When President Trump emerged from a recent meeting with automotive executives and said he found it strange that some industry leaders oppose Americans repairing their own vehicles, most coverage focused on the politics.

I was more interested in what happened afterward.

If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?

Because the deeper you dig into the latest right-to-repair fight, the more one question keeps surfacing: Why are automakers fighting so hard to control information generated by vehicles consumers already own?

Follow the money

Follow the money, and the picture becomes much clearer.

The U.S. automotive service market generates roughly $200 billion annually. Service departments are among the industry's most reliable profit centers. As vehicles become more software-driven and connected, automakers have discovered that selling the car no longer has to end the customer relationship. Software subscriptions, connected services, maintenance plans, warranty work, and dealership repairs all create recurring revenue long after the vehicle leaves the showroom.

There's nothing wrong with companies pursuing new revenue streams. The problem begins when protecting those revenue streams limits consumer choice.

That's why the latest legislative fight deserves attention.

Stripped for parts

The debate centers on H.R. 7389, the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026. Supporters describe it as a way to modernize regulations while preserving independent repair access. On the surface, that sounds like good news for consumers.

Then something interesting happened. One of the most important parts of the broader right-to-repair debate disappeared.

Language covering telematics — the wireless vehicle data increasingly needed for diagnostics, calibrations, software updates, and repairs — was stripped from the bill before it advanced through committee. For many independent repair advocates, that wasn't a technical detail. It was the entire fight.

That raises an obvious question. If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?

The answer may have less to do with repairs than with control. For decades, owning a vehicle meant deciding who repaired it. Consumers chose their mechanic. Independent shops competed with dealerships. Competition kept prices down and choices open.

Modern vehicles work differently.

Data-driven

Today's cars constantly generate data. They monitor component performance, transmit diagnostics, receive software updates, and communicate through manufacturer-controlled networks.

Control the data, and you gain influence over the repair process. That's why automakers, dealers, independent repair shops, aftermarket suppliers, consumer advocates, and lawmakers are all fighting over the same issue.

Manufacturers argue that unrestricted access creates cybersecurity risks. Those concerns shouldn't be dismissed. Modern vehicles are vastly more complex than the cars many of us grew up driving.

But independent repair shops aren't asking for access to nuclear launch codes. They're asking for the information needed to diagnose, repair, calibrate, and maintain vehicles consumers legally purchased. This is key in an era when more and more repairs require access to software rather than simply a wrench.

Viewed alongside other industry trends, the picture becomes even clearer. Vehicle telematics continue expanding. Subscription-based features are becoming common. Driving data has become valuable to insurers and analytics companies. Manufacturers can now change vehicle functionality through over-the-air software updates.

Each development can be defended on its own. Taken together, they suggest an industry steadily increasing its influence over vehicles long after they are sold.

Jade Gao/Bettmann/Getty Images

Taking ownership

That's why the right-to-repair debate increasingly looks less like a repair issue and more like an ownership issue.

Farmers confronted the same problem years ago as manufacturers restricted repairs on modern agricultural equipment. Purchasing expensive machinery no longer guaranteed the ability to fix it without manufacturer involvement.

The auto industry now appears headed toward a similar crossroads.

Technology has unquestionably made vehicles better. They're safer, more efficient, and more capable than ever before. But technology also changes incentives. Every connected system creates opportunities for convenience, recurring revenue, data collection, and greater manufacturer control.

What makes H.R. 7389 so important isn't what remains in the bill — it's what was removed. The fight over telematics reveals where this debate is headed next.

The future isn't really about brake pads or oil changes. It's about who controls vehicle data, who profits from it, and ultimately who decides what owners are allowed to do with products they have already purchased.

The fix is in

For more than a century, vehicle ownership had a simple meaning. You bought the car. You decided who repaired it, how long you kept it, and what modifications you made.

Today, that definition is becoming less clear. The question isn't whether modern vehicles should be secure. Of course they should. The question isn't whether repairs have become more complicated. They have.

The real question is whether ownership still means what consumers think it means. Because if automakers are willing to fight this hard over repair data today, consumers should pay close attention to what comes next.

The right-to-repair battle may ultimately be remembered as the moment Americans discovered that ownership in the connected-car era no longer carries the assumptions previous generations took for granted.

The latest 'solution' to reckless driving could limit freedom for all of us

If a driver is so dangerous that the government needs to electronically control his car, why is he still allowed to drive?

That's the question New York lawmakers don't seem interested in answering.

Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently signed legislation requiring certain repeat speeding offenders to install GPS-based speed-limiting technology in their vehicles. Under the new law, drivers who rack up 16 or more speed-camera violations within a year can be ordered to install an Intelligent Speed Limiter that prevents their vehicle from exceeding posted speed limits. Drivers who refuse can ultimately lose their vehicle registration.

Reckless legislation

At first glance, the proposal sounds reasonable. Most Americans agree that chronic reckless drivers should face serious consequences. But the real question is not whether dangerous drivers deserve punishment. The real question is why someone with 16 speeding violations still has driving privileges in the first place.

