twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year,” Zeldin said at the announcement, which was held at a truck dealership in Indiana.

$1 trillion at stake

According to EPA estimates, rescinding the Endangerment Finding would roll back regulations totaling more than $1 trillion in compliance costs. Automakers have spent years re-engineering vehicles to meet complex emissions targets, often passing those costs on to consumers.

The American Trucking Associations estimates that Biden’s electric truck mandate alone would have “crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses.” ATA President and CEO Chris Spear welcomed the EPA’s move.

Indiana Governor Mike Braun (R), who joined Zeldin at the event, echoed that sentiment: “We can protect our environment and support American jobs at the same time."

Legal foundations and next steps

The EPA argues that recent Supreme Court rulings — including West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo — make it clear that major regulatory decisions of this scale must come from Congress, not federal agencies. These decisions limit the ability of the executive branch to unilaterally impose sweeping economic mandates without explicit legislative approval.

Here’s what happens next.

Public comment period: The proposal is now open for public comment until September 21, 2025. Americans, automakers, environmental groups, and industry stakeholders can weigh in via regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194).

Final rulemaking: After reviewing comments, the EPA will finalize the rule. This process must also pass through the White House Office of Management and Budget for approval.

Legal challenges: Environmental groups and states like California are expected to sue, arguing that rescinding the Endangerment Finding violates the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

It’s likely the issue could end up before the Supreme Court again, prolonging uncertainty for automakers and consumers.

RELATED: $8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

What this means for you

If the proposal is finalized and withstands legal challenges, it would reshape the entire automotive landscape.

The end of Biden’s EV mandate: Automakers would no longer be forced to prioritize EV production at the expense of gasoline-powered vehicles.

Lower vehicle costs: With fewer costly compliance requirements, manufacturers could pass savings on to consumers.

Restored consumer choice: Drivers could decide for themselves whether they want to buy EVs, hybrids, or gasoline-powered vehicles.

The end of California's outsized influence: The EPA could revoke California’s ability to set stricter emissions rules than federal standards, affecting 11 other states that follow California’s lead.

However, the process will take time. Automakers must plan years in advance, and environmental groups and states are are expected to fight every step of the way.

How to make your voice heard

The public comment period gives everyday Americans a rare chance to influence federal policy. If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.

You can submit your comments directly through the Federal eRulemaking Portal by searching for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194. Comments must be received by September 21, 2025.

The EPA will also hold a virtual public hearing on August 19 and 20, with an additional session on August 21 if needed. Details are available on the agency’s website.

The bigger picture

This isn’t just about EVs. The Endangerment Finding has been the legal backbone for every major greenhouse gas rule in the last 16 years. Rolling it back would not only upend Biden’s climate agenda but also shift power back to Congress and the states.

Supporters of the rescission say it’s about restoring accountability. Opponents, however, argue that eliminating these regulations would stall progress on climate change and undermine the transition to cleaner technologies. They vow to fight the proposal in court.

This move by the EPA could fundamentally change the future of the auto industry and the vehicles available to American drivers. Whether you support or oppose it, this proposal deserves your attention. Over the next 45 days, the agency is accepting feedback from the public — and your input can help determine whether these costly and controversial mandates remain in place or are rolled back for good.

You have a voice in this process. Make sure it’s heard.

For more information and to view supporting documents, visit the EPA’s official docket page.

EV sales are sinking — which automakers will go down with the ship?



The electric vehicle market is hitting a critical tipping point — and the mainstream media won’t talk about it.

In a no-holds-barred episode of “Car Coach Reports,” we sat down with two of the sharpest minds in the industry: Anton Wahlman, a veteran financial analyst and columnist for Seeking Alpha, and Karl Brauer, a respected automotive expert known for his data-driven insights on iSeeCars and YouTube.

Together, we pull back the curtain on what’s really happening in the EV world.

Here’s the reality: The federal EV tax credit — up to $7,500 per vehicle — expires September 30, giving automakers under 90 days to move more than 140,000 EVs currently sitting on dealer lots. That’s more than a 100-day supply of inventory, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. And while some companies are positioned to adapt, others are dangerously overcommitted.

We break down which brands might survive the coming EV shakeout — Toyota, Ford, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Tesla, and others — and which ones are at risk of collapse once the subsidies disappear. The entire industry is being reshaped by political decisions, not consumer demand. It’s a wake-up call for car buyers and a challenge for automakers.

This isn’t about being for or against EVs — it’s about exposing the truth with no agenda.

Don’t miss this essential conversation — especially if you’re shopping for a new vehicle or wondering what comes next for the automotive world.

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.

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.