Fake fuel economy has got to go.

That's the message of a recent decision by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sent to the scrap heap: a Biden-era Department of Energy rule that critics say wildly inflated the fuel economy ratings of EVs — giving them an unfair regulatory advantage over gasoline and hybrid vehicles.

The court's ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.

This is a major correction to how the U.S. government measures vehicle efficiency, with consequences for automakers, consumers, and the future of the EV market.

Efficiency inflation

The case was brought by 13 Republican attorneys general, who argued that the DOE's formula for calculating EV efficiency was misleading and legally indefensible. The court agreed, ruling that the Biden administration overstepped its authority by continuing to use an outdated, artificial formula that inflated electric vehicle performance under federal fuel economy standards.

At stake is the credibility of how America measures vehicle efficiency — a key driver in regulatory decisions that shape everything from automaker product lines to what cars consumers can buy.

For years, the DOE's so-called petroleum equivalency factor has been used to translate electric power into miles-per-gallon equivalents. But the formula wasn't based on realistic energy comparisons. Instead, it massively overstated how far an EV could travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline — often rating electric cars above 100 MPGE, regardless of actual energy costs or grid efficiency.

Credits as currency

Rather than immediately fixing this issue, the Biden administration's DOE planned a slow phase-out of the inflated metric between model years 2027 and 2030. That delay allowed automakers to continue claiming exaggerated efficiency numbers — and collecting fuel economy credits that made it easier to comply with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Why does that matter? Because those credits act as a form of regulatory currency. A company that racks up credits through high-efficiency vehicles can use them to offset the sale of less efficient models or even sell them to other automakers.

In other words, the inflated EV math didn't just look better on paper — it saved automakers millions of dollars in potential penalties while giving policymakers a talking point about "historic progress" in fuel efficiency that wasn't based on real-world performance.

A direct rebuke

In its 3-0 decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the DOE had gone beyond its legal bounds. Agencies can't rewrite laws through policy tweaks, the judges said, even under the guise of "phasing out" old rules. The DOE was required by statute to eliminate the flawed formula entirely — not stretch it over several more years of inflated numbers.

The court's ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.

That's a significant rebuke not just to the DOE, but to a broader pattern of regulatory overreach that has characterized much of Washington's EV push.

For the states that brought the lawsuit, the decision represents a major win for transparency, accountability, and consumer protection.

Pivoting on EVs

The implications for automakers are enormous. For years, inflated EV efficiency numbers helped carmakers meet federal fuel economy targets and avoid costly fines. Without that regulatory buffer, the industry will need to adapt quickly.

Automakers may now lose the valuable fuel economy credits they've relied on to remain compliant with CAFE standards, forcing them to find new ways to meet efficiency goals. That shift will require genuine engineering improvements — advances in aerodynamics, weight reduction, and hybrid technology — rather than relying on inflated paper-based advantages.

This change could also prompt a broader reassessment of electric vehicle strategy. If the regulatory math no longer tilts in favor of EVs, many manufacturers may slow their rollout plans or diversify their portfolios to include more hybrids and high-efficiency gasoline models.

The timing is significant: EV demand has cooled, dealer inventories are building up, and consumer interest has leveled off. Automakers such as Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen have already scaled back or delayed certain EV programs in response to slower-than-expected sales and ongoing infrastructure limitations.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Consumer transparency

For everyday drivers, this ruling doesn't ban EVs — but it brings more honesty to the system.

Consumers deserve accurate information about vehicle efficiency, cost of ownership, and environmental impact. Inflated fuel economy ratings distort that picture, making EVs appear more efficient than they are when accounting for charging losses, battery manufacturing, and electric grid emissions.

Now, car buyers can make more informed choices — whether that's a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or traditional gasoline vehicle.

In the long term, this ruling could encourage a broader mix of technology rather than a forced, one-size-fits-all transition to battery electrics.

The fight to come

This case isn't just about EVs. It's about how much power federal agencies should have to rewrite laws without Congressional oversight.

For decades, Washington has leaned on regulatory agencies to shape environmental and energy policy — often through complex formulas that most Americans never see. But as the Eighth Circuit emphasized, the ends don't justify the means.

Even if the goal is cleaner transportation, the process has to respect legal boundaries. When agencies overreach, courts must intervene to restore balance.

This decision reinforces an important principle: Policy must be grounded in law, not ideology. And in a country that values free markets and consumer choice, regulations should enhance transparency, not distort it.

The ruling leaves several key questions unanswered, but it is likely just the beginning of a much larger policy fight. Congress could attempt to step in by rewriting the laws that govern fuel economy standards, giving the DOE clearer authority to define how electric vehicle efficiency is calculated. However, such legislative efforts would almost certainly face significant political gridlock in an already divided Congress.

Much-needed realism

Automakers, meanwhile, are expected to take a hard look at how they allocate their research and development budgets and how they plan future vehicle lineups.