New York already has speeding laws. It already has fines, insurance penalties, license points, court appearances, and suspension mechanisms. If a driver has accumulated enough violations to be considered such a serious threat that the state now wants to electronically control their vehicle, then why weren't existing laws sufficient to remove that driver from the road?

That question goes directly to the heart of the issue. Rather than addressing the apparent failure of existing enforcement systems, lawmakers have chosen to create an entirely new layer of technology, surveillance, and government oversight. Instead of asking why repeat offenders remain licensed, they're asking the public to accept the idea that government should have a greater role in controlling privately owned vehicles.

That's a significant shift, and it deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.

Pre-crime preview

The legislation relies on Intelligent Speed Assistance technology, commonly referred to as ISA. The system uses GPS data and digital mapping to determine the posted speed limit on a roadway and can prevent a vehicle from exceeding that speed. Unlike traditional enforcement, where a driver is punished after breaking the law, this technology is designed to intervene before the driver can make the decision.

The automotive industry is already moving toward an unprecedented level of connectivity. Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of information. They receive over-the-air software updates, communicate with manufacturers, monitor driving behavior, and increasingly operate as rolling computers. Consumers have already watched vehicle ownership evolve into something that looks increasingly like a subscription service, with features activated remotely and software determining how products function.

Now government is entering the equation with technology designed to control how a vehicle operates.

That should concern anyone who values personal privacy and consumer rights.

Starting small

Supporters insist the law applies only to a small group of repeat offenders. That's true today. The problem is that government programs rarely remain confined to their original scope. Nearly every major regulatory program begins with a narrowly defined target. Politicians identify a group that few people are willing to defend, implement a new policy, and assure the public that the measure will be limited. Once the infrastructure exists, however, expanding it becomes significantly easier than creating it.

Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10. Later it could be expanded to fleet vehicles, commercial operators, or other categories of drivers. Once the principle is accepted, the debate shifts from whether government should have this authority to how broadly it should be applied.

Imperfect technology

The practical questions surrounding this law are equally troubling. GPS technology is useful, but it is not infallible. Speed-limit databases are not always current. Construction zones change. Temporary restrictions appear. Road conditions evolve faster than mapping systems can update.

What happens when the speed-limit database is wrong? What happens when a roadway has recently changed and the system hasn't been updated? What happens when a driver needs rapid acceleration to avoid an accident?

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the types of real-world situations automotive engineers consider every day. Yet lawmakers frequently discuss speed-limiting technology as though vehicles operate in a controlled environment where every situation can be anticipated by software. The reality is far more complicated.

Jeff Greenberg/Getty Images

Punishing cars, not drivers

Then there is the issue of fairness.

One of the most overlooked aspects of this legislation is its reliance on camera enforcement. Traditional traffic stops identify the driver. Automated camera systems identify the vehicle. Those are not the same thing. Families share cars. Businesses operate fleets. Vehicles are borrowed, rented, and loaned every day. Yet policymakers continue to build enforcement systems around the vehicle itself rather than the individual behind the wheel.

That distinction matters because accountability should be directed at the person responsible for the behavior, not simply the machine involved.

There is also a financial component that deserves attention. Installation costs for these systems can run into the thousands of dollars, with additional fees for monitoring, maintenance, administration, and compliance. Government officials often frame these costs as penalties for offenders, but every new regulatory program creates opportunities for vendors, contractors, software providers, installers, and administrators.

Whenever government mandates a new technology, there is almost always an industry waiting to benefit from it.

New York is hardly alone in pursuing this approach. Washington State has adopted its own Intelligent Speed Assistance requirements for certain offenders. Virginia and Washington, D.C., have moved in a similar direction, while Illinois lawmakers have advanced proposals involving mandatory speed-limiting technology. What once appeared to be an isolated experiment is rapidly becoming a national trend.

As more states adopt similar programs, lawmakers should answer a basic question: Why create a technological workaround instead of enforcing the penalties already available under existing law?

Accountability ... or control?

The answer may be uncomfortable. Suspending licenses removes the driver from the system. Technological monitoring keeps the driver in the system while creating new layers of oversight and control. One approach focuses on accountability. The other focuses on management.

Those are fundamentally different philosophies.

New York's "super speeder" law is being sold as a narrowly targeted safety measure. Maybe that's how it begins. The larger concern is where it ends. Once government gains the authority to electronically regulate how privately owned vehicles operate, future expansions become much easier to justify.

The most important question isn't whether a driver with 16 violations deserves punishment. It's whether Americans are comfortable creating the technological infrastructure that allows government to control how a privately owned vehicle operates.

Today, lawmakers call it a solution for super speeders. Tomorrow, it could become something much broader.

America's salvage yards are on fire — and drivers are the ones getting burned

No matter what kind of car we prefer, most American drivers can agree on one thing: We don't need another reason for vehicle ownership to become more expensive.