Companies heavily invested in electric vehicles have shifted strategies, focusing more on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and improved gasoline technologies — especially in markets where EV sales have already shown signs of slowing or flattening.

Finally, the court's reasoning may open the door to further challenges that could include renewed scrutiny of EPA emissions standards and federal tax credits, both of which critics argue have tilted the market in favor of electric vehicles rather than allowing consumer demand and market forces to guide the transition naturally.

The Eighth Circuit's decision is a defining moment for the future of American automotive policy. It doesn't kill the EV market — but it forces it to stand on its own merits.

Electric vehicles have their place in the market, but consumers deserve truthful efficiency data and honest cost comparisons. Inflated numbers and creative accounting don't serve innovation — they undermine it.

This ruling restores some much-needed realism to the national conversation about the future of mobility. It's a win for transparency, for accountability, and most importantly, for consumers who want to make decisions based on facts rather than politics.

Trump's SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?

President Donald Trump’s dropping another tariff on the auto industry.

Starting November 1, the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on all imported medium- and heavy-duty trucks, a dramatic escalation in the administration’s ongoing effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign-built vehicles.

The short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.

This announcement sent shockwaves through global trade circles and Wall Street. According to Trump, the decision is rooted in national security and economic strength, not politics. But as with any sweeping trade action, there’s more under the hood than meets the eye.

Priced to move

While celebrating the immediate bump in automaker stock prices following the tariff announcement, Trump’s message was direct. “Mary Barra of General Motors and Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company just called to thank me. ... Without tariffs, it would be a hard, long slog for truck and car manufacturers in the United States.”

The president framed the move as a matter of economic sovereignty, arguing that domestic production capacity in critical industries, like heavy vehicles used in logistics, defense, and infrastructure, is essential to national security.

That message resonates with many Americans frustrated by decades of outsourcing and the hollowing out of domestic manufacturing. But it’s also raising concerns among global partners and major U.S. companies with deep supply chain ties abroad.

Winners and losers

The new tariffs target a wide range of vehicles: delivery trucks, garbage trucks, utility vehicles, buses, semis, and vocational heavy trucks.

Manufacturers expected to benefit include Paccar, the parent company of Peterbilt and Kenworth, and Daimler Truck North America, which produces Freightliner vehicles in the U.S. These companies have much to gain from reduced import competition and potentially stronger domestic demand.

However, for companies like Stellantis, which manufactures Ram heavy-duty pickups and commercial vans in Mexico, the impact could be costly.

Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, trucks assembled in North America can move tariff-free if at least 64% of their content originates within the region. But many manufacturers rely on imported parts and materials, putting them at risk of higher costs and tighter margins.

Mexico, the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the U.S., will be hit hardest. Imports from Mexico have tripled since 2019, climbing from about 110,000 to 340,000 units annually. Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland also face new barriers under the 25% tariff.

Industry pushback

Not everyone is excited about the tariffs — especially considering that the import sources for these trucks (Mexico, Canada, and Japan) are long-standing American allies and trading partners.

Industry analysts warn of supply-chain disruptions, potential price increases, and reduced model availability for both commercial fleets and consumers. Tariffs could also pressure U.S. companies to adjust production strategies, increase domestic sourcing, or even pass higher costs on to customers.

Chicago Tribune/Getty Images

The politics of protectionism

This is not the first time a Trump administration has leaned on tariffs as an economic lever. During his previous term, tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods aimed to bring manufacturing back to U.S. soil. Supporters argue those policies helped revitalize key industries and encourage job growth. Critics countered that they raised costs for American companies and consumers alike.

Still, there’s no denying that tariffs remain one of Trump’s most powerful economic tools and one of his most politically effective messages. By positioning tariffs as a way to protect American jobs, the policy appeals to workers and manufacturers across the Rust Belt, a region that will play a pivotal role in the upcoming election.

Short-term pain

For the U.S. trucking and logistics sectors, the short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.

Truck leasing and rental companies that rely on imported chassis and components may see their operating costs rise. Meanwhile, domestic truck makers could ramp up production, potentially benefiting U.S. suppliers and job growth in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Texas.

The challenge will be whether domestic manufacturers can meet demand quickly enough without triggering inflationary pressures in the commercial transportation market.

Long-term gain?

Trump’s framing of the tariffs as a “national security matter” echoes earlier policies aimed at reducing foreign dependence in critical sectors, from semiconductors to electric vehicles. Advocates say this approach ensures that America can produce what it needs in times of crisis.

But opponents warn that labeling economic measures as “security” issues can backfire, alienating allies and inviting retaliation. European officials and trade negotiators in Canada and Japan are already signaling possible countermeasures if talks with Washington fail to yield exemptions.