New vehicle prices remain painfully high. Used cars still cost more than they did just a few years ago. Insurance premiums continue to climb, and repair bills that once seemed unthinkable have become routine. For many families, keeping an older vehicle on the road isn't a preference anymore — it's a financial necessity.

An insurer may choose to repair rather than total a vehicle because recycled components make the economics work.

That's why a little-noticed trend deserves far more attention than it's getting: America's salvage yards are burning.

Junk science

Most drivers never set foot in a salvage yard, but many have unknowingly benefited from one. Salvage yards provide recycled engines, transmissions, body panels, mirrors, wheels, electronic modules, and countless other components that offer affordable alternatives to buying new parts.

Without them, many repairs would cost significantly more.

That matters because modern vehicles have become dramatically more expensive to fix. A headlight is no longer just a bulb and a lens — it may include LED arrays, cameras, and sensors costing thousands of dollars to replace. Bumpers house radar systems. Side mirrors contain blind-spot monitoring equipment. Even relatively minor collisions can generate repair bills that shock vehicle owners.

For decades, the salvage industry has quietly helped offset those costs.

Most people think of a scrapyard as the final resting place for totaled vehicles. In reality, these facilities function as warehouses of reusable inventory. Every wrecked vehicle contains components that can help repair another one, extending the life of cars already on the road and giving consumers lower-cost alternatives to factory-new parts.

When a salvage yard loses thousands of vehicles and reusable components to a fire, the consequences extend far beyond the property itself. Repair shops lose inventory. Insurers lose salvage value. Consumers lose affordable options.

Eventually, those costs work their way through the system.

More expensive repairs contribute to higher insurance claims. Parts shortages can increase repair times and rental-car costs. And families trying to keep an aging vehicle running are left with fewer choices and bigger bills.

That's why these fires deserve more scrutiny than they typically receive.

Batteries included

Industry groups have reported a growing number of fires at recycling facilities in recent years, with lithium-ion batteries frequently cited as a contributing factor. Given the proliferation of batteries in electric vehicles, hybrids, e-bikes, power tools, and consumer electronics, those concerns are understandable. Damaged or improperly handled lithium-ion batteries can ignite and burn intensely.

But determining the actual cause of individual fires matters. Some incidents are quickly linked to batteries, while others remain under investigation or are ultimately attributed to different causes. Before broad conclusions are drawn, it's important that investigators establish the facts.

The larger issue is that automotive recyclers have become an increasingly important part of keeping transportation affordable.

Americans are holding onto their vehicles longer than ever because replacing them has become so expensive. That makes access to quality recycled parts more valuable than ever. A driver with a 12-year-old SUV may not need a brand-new factory transmission if a properly inspected recycled unit is available at a fraction of the cost. Likewise, an insurer may choose to repair rather than total a vehicle because recycled components make the economics work.

Remove enough inventory from the marketplace, and those calculations begin to change.

Mark Sullivan/Getty Images

Free to fix

This also intersects with the broader right-to-repair movement. Much of that debate centers on software access and diagnostic tools, but those issues address only part of the problem. Consumers also need access to reasonably priced replacement parts. Salvage yards provide competition in the marketplace and help prevent repair costs from becoming even more prohibitive.

Independent repair shops understand this better than anyone. Their ability to source quality recycled components often allows them to save customers thousands of dollars compared with using factory-new parts. If those options disappear, many repairs simply stop making financial sense.

The result is simple: Consumers either pay more or replace vehicles they otherwise could have kept on the road.

Insurance companies face similar challenges. Every totaled vehicle contains recoverable value through parts recycling and salvage sales. When that inventory is destroyed before it can be reused, that value disappears as well.

Where there's fire ...

Viewed in isolation, a scrapyard fire is local news. Viewed as part of a broader pattern, it becomes a warning about the fragile supply chain that keeps older vehicles on the road.

As vehicles become more technologically sophisticated and more expensive to repair, the automotive recycling industry becomes more — not less — important. Yet most people only notice it when dramatic images of smoke and flames appear on the evening news.

The next time headlines report another salvage-yard fire, look beyond the blaze itself. Ask what inventory was lost, how many future repairs depended on those parts, and what replacing them will ultimately cost.

Because in the automotive world, expenses rarely disappear. They get passed along.

And in the end, the people most likely to pay are the ones who can least afford another hit to their household budget: ordinary American drivers just trying to get a few more years out of their vehicles.

Against auto tariffs for China? So was Europe ... and it's not going well

On a recent episode of "The Drive," my co-host Karl Brauer and I discussed one of the most contentious issues in the automotive industry today: tariffs.

It's one of those topics everybody seems to have an opinion about.

President Trump's tariff strategy is ultimately aimed at creating incentives for companies to build products in the United States rather than elsewhere.

For many people in the anti-tariff camp, the argument against them is straightforward. Tariffs raise prices, distort markets, and protect industries that should simply learn to compete. In the automotive world, the response is often some version of: "American automakers need to compete with China."

To which Karl offered a simple response: Europe tried that.

Closing time

The results haven't been encouraging, to say the least.

Over the past several years, Chinese automakers have rapidly expanded across Europe, capturing market share with aggressively priced vehicles while many traditional European manufacturers struggle to keep up. Volkswagen recently announced plans to close a plant in Germany for the first time in the company's 88-year history.

Other major automakers have announced layoffs, restructuring efforts, and production cuts as competition intensifies.

Every time someone argues that tariffs are unnecessary because domestic manufacturers should simply compete with Chinese imports on an open playing field, it's worth looking across the Atlantic and asking a simple question:

How is that working out for Europe?

The answer is complicated, but it's difficult to ignore the warning signs.

Manufacturing matters

Supporters of tariffs aren't simply arguing for higher prices or protectionism for its own sake. They're arguing that manufacturing matters. Jobs matter. Industrial capacity matters. And once those things disappear, they're not easily rebuilt.

That's especially true in the automotive industry, where factories support entire ecosystems of suppliers, contractors, transportation networks, and skilled workers.

We're already seeing evidence of what domestic investment can accomplish here in the United States.

Hyundai's growing manufacturing presence in Georgia has become one of the most significant automotive investments in the country. Combined with suppliers and battery production facilities, the project is expected to support thousands of jobs. For many workers in the region, those positions represent opportunities that simply didn't exist before.

The same pattern is playing out across the South. Automakers including Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Nissan, Ford, General Motors, and others continue expanding their U.S. production footprints.

These projects don't just create assembly jobs. They support entire communities, generating opportunities for local businesses, contractors, suppliers, and workers throughout the region.

Jeff Greenberg/Getty Images

Price check

Critics often warn that tariffs will dramatically increase vehicle prices. The reality is more nuanced.

Modern vehicles are assembled from components sourced around the world. The impact of tariffs depends on where those components are produced, where final assembly takes place, and how manufacturers choose to absorb or pass along those costs.

For many mainstream vehicles, the effect may be relatively modest. Luxury brands such as Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolls-Royce, and Porsche face a different situation because they are unlikely to move production to the United States.

But let's be honest: Buyers spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an exotic sports car aren't facing the same concerns as a family shopping for a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Ford Explorer.

The larger question is whether America wants to maintain a strong manufacturing base.

President Trump's tariff strategy is ultimately aimed at creating incentives for companies to build products in the United States rather than elsewhere. Whether you support that approach or not, the objective is clear: encourage investment, create jobs, and strengthen domestic production.

Data breach

There's another factor that rarely receives enough attention in these discussions: data security.

Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of information, including location data, driving habits, communications, and vehicle performance metrics. As Chinese automakers continue expanding globally, policymakers have increasingly raised concerns about who controls that data and where it ultimately ends up.

Whether those concerns prove justified or not, they are becoming part of the broader conversation surrounding automotive trade policy.

Tariffs aren't a magic solution. They won't instantly rebuild America's industrial base or solve every challenge facing the auto industry.

But the debate shouldn't be reduced to whether tariffs might add a few hundred dollars to the price of a vehicle.

The bigger question is what happens when domestic manufacturers lose market share, close factories, eliminate jobs, and become increasingly dependent on foreign competitors.

Before America dismisses tariffs as outdated or unnecessary, it may be worth paying close attention to the experience of those countries who've already made that bet.

The great motor oil shortage of 2026 is another fake, media-driven panic — and drivers are paying the price

America is running out of motor oil!

At least, that’s the latest media-driven crisis making the rounds — and making consumers nervous. Shelves stripped bare by panic buying, retailers quietly raising prices, and everyone blaming “supply chains.”

Older vehicles were often far more forgiving. Many could run multiple oil viscosities without major drama.

Sound familiar?

It should. Welcome to the reboot of 2020’s “great toilet paper shortage.” This time, the same playbook is being used with synthetic motor oil.

Spoiler alert: There is no nationwide motor oil collapse.

Slick trick

Your car is not about to become undrivable because America suddenly “ran out” of lubricants. Most drivers will probably notice little more than higher prices and fewer discount sales.

Yes, there is a legitimate supply issue involving some specialty synthetic base oils used in certain ultra-low-viscosity lubricants. Shipping disruptions, refinery problems, and instability in parts of the Middle East and Asia have tightened supply for these specialized lubricants.

The American Petroleum Institute even activated emergency provisional licensing flexibility for some lubricant formulations because certain approved ingredients became harder to source. That’s not something done casually.

But these high-end Group III base oils — thinner oils designed primarily to help automakers meet fuel economy and emissions targets — are only used in specific synthetic formulations like 0W-8, 0W-16, and certain OEM-specific blends required in some newer vehicles.

So if your car has a new Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Ford, or GM engine designed around low-viscosity lubricants, you could face higher prices, fewer choices, or occasional temporary shortages of specific formulations.