Mind the gap

The real question now is how manufacturers will adapt. Companies may accelerate plans to localize assembly and parts production inside the U.S., while foreign brands could seek joint ventures or partnerships with American firms to skirt tariffs.

Consumers and fleets will likely see higher sticker prices for imported trucks and commercial vehicles as tariffs ripple through supply chains. That may also shift more buyers toward U.S.-built models, at least in the short term.

Ultimately, Trump’s move puts America’s industrial policy back in the driver’s seat. Whether it strengthens the economy or creates new trade turbulence will depend on how quickly domestic production can fill the gap left by imports.

President Trump’s 25% truck tariff is a high-stakes bet on American manufacturing dominance. It could fuel a resurgence in U.S. production or ignite new rounds of trade retaliation.

Either way, one thing is certain: The decision has already reshaped the conversation about what it means to build, and buy, American.

'A uniquely American industry': SEMA CEO urges EPA to scrap emissions regs

The automotive world is bracing for a decision that could rewrite the rules of the road.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a policy that for more than a decade has given regulators federal and state-level authority to impose sweeping vehicle emissions mandates.

The EPA’s proposed move is not an anti-environment position — it’s about shifting the strategy from top-down control to open competition among propulsion technologies.

If finalized, this move could restore a level playing field for innovation, uphold consumer choice, and revitalize industries that have been shackled by narrow environmental policy objectives.

For the automotive aftermarket, represented by the Specialty Equipment Market Association, this decision is about more than regulatory rollback — it’s about empowering engineers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs to compete on ideas, not on government-mandated technology paths.

SEMA, an organization representing more than 7,000 members and a $337 billion industry, sees this as a chance to return the Clean Air Act to its original scope, protect jobs, and unleash market forces to drive progress.

Why this matters now

Since the 2009 finding, greenhouse gas regulations have tightly intertwined climate policy with vehicle design, pushing automakers aggressively toward electric vehicle production — regardless of consumer demand or infrastructure readiness. This approach has fragmented the automotive market, caused affordability concerns, and arguably sidelined other promising propulsion technologies such as hydrogen, advanced hybrids, and synthetic fuels.

SEMA’s position is clear: Technology-neutral policies yield better, more diverse innovations and avoid imposing limits that stifle creative engineering.

As SEMA president and CEO Mike Spagnola put it in comments submitted to the EPA:

The specialty automotive aftermarket is a uniquely American industry built on ingenious innovation, vibrant consumer enthusiasm, and unmatched entrepreneurial spirit. The EPA’s reconsideration of the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding presents an opportunity to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and allow market forces to guide technological progress in a way that is consumer-driven.

The alternative, warns SEMA, is a patchwork regulatory landscape where California or other states set rules drastically different from federal standards, creating instability for businesses and confusion for consumers. Rescinding the finding would return policymaking power to Congress — the branch intended to weigh competing priorities and reflect the will of the people.

Innovation and consumer choice

The EPA’s proposed move is not an anti-environment position — it’s about shifting the strategy from top-down control to open competition among propulsion technologies. SEMA’s membership includes companies working on EVs, hybrids, hydrogen vehicles, and more.

The association’s argument centers on the belief that all technologies should compete without government favoring one pathway over another. That opens the door for the market to incentivize breakthroughs in lowering emissions from internal combustion engines through efficiencies, synthetic fuels, and advanced filtration. This benefits consumers who may want cleaner cars without sacrificing performance, affordability, or utility.

CNBC/Getty Images

Tesla pushes back

Not everyone agrees with the EPA’s proposal. Tesla, the electric vehicle industry’s flagship brand, has urged the administration to keep the 2009 finding intact, calling it “lawful” and “based on a robust factual and scientific record.” Tesla argues that rescinding the finding would disrupt established emissions measurement, control, and reporting frameworks. They say the change could retroactively excuse manufacturers from compliance responsibilities, undermining environmental progress.

Tesla also contends that repealing vehicle emissions standards would remove one of the key regulatory drivers that has accelerated EV adoption. Its comments reflect concerns that without the finding, the EPA may step away from enforcing rules that have been instrumental in bringing lower-emission vehicles to market.

The divide is stark: One side sees government policy as the cornerstone of transformative environmental action, while the other views market-driven innovation as the more sustainable engine of technological growth.

Ripple effects

The stakes are enormous. SEMA estimates that one-third of its members rely heavily on internal combustion technology — a subset that underpins a multibillion-dollar aftermarket economy and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Removing mandates that inherently disadvantage certain propulsion methods could stabilize the market, restore consumer confidence, and reinvigorate small businesses.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced plans to return more than $13 billion in unclaimed clean energy funds from the Inflation Reduction Act.

These funds, originally intended to support wind, solar, batteries, and EV infrastructure, will be rescinded under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump earlier this year — a legislative move that sharply reduced renewable energy incentives. This suggests that the administration is aligning its broader energy policy with the recalibration of vehicle emissions rules.

Choosing choice

At its core, this debate centers on choice — choice for consumers, choice for innovators, and choice for an industry that thrives on diversity of ideas. Environmental stewardship remains critical, but the question now is whether the U.S. can achieve it without sacrificing market freedom.

Advocates of rescinding the finding say yes: Let the engineers push boundaries and deliver solutions people actually want to buy. Opponents warn that weakening greenhouse gas regulation could slow progress toward emissions reduction targets.

The EPA’s move signals a new era of environmental policy — one where power shifts back toward legislative decision-making and away from regulatory agencies. Whether this will unleash a wave of innovation or stall environmental gains will depend on how industry and consumers respond when restrictions loosen.

The comment period has closed, with more than 140,000 responses filed. Now the EPA must sift through sharply divided opinions before issuing a final decision. Whatever the agency decides, the ruling will be a defining moment for the future of America’s automotive landscape. If the finding is rescinded, the aftermarket industry stands ready to prove that when Americans are free to innovate, the road ahead can be cleaner, faster, and more exciting — without anyone being forced into a one-size-fits-all ride.

Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption

For more than two decades, California’s electric vehicle drivers enjoyed a privilege that millions of traditional commuters envied: the ability to glide into the carpool lane while driving solo.

That perk, created under the state’s Clean Air Vehicle program, was meant to reward early adopters of electric cars and hybrids while encouraging the broader public to embrace cleaner transportation. But after September 30, that advantage comes to an end.

When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed it stopped accepting new applications for Clean Air Vehicle decals on August 29, and existing decals will no longer be valid beginning October 1.

Fuel me once

That means a Tesla, Chevy Bolt, or Toyota Prius Prime with a single driver will be treated the same as a gas-powered sedan in traffic. Use the high-occupancy vehicle lane alone, and you risk a ticket of up to $490.

The reason behind this abrupt shift is not state policy but federal law. The Clean Air Vehicle program was last authorized through the 2015 federal transportation law, which included a sunset clause requiring Congress to extend it. That extension never happened. Without Washington’s approval, California cannot legally continue granting carpool lane access to EV drivers.

This has sparked frustration among both state officials and drivers who had come to view the privilege as a key reason to purchase an electric vehicle. Since the program’s inception in 2001, California has issued more than 1.2 million decals, with about 512,000 still valid this summer. The scale of adoption made California a national model for incentivizing EV use. For many, skipping bumper-to-bumper traffic was just as important as lower fuel costs or environmental benefits.

Grumblin’ Gavin

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sharply criticized the lapse, blaming congressional inaction. His office warned that revoking EV access to HOV lanes will worsen traffic congestion and increase air pollution.

California already struggles with air quality, hosting five of the nation’s 10 smoggiest cities, according to the American Lung Association. State officials argue that taking incentives away from EVs could discourage adoption at a time when they want more drivers behind the wheel of battery-powered cars.

But the politics of EV incentives have shifted dramatically in recent years. Bipartisan support has fractured, and federal priorities have moved away from programs like California’s Clean Air Vehicle initiative. Under President Donald Trump, environmental waivers that California used to set its own strict emissions standards were revoked.

He also signed an executive order halting federal EV incentives, such as the $7,500 tax credit, and moved to eliminate the state’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate. More recently, his administration backed several resolutions overturning California’s regulations, including its 2035 ban on new gas-powered cars.

Kevin Carter/Yana Paskova/Getty Images

EV does it

California, for its part, has doubled down on electrification. Electric vehicles accounted for 25% of new car sales in 2024, the highest in the nation. The state now has more EV chargers than gas stations, and its climate policies require automakers to meet aggressive EV sales quotas if they want to continue selling gasoline-powered models. To bridge the gap, state lawmakers passed legislation in 2024 to extend the Clean Air Vehicle program until 2027. But because federal approval was necessary, that effort has now hit a wall.

The loss of carpool lane access raises serious questions about the balance between incentives and mandates. Many Californians purchased EVs with the expectation of long-term access to HOV lanes, and for commuters in areas like Los Angeles or the Bay Area, the time savings are significant. Taking that away could undermine consumer confidence in state-backed incentives. If benefits can vanish overnight, will drivers think twice before making the leap to an electric car, especially with prices still higher than many gasoline vehicles?

There’s also the issue of traffic itself. With over half a million cars losing carpool access at once, HOV lanes may open up — but the general flow of traffic could get worse. California has long promoted these lanes as a way to reduce congestion and emissions. Yet now, drivers who purchased EVs expecting relief from gridlock will be back in the same stop-and-go conditions as everyone else.

Fair fare

Some critics argue that carpool incentives were always meant to be temporary. When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers. EV sales are now far higher than expected when the program began, and some transportation analysts suggest that the incentives have already served their purpose. In their view, it’s time to reassess whether carpool perks are fair, especially as EVs become mainstream.