That’s a very different story from, “America is running out of oil.”

CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images

Primed for panic

Even if your car is affected, the impact will likely show up as higher maintenance costs, reduced sales promotions, and occasional difficulty finding certain premium synthetic blends. That’s annoying, especially when vehicle ownership costs are already skyrocketing from inflation, insurance increases, expensive repairs, and high interest rates. But it’s hardly an automotive apocalypse.

But the media narrative is turning a narrow industrial issue into another broad consumer panic, and once again, fear is becoming profitable.

Most conventional motor oils are still widely available. Most drivers using common viscosities like 5W-30 or 10W-30 are not likely to face major supply issues. You can still walk into most parts stores, retailers, and service centers and find plenty of oil on the shelf.

But that nuance doesn’t generate clicks.

Instead, social media influencers and breathless news coverage are lumping everything together under the terrifying word “shortage” because panic spreads faster than facts. Suddenly consumers start hearing rumors that oil changes may become impossible, stores will run dry, and everyone needs to buy cases of oil immediately before it disappears forever.

That panic buying itself becomes the problem.

Memory wipe

The toilet paper fiasco proved how quickly consumer psychology can create artificial shortages. There was never a true nationwide inability to manufacture toilet paper. The system broke because consumers started hoarding far more than they normally purchased, overwhelming distribution and retail inventory systems that were never designed for panic-level buying behavior.

Now we’re watching the same pattern develop in automotive service.

Some repair shops and distributors are already stockpiling certain synthetic products because they expect higher prices and tighter inventories. Consumers are hearing “shortage” and buying extra oil they otherwise would not have purchased. Retailers are responding by raising prices early, sometimes well ahead of any actual supply impact.

Which raises the question: At what point does anticipation become opportunistic pricing?

Thin is in

The bigger question, however, is why we’re in this situation at all. The answer points to increasing government pressure on the auto industry.

Modern engines have become increasingly dependent on hyper-specific lubricants largely because automakers were chasing federal fuel economy targets. Thinner oils reduce internal drag slightly, helping manufacturers squeeze out small efficiency gains that look good on government testing charts.

But that engineering strategy also created greater dependence on specialized synthetic supply chains.

Older vehicles were often far more forgiving. Many could run multiple oil viscosities without major drama. Today’s engines are increasingly calibrated around exact formulations, exact additives, and exact viscosity requirements. That means even a relatively small disruption in specialized synthetic oil supply suddenly becomes a much bigger issue for dealerships and owners of newer vehicles.

If you own an older truck running conventional 5W-30, you’re probably in much better shape than someone driving a brand-new vehicle requiring a very specific OEM-approved 0W-8 synthetic blend.

If your vehicle requires a highly specialized synthetic oil, keeping enough for your next oil change is reasonable. Buying a lifetime supply because somebody on TikTok said that “the shelves are going empty” is exactly the kind of irrational behavior that creates unnecessary shortages in the first place.

The bigger concern should actually be how quickly we’re manipulated into panic consumption cycles every time there’s even a modest supply disruption.

We’ve seen this movie before.

And unless consumers stop reacting emotionally every time a scary headline appears, we’ll probably see it again with the next product too.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Administration Forcing Big Changes to $1.7 Billion in Biden-Era Auto Grants, Scaling Back Electric Vehicle Production and Boosting Hybrids

The Trump Department of Energy is restructuring $1.7 billion in Biden-era grants that were designed to coax major automakers to convert their factories into electric vehicle plants, the Washington Free Beacon has learned. The funding will now be used to increase the production of hybrid vehicles and other advanced car technology.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Trump Administration Forcing Big Changes to $1.7 Billion in Biden-Era Auto Grants, Scaling Back Electric Vehicle Production and Boosting Hybrids appeared first on .

Why the Pentagon just called Detroit's Big 3 automakers

There’s a conversation happening behind closed doors in Washington that should make every American pay attention, and it has nothing to do with EV mandates or fuel economy targets.

This time, it’s about war, capacity, and whether Detroit is about to be pulled into something far bigger than the auto business.

GM is expected to compete for a major Army contract to develop the next-generation infantry squad vehicle, a platform designed to replace the aging Humvee.

According to the Wall Street Journal, senior Pentagon officials have been quietly engaging with leadership from General Motors and Ford Motor Company, including CEOs Mary Barra and Jim Farley. The message is not subtle. The U.S. may need its automakers to help build the tools of modern warfare.

Donato Fasano/Getty Images

Running on empty

This is a direct response to a growing problem that Washington can no longer ignore. Ongoing conflicts abroad have exposed a reality that’s uncomfortable but unavoidable. The United States does not currently have the industrial capacity to produce munitions, missiles, and advanced defense systems at the speed and scale modern warfare demands. Stockpiles are being drained faster than they can be replenished, and the traditional defense contractor base is under pressure.