Still, the political framing remains contentious. California officials see the lapse as part of a broader pattern of federal resistance to their climate policies. They argue that while EVs have become more popular, the fight against pollution requires every possible tool, including access incentives. Without federal cooperation, the state faces limits on how far it can go.

Tolled off

Drivers, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. A Tesla owner who counted on the decal as part of their daily commute could soon be facing hundreds of dollars in fines. Discounts on toll programs, such as those tied to FasTrak Clean Air Vehicle tags, will also vanish unless drivers meet normal occupancy rules.

This moment highlights a broader tension in the transition to electric vehicles: the clash between ambitious state-level initiatives and shifting federal policy. California wants to lead the nation in electrification, but it cannot do so entirely on its own.

As EV adoption accelerates, the question becomes whether incentives should keep pace — or whether it’s time for the market to stand on its own.

For now, the result is clear. Starting in October, California’s EV drivers will no longer be able to rely on their clean-air decals to speed through traffic. Instead, they’ll have to join the same lanes as everyone else, while the larger policy debates play out in Washington and Sacramento.

What happens next will depend on how lawmakers balance environmental goals, commuter realities, and political priorities. But one thing is certain: The end of California’s Clean Air Vehicle program marks a turning point in how America incentivizes electric cars. For drivers, it’s a reminder that government programs can change overnight — and the road ahead may be more complicated than expected.

Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?

California, your days driving U.S. emissions policy are numbered.

That's the message behind House Bill H.R. 4117, the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act — and it's shaking up the automotive world.

Even if it clears Congress, lawsuits are certain. California has never been shy about using the courts to defend its regulatory turf.

First introduced on June 24, 2025, and now under review by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the legislation seeks to repeal federal and state motor vehicle emission and fuel economy standards under the Clean Air Act and related laws.

Its stated goals? Lower costs for consumers, simplify compliance for automakers, and revive U.S. competitiveness. But behind the legal jargon lies a direct challenge to one of the most powerful forces in U.S. auto regulation: California.

Game changer

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Roger Williams of Texas and co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Michael Cloud (Texas), Brandon Gill (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), takes aim at Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (federal emissions standards) and portions of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (CAFE standards).

But the sharp end of H.R. 4117 is pointed directly at state-level mandates like California’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, which requires 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. If passed, the bill would prevent California — and any other state following its lead — from setting their own emission or fuel rules, putting Washington and Sacramento directly at odds.

FEFA fix

Supporters argue the current system of EPA rules layered with California’s mandates and CAFE standards create a regulatory maze that raises costs and limits choice.

The Fuel Emissions Freedom Act promises to fix this by:

Lowering prices for drivers: Meeting the EPA’s 2023 rules, which require a 49% emissions cut by 2032, could raise new car prices by thousands. Repealing these standards would ease costs for buyers and keep more affordable gas-powered vehicles on the market.

Simplifying regulations: Automakers currently juggle federal requirements and California’s dictates, plus a patchwork of states copying California. The result? Confusion, higher compliance costs, and supply chain strain. H.R. 4117 promises a single, unified system.

Strengthening U.S. industry: Instead of funneling billions into forced EV development, manufacturers could refocus on consumer demand, job growth, and homegrown production.

Restoring choice to consumers: With California mandating EV adoption, critics argue consumers are losing the freedom to buy the cars they actually want — trucks, SUVs, or traditional sedans. This bill restores that choice.

Sounds promising, but make no mistake: California is not about to give up its power without a fight.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Waiver goodbye?

Crucial to that power is the state's unique authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own emission standards, with other states free to follow its lead. For decades, this waiver has allowed California to dictate national auto policy by sheer market size.

H.R. 4117 would revoke that authority, ending California’s role as the de facto regulator for the entire U.S. auto market. Supporters call this a win for fairness and consumer freedom; opponents call it an assault on states’ rights and climate progress.

As of September 2025, the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act sits in committee, facing heavy opposition from Democrats, environmental groups, and California lawmakers. Even if it clears Congress, lawsuits are certain. California has never been shy about using the courts to defend its regulatory turf.

The sheer viciousness of the fight ahead is a testament to how much is at stake: this is about nothing less than who controls America’s automotive future — Washington, Sacramento, or the free market.

Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

The house of cards is starting to fall.

Stellantis, one of the world’s biggest automakers, just pulled the plug on its all-electric Ram 1500 REV pickup. Chrysler is scaling back its EV-only promises. Jeep is leaning back into hybrids and even reviving the Hemi V8.

The reality is simple: People want options. Some may choose EVs. Others will stick with hybrids or V8s. That’s how a free market works.

What’s happening here isn’t just a business decision. It’s a rebuke of the political agenda that tried to force Americans into an all-electric future, whether they wanted it or not.

For years, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Brussels dictated what automakers “must” build. Billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into subsidies and charging infrastructure. Regulations made gas-powered engines harder to produce, and deadlines were set for their elimination. Automakers fell in line — publicly touting bold EV promises, while privately worrying that the market wasn’t there.

Now the truth is impossible to ignore: Consumers aren’t buying the vision.

Ram jammed

Ram’s 1500 REV was supposed to be the brand’s answer to the Ford Lightning and Chevy Silverado EV. But months of delays, weak demand, and slow sales across the full-size EV pickup segment forced Stellantis to cut its losses.

Instead of an all-electric truck, Ram is pivoting to a range-extended version — essentially a hybrid that can drive on gas when the battery runs out. The “Ramcharger” name is being dropped, and the range-extended truck will simply carry the 1500 REV badge.

Congrats to Ram for finally admitting that the electric pickup fantasy doesn’t match the real-world needs of truck buyers.

Hemi roars back

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it admitted it “screwed up” by killing the Hemi. The replacement, a turbocharged inline-six called Hurricane, might have been efficient, but it lacked the soul, sound, and the brute force that Ram owners expect.

Even customers of the high-performance RHO complained. Stellantis listened. The Hemi is coming back, and Ram partnered with MagnaFlow to offer aftermarket exhausts that restore the roar that regulators tried to silence.

Truck buyers demanded power and personality, and Stellantis is delivering it, even if it flies in the face of government mandates.

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

Chrysler had once promised to go fully electric. Not anymore. Its 2027 crossover, built on the STLA Large platform, will now offer hybrid options instead of being EV-only.

Jeep is doing the same. The Cherokee is returning as a hybrid, the Grand Wagoneer will get range-extending tech, and the brand is reintroducing the Hemi across multiple models. Even with its new Wagoneer S EV, Jeep isn’t gambling everything on one technology.

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

Antonio Filosa, the new Stellantis CEO, is making a strategic shift: Forget rigid EV deadlines, and instead build flexible platforms that can support gas, hybrid, electric, or even hydrogen drivetrains.

It’s a survival move. EV mandates weren’t written with consumers in mind; they were written by regulators trying to engineer a market from the top down. But when customers walked into showrooms, they didn’t buy the hype. They saw higher prices, long charging times, weaker towing, and shorter range.

The politicians assumed the public would play along with their games. They didn’t.

White flags

Stellantis isn’t the only automaker waving the white flag. Ford has slashed production of the F-150 Lightning. GM has delayed the Silverado EV and rethought its timeline. Even Tesla’s Cybertruck (hyped as a revolution) is struggling to gain traction.

Billions in subsidies can’t change the fact that EVs still don’t deliver what most Americans need. And now, automakers are being forced to admit it.

Drivers take the wheel

The moral of the story? Automakers can’t build cars for regulators and expect consumers to fall in line. Politicians can’t legislate demand into existence.

The EV mandates weren’t about innovation — they were about control. But control only works until consumers push back. And now they are, with their wallets.

Stellantis may have “screwed up,” but its decision to return to engines, hybrids, and flexibility shows it learned a lesson that Washington still refuses to hear: The future of driving should be decided by drivers, not bureaucrats.

Save THOUSANDS on your next car with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is looking especially attractive for car buyers.

For the first time in decades, taxpayers can deduct up to $10,000 in auto loan interest for new vehicles assembled in the United States. Welcome relief after being stretched thin by high borrowing costs and inflation.

A family financing a $40,000 SUV can save several hundred dollars in the first year, depending on their tax bracket.

Bonus: It helps strengthen American manufacturing.

Above the line

Unlike most tax deductions, this one is above the line, which means taxpayers can claim it without itemizing. That simplicity makes it available to millions of middle-class Americans.

To qualify, buyers must purchase a new personal-use vehicle. Cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, vans, or motorcycles under 14,000 pounds qualify, but the final assembly has to be completed in the United States. This is a direct remedy for the skewed global competition and supply chain pressures that have been hurting many car companies that build in the USA.

The law requires lenders to issue a new IRS form, the 1098-Q, reporting interest paid on qualifying loans. Borrowers will also need to provide their vehicle identification number on their tax return to confirm eligibility. If a loan is refinanced, the deduction typically still applies, provided the vehicle meets the original requirements. These safeguards give taxpayers the benefit of American-assembled vehicles. And I’ll leave a list of all the vehicles that should qualify below.

The deduction is targeted at middle-income car buyers. For single filers, it begins phasing out at $100,000 in income and is fully eliminated at $150,000. For couples, the phase-out starts at $200,000 and ends at $250,000. That structure puts the greatest benefit in the hands of households struggling most with high interest rates. With the average new car loan now topping $42,000 at more than 7% APR, first-year interest charges alone can reach $1,600 or more. For those families, the deduction can provide a meaningful tax refund without pushing them anywhere near the $10,000 cap.