While the Pentagon has dismissed these claims, the fact remains the U.S. military seems to be on the hunt for manufacturers. And when you need scale, speed, and manufacturing expertise, there’s one place you go: Detroit.

Let’s be honest about what this really means. This is not a routine government outreach effort. This is Washington signaling that America’s industrial base may need to shift priorities, and fast. The auto industry, which has spent the last decade being pushed toward electrification at enormous cost, is now being evaluated for something entirely different: its ability to support national defense on a large scale.

History of help

There is precedent for this, and it’s not ancient history. During World War II, American automakers famously halted civilian vehicle production and became the backbone of military manufacturing. Tanks, aircraft, trucks, engines, all of it rolled out of facilities that once built cars for Main Street. It was called the arsenal of democracy, and it worked.

The question now is whether history is about to repeat itself, not through mandates, at least not yet, but through “collaboration,” which in Washington terms often means something a lot closer to expectation than suggestion.

These discussions are still in the early stages, but don’t mistake “preliminary” for unimportant. Pentagon officials are asking hard questions. Can automakers pivot their production lines quickly? Do they have the workforce flexibility? Can their supply chains handle defense-grade manufacturing? And perhaps most importantly, what regulatory and contractual barriers stand in the way?

Companies like GE Aerospace and Oshkosh Corporation are already part of the broader conversation, bridging the gap between commercial manufacturing and defense production. Oshkosh Corporation in particular has long operated in both civilian and military spaces, producing tactical vehicles while maintaining a diversified portfolio. That kind of hybrid model may soon become more common if Washington gets its way.

Boon or boondoggle?

But this isn’t just about national security. It’s also about economics, and that’s where things get complicated.

Automakers are navigating one of the most challenging environments in decades. Sales growth has cooled. Profit margins are tightening. The cost of electrification has ballooned beyond early projections, putting enormous pressure on balance sheets. Billions have been spent chasing EV targets that consumers have been slower to adopt than expected.

In that context, defense contracts start to look less like a burden and more like an opportunity. Stable, long-term revenue backed by government funding has a certain appeal, especially when your core business is under strain.

That doesn’t mean this is an easy pivot. Building consumer vehicles and building military hardware are fundamentally different businesses. Defense manufacturing comes with layers of compliance, extensive testing requirements, and procurement cycles that can stretch for years. This isn’t about slapping a different badge on a pickup truck and calling it a day.

Factories would need to be retooled. Workers would need retraining. Entire supply chains would need to be adjusted to meet military specifications. And all of it would have to happen within a regulatory framework that is far more complex than anything the auto industry deals with today.

Factory flex

Still, if there’s one thing American manufacturers have proven, it’s that they can adapt under pressure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, both GM and Ford shifted production to build ventilators in partnership with medical companies. It wasn’t perfect, but it was fast, and it demonstrated something important. When pushed, this industry can move.

Now, the Pentagon is betting that same flexibility can be applied to defense production. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been explicit about the need for what he calls a “wartime footing” in manufacturing readiness. That phrase matters. It doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. is entering a traditional war, but it does mean planning for sustained, high-volume production of military equipment.

And the financial scale behind that planning is enormous. The Pentagon’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget would be the largest in modern history, with significant allocations for munitions, drones, and next-generation battlefield technologies. That kind of spending demands one thing above all else: capacity. And right now, capacity is the bottleneck.

There’s also a strategic shift happening here that shouldn’t be ignored. For years, the U.S. has relied on a relatively small group of defense contractors to supply its military. Those companies are highly capable, but concentration creates vulnerability. Expanding the industrial base to include commercial manufacturers could increase resilience and reduce dependency on a limited number of suppliers.

Civilians sidelined?

That’s the upside. The downside is just as real.

What happens when civilian manufacturing capacity is redirected toward defense? What does that mean for vehicle production, pricing, and availability? And how does this reshape the long-term business models of companies that were already in the middle of a massive transition toward electrification?

These are not abstract questions. They are practical concerns with real economic consequences.

Timing is another factor that adds urgency to the conversation. These discussions reportedly began before recent escalations in global tensions, but the current geopolitical environment has only intensified the pressure.

Some automakers are already positioned to step into a larger role. General Motors, for example, operates a defense subsidiary that produces an infantry squad vehicle based on the Chevrolet Colorado platform. It’s a relatively small part of the business today, but it serves as proof of concept. Automotive technology can be adapted for military use, and it can be done efficiently.

Looking ahead, GM is expected to compete for a major Army contract to develop the next-generation infantry squad vehicle, a platform designed to replace the aging Humvee. This isn’t just a transport vehicle. It’s being envisioned as a mobile command center, a power hub, and a critical component of modern battlefield operations.

That kind of project sits squarely at the intersection of automotive engineering and defense innovation. It’s also a preview of what could become a much larger trend.

In the near term, expect more discussions, more feasibility studies, and more pressure from Washington. The Pentagon is clearly signaling that it wants industry to be ready, not just willing. Readiness is the key word. This is about preparation for a scenario where demand spikes and the current system can’t keep up.

In the longer term, this could fundamentally reshape how we think about American manufacturing. For decades, the auto industry has been driven by consumer demand, regulatory requirements, and technological innovation. Now, national security is entering the equation in a much more direct way.

Detroit has always been a symbol of American industrial strength. Now, Washington is looking at it as something more, a potential force multiplier in a world where manufacturing capacity is becoming a strategic asset.

GM slams brakes on electric trucks as reality crashes the EV party

For years, Americans have been told the future of driving is settled. Electric vehicles would take over, gas engines would fade away, and anyone questioning the timeline was “anti-progress.” That narrative just took a direct hit, and it came from General Motors.

GM isn’t tweaking its EV strategy. It’s hitting pause, hard.

Charging times still don’t compete with a five-minute fill-up at a gas station.

The company has indefinitely delayed the next-generation refresh of its electric trucks and SUVs. No new deadline. No confident road map. Just a quiet admission that the plan isn’t working the way Washington, or the automakers themselves, promised.

Translation: The market isn’t cooperating.

Truck stop

After pouring billions into electrification, GM is now sitting on $7.6 billion in EV-related losses from 2025 alone, including a massive write-down tied to scrapped production plans and battery commitments. At the same time, EV sales dropped 43% in the fourth quarter after government incentives dried up. Turns out, when the subsidies disappear, so does a big chunk of the demand.

And while EV inventory piles up, GM is doing something far less glamorous but far more telling: It’s going all in on gas-powered trucks. Silverado. Sierra. The vehicles politicians love to demonize are the same ones keeping the lights on.

Because that’s what Americans are actually buying.

This is the part policymakers don’t want to admit. You can regulate, subsidize, and mandate all you want, but you cannot force consumers to embrace a product that doesn’t meet their needs.

Electric trucks still come with trade-offs that matter in the real world, not in a press release. They’re expensive. Range drops when you tow. Charging infrastructure is inconsistent at best, nonexistent at worst, especially outside major metro areas. And charging times still don’t compete with a five-minute fill-up at a gas station.

And now the bill for ignoring that reality is coming due.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Hero to Zero

GM’s flagship EV facility, Factory Zero, has already seen shutdowns and workforce cuts. Production volumes for high-profile electric models remain underwhelming. And instead of ramping up, GM is scaling back, delaying programs that were once central to its “all-electric future.”

Let’s call this what it is, a strategic retreat.

Not because EV technology is useless. Not because innovation has stalled. But because the timeline was never grounded in how people actually live, drive, and spend their money.

For years, the auto industry was pushed into a corner to build EVs at scale or face regulatory consequences. So they did. They spent. They bet big.

But consumers didn’t get the memo.

Now, the same companies that were racing to meet political deadlines are pivoting back to profitability, back to demand, and back to common sense.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth for the architects of this agenda: Affordability matters more than ideology.

Money talks

When EVs cost more, when infrastructure lags behind, and when performance doesn’t match expectations, consumers don’t “adapt.” They wait. They keep their current vehicles longer. Or they buy what works, which right now is still overwhelmingly internal combustion.

GM’s move isn’t an isolated event. It’s part of a broader industry correction that’s been building for months. Automakers are quietly scaling back, delaying investments, and reassessing timelines that were never realistic to begin with.

The electric future isn’t canceled. But it’s no longer on a government-imposed fast track. It’s being dragged back to reality, where consumers, not regulators, decide what succeeds.

And right now, the verdict is clear. If EVs want to succeed, they better start putting buyers in the driver's seat.

Lego's Model T: How Ford is bringing automotive history to a new generation, brick by brick

On a recent episode of "The Drive with Lauren and Karl," we had a conversation that was a little different — but just as telling about car culture today.

It started with something unexpected: Lego. Not just as a toy, but as a way to connect automotive history to a new generation.

For an industry that often focuses on what’s next — EVs, software, autonomy — it’s easy to overlook how important the past still is.

Our guest, Ford heritage brand manager and archivist Ted Ryan, shared the story behind a new Lego model of the Ford Model T — and what went into getting it right. And the level of detail may surprise you.

To a T

This wasn’t just a half-baked licensing exercise. According to Ryan, the designer behind the set spent months researching the Model T, even reaching out directly to Ford’s archives to verify historical details.

Where was the fuel tank located? How many lights did the car have? What year-specific features mattered?

Those details were checked, corrected, and refined — sometimes multiple times — before the final design was approved.

The whole process took a year of back-and-forth, with emails and revisions to make sure the finished product reflected the real car, not just a simplified version of it.

That’s a level of effort you don’t usually associate with something that ends up on a toy shelf.

Wheeling and dealing

There’s a bigger idea behind it.

As Ryan explained, Lego has shifted in recent years to focus on things that matter culturally — music, film, architecture, and increasingly, cars.

That last one makes a lot of sense.