Crucial savings

Dealerships have wasted no time highlighting this change. Sales teams are using the tax break as a tool to overcome sticker shock. A family financing a $40,000 SUV can save several hundred dollars in the first year, depending on their tax bracket.

For buyers weighing whether to purchase now or wait, that savings often makes the decision. This could especially benefit dealerships unloading mid-range U.S.-built vehicles like Ford, Chevrolet, and Tesla’s American-assembled models.

By designing loans to capture the greatest benefit from the law, dealerships also get to emphasize their role in saving the buyer money -- a way to build trust at a time when consumers are increasingly cautious about debt.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also includes other provisions, such as restoring 100% bonus depreciation for qualified business property through 2028. This helps small-business owners and independent contractors (like rideshare drivers) who can now deduct vehicle interest while expensing their assets. It also helps dealerships manage inventory more efficiently.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

EV rider

One of the most consequential changes, however, is the phase-out of federal electric vehicle tax credits. As of September 30, 2025, the long-standing subsidies that handed buyers $7,500 for new EVs and $4,000 for used EVs will be gone. For years, EV sales have been artificially boosted by taxpayer-funded incentives. That era is ending. Buyers who want an EV will now need to evaluate them on real-world value, just like gas-powered vehicles. U.S.-assembled EVs will still qualify for the auto loan interest deduction, but the days of federal handouts at the point of sale are coming to a quick end.

This change creates urgency. Dealers are moving EV inventory quickly before credits expire, while at the same time promoting the deduction for all qualifying vehicles. For buyers, the message is clear: If you want a subsidized EV, act quickly. If you want lasting tax savings, look to U.S.-assembled cars, trucks, or SUVs under the new deduction.

Because the auto loan deduction sunsets after 2028, buyers and dealers are preparing for a surge in purchases over the next two years. The goal is to drive a temporary spikes in auto sales; this incentive will create a wave of demand for a short period of time. The difference this time is that the benefit is tied to supporting American factories and workers, not just moving inventory off lots.

Straightforward steps

For buyers, the steps are straightforward. Confirm that your vehicle is new, assembled in the U.S., and purchased after December 31, 2024. Check income limits, work with your lender to ensure proper reporting, and keep the VIN on hand for tax filing. With interest rates high and the average new vehicle price pushing past $48,000, the potential savings are substantial. Over the course of a multiyear loan, some buyers could save thousands of dollars in taxes while keeping more of their household budget intact.

The law's auto loan deduction is more than a line in the tax code. It rewards those who buy American, gives relief to the middle class, and reduces reliance on subsidies that distort the marketplace. For car buyers balancing inflation, high interest rates, and everyday expenses, it delivers something rare in Washington: practical help that makes life a little easier.

These cars meet the requirements for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act loan deduction.

Acura: Integra, MDX, RDX, TLX, ZDX
BMW: X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, XM
Buick: Enclave, Encore GX, Envista
Cadillac: Celestiq, CT4, CT5, Escalade, Escalade IQ, Lyriq, Vistiq, XT4, XT5, XT6
Chevrolet: Colorado, Corvette, Express, Malibu, Silverado 1500, Silverado 2500, Silverado EV, Suburban, Tahoe, Traverse
Dodge: Durango
Ford: Bronco, Escape, Expedition, Explorer, F-150, F-150 Lightning, Mustang, Ranger
Genesis: GV70, GV80
GMC: Acadia, Canyon, Hummer EV SUT, Hummer EV SUV, Savana, Sierra 1500, Sierra 2500, Yukon, Yukon XL
Honda: Accord, Civic, CR-V, Odyssey, Pilot, Ridgeline
Hyundai: Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tucson, Ioniq 5, Ioniq 9
Jeep: Gladiator, Grand Cherokee, Wagoneer, Grand Wagoneer, Wrangler
Kia: EV6, EV9, Sorento, Telluride
Lincoln: Aviator, Corsair, Navigator
Lucid: Air, Gravity
Mazda: CX-50
Mercedes-Benz: EQE SUV, EQS SUV, GLE, GLS, Sprinter 2500, Sprinter 3500
Nissan: Altima, Frontier, Pathfinder, Rogue, LEAF
Polestar 3
Rivian: R1S, R1T
Subaru: Ascent, Impreza, Legacy, Outback
Tesla: Cybertruck, Model 3, Model Y, Model S, Model X
Toyota: bZ4X, Camry, Corolla, Corolla Cross, Grand Highlander, Highlander, Sequoia, Sienna, Tundra
Volkswagen: Atlas, Atlas Cross Sport, ID.4
Volvo: EX90, S60
Heavy-Duty Vehicles (8,501–13,999 lbs GVWR)
Ford: Super Duty F-250, Super Duty F-350 (SRW configurations), Transit 350 HD
Chevrolet: Express 3500, Silverado 3500HD (select configurations under 14,000 lbs)
GMC: Savana 3500, Sierra 3500HD (select configurations under 14,000 lbs)

Brake dust: A hidden threat to your respiratory health

Let’s dive into a driving-related danger you've probably never considered: brake dust.

That gritty, black buildup on your wheels isn’t just an eyesore — it’s also a health hazard. New research is pulling back the curtain on how this stuff is quietly damaging our respiratory systems. Buckle up — this is worth your attention.

EVs and hybrids don’t get a free pass, either — regenerative braking reduces pad wear, but extra weight means even more dust when the brakes engage.

Every time you hit the brakes — whether you’re driving a gas-powered SUV or an electric vehicle — tiny particles from your brake pads get launched into the air. A study from the University of Southampton took a close look at this dust and found it’s not just grime — it’s a toxic mix that might be worse for your lungs than unfiltered diesel exhaust. We’ve spent years blaming tailpipes for dirty air, but the real troublemaker could be hiding on your wheels.

Copper stoppers

So what’s in this brake dust? Most brake pads in the U.S. are classed as non-asbestos organic, a change made decades ago to ditch the cancer-causing asbestos of older brakes. Progress, right?

There is a catch, however. Today’s brake pads rely on copper fibers to manage the heat and friction of stopping your car. As they wear down, those copper particles — mixed with other nasty stuff — float into the air. Breathe them in, and they don’t just hang out. The Southampton study shows this dust sparks inflammation in your lungs, kicking off a chain reaction that’s bad news for your breathing.

Slow smolder

Here’s the deal: Inflammation is your body’s distress signal. But when it’s constant — like from inhaling brake dust every day — it’s like a slow smolder in your airways. Over time, that irritation can make breathing harder, worsen conditions like asthma, or even set the stage for bigger problems.

Researchers are starting to talk about possible links to lung cancer. And if you’re already dealing with allergies or smog, this is just another hit to your chest.

EVs and hybrids don’t get a free pass, either — regenerative braking reduces pad wear, but extra weight means even more dust when the brakes engage.

This hits close to home. Picture kids playing near busy roads, commuters stuck in gridlock, or even washing your car in the driveway — you’re all in the path of this stuff. Unlike tailpipe emissions, which face extensive regulation, brake dust and other non-exhaust pollutants are still flying under the radar globally.

Jonathan Nackstrand/Getty Images

Fuel to flames

So how does this affect your lungs daily? If you’re healthy, it might just be a slight cough. But for the millions with asthma or COPD, it’s like adding fuel to the flames. Those copper-laced particles are tiny enough to slip deep into your lungs, where they linger and cause trouble.

Over years, that could mean more doctor visits, extra inhalers, and a higher chance of lung scarring — damage that sticks around.

What can you do about it? Next time you need brake pads, opt for low-copper or copper-free ones. Keep your wheels clean to cut down on what’s swirling around your garage. But the real solution? Automakers and regulators need to step up — clean air shouldn’t end at the tailpipe.

Brake dust may be small, but its impact on your lungs is anything but. Stay aware, breathe easier, and let’s keep this discussion moving.

California may defy Trump with new statewide EV credits

California is once again at the center of the nation’s automotive and energy policy debate. With federal electric vehicle tax credits set to expire this September, the state is considering whether to create its own replacement program.

This would not only affect car buyers but could also reshape the national conversation on emissions rules, vehicle affordability, and the balance of power between state and federal regulators.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a report on August 19 recommending that the state consider “backfilling” the federal credits with its own point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other incentives to keep EV sales moving.

The details remain vague, but the intention is clear: California wants to keep its aggressive zero-emission vehicle goals on track, even as Washington scales back related programs.

Emissions mission

But California has been here before. This is not the first time the state has clashed with the federal government over vehicle regulations — and it likely won’t be the last.

California has a unique history when it comes to vehicle emissions. Decades before the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency, California was already regulating air quality in response to its smog problem.

When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, California was granted a waiver that allowed it to set its own stricter emissions standards. Other states were given the option to adopt California’s rules, and some states have done so. Today, 11 states follow California’s lead.

This waiver authority has made California an outsize force in shaping vehicle propulsion. Automakers cannot ignore a market of this size, which means California’s rules often become de facto national standards.

Better red than fed

California’s regulatory independence has not always sat well with Washington. Under different administrations, the federal government has either supported or resisted the state’s authority. During the Obama years, California partnered with the federal government to create a unified fuel economy and emissions program, giving automakers a single set of national rules.

Under the Trump administration, the EPA rolled back certain emissions standards, sparking legal battles with California, which insisted on enforcing its own tougher rules. The state formed alliances with other states and even some automakers to defend its position.

Today, with federal EV tax credits