From Formula 1 to classic American vehicles, automobiles are a huge part of global culture. They’re also a way to tell stories — about innovation, design, and how people lived at a particular moment in time.

And what better example than the iconic Model T.

This is the vehicle that put America on wheels, transforming transportation and making mobility accessible to millions. Bringing that story into a Lego set makes that history visible — and tangible — for people who might never read about it otherwise.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Pieces of history

What stood out in the conversation is how much these sets are now aimed at adults as well as kids.

Lego calls them “AFOLs” — adult fans of Lego — and it’s a growing category. They want builds that are more complex, more detailed, and more likely to be display pieces than playthings.

In this case, the Model T set also includes historical context, helping explain why the car mattered — not just what it looked like.

It's all part of a broader trend. Car culture isn’t just happening at racetracks or car shows anymore. It’s happening in living rooms, offices, and hobby spaces — through collectibles, models, and even digital experiences.

A classic you can keep

For an industry that often focuses on what’s next — EVs, software, autonomy — it’s easy to overlook how important the past still is.

Projects like this show there’s still real demand for that connection.

Not everyone is going to restore a classic car or attend a concours event. But a lot of people will build a model, display it, and learn something along the way.

For younger enthusiasts, this may be their first introduction to a crucial moment in history; for longtime car fans, it’s a potent reminder of what cars mean to them.

Either way, it goes to show that car culture — despite the carping of the environmental doomsayers — isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Why gas prices won’t be dropping — and how you can minimize the pain

On the latest episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl,” Karl Brauer and I talked about something every driver notices before almost anything else: the number on the pump.

And lately, those numbers have been going the wrong direction.

Sitting in a drive-through line for coffee, food, or dry cleaning may not feel like a big deal, but zero miles per gallon is still zero miles per gallon.

I was reminded of that the hard way when I filled my diesel SUV and saw the price climb past $5 a gallon. Karl had it even worse in California, where he paid more than $6 a gallon and described a friend filling a heavy-duty Ram for $167.

That’s not a small nuisance. For many drivers, it’s a direct hit to the household budget.

Fleeting relief

The frustrating part is that gas prices had started to moderate. As domestic production improved, prices eased. Diesel came down. Regular gas came down. Drivers finally got a little breathing room.

Now that relief is fading.

The reason is simple: Fuel prices do not respond only to what is happening at your local gas station. They respond to what is happening around the world. Global instability, supply concerns, and broader energy-market pressure push prices up quickly. And when that happens, drivers feel it immediately.

That is especially true in places like California, where prices are already higher than the rest of the country. When fuel rises nationally, it rises even more there.

For consumers, that means the practical question is no longer why it’s happening. It’s what to do about it.

Shop around

There is no magic fix, and no one is suggesting drivers can “budget” their way out of a price spike. But there are a few ways to reduce the damage.

The first is obvious: Shop around.

Apps like GasBuddy, AAA, and other fuel price trackers can help drivers compare prices before they fill up. The information is not always perfect, but it’s often good enough to spot the worst stations and find better options nearby. Membership clubs like Costco or BJ’s can also make a meaningful difference if you already belong and can tolerate the wait.

And that is the catch. When gas prices spike, everyone has the same idea. Those discount stations get crowded fast.

Fuel for thought

That makes another point more important than people realize: Avoid wasting fuel when you do not need to.

That means thinking harder about the little convenience habits most drivers don’t notice when gas is cheap. Sitting in a drive-through line for coffee, food, or dry cleaning may not feel like a big deal, but zero miles per gallon is still zero miles per gallon. If you can park, go inside, and get out faster, that saves fuel and time.

The same goes for trip planning.

If prices stay high, it makes sense to consolidate errands, reduce unnecessary driving, and stop making multiple short trips when one will do. It sounds simple because it is simple. But simple matters when every fill-up costs more than it should.

Heritage Images/Getty Images

No safe haven

Vehicle condition matters too.

Checking tire pressure once a month can make a real difference in fuel economy. Underinflated tires increase rolling resistance and cost you money over time. It’s not glamorous, but it’s one of the easiest ways to improve efficiency without changing vehicles or spending money.

The same logic applies across power trains.

If you drive a hybrid, you still use fuel. If you drive an EV, electricity has gotten more expensive too. There is no completely insulated category of driver anymore. Energy costs hit everyone one way or another.

That reality matters because it resets the conversation. This is not just about gas stations. It is about transportation costs broadly rising again.

Domino effect

And once that happens, everything else gets more expensive too.

Delivery fees go up. Services cost more. Operating a truck or SUV becomes harder to justify for some families, even if they need the capability. People start changing habits not because they want to, but because they have to.

That is why fuel prices always matter politically and economically. They are not just one more cost. They touch almost everything.

For now, the best drivers can do is limit waste, shop smart, and be realistic. Prices may come down again eventually, but they are not likely to stabilize until the broader global picture does.

Until then, drivers are back where they’ve been too many times before: staring at the pump and doing the math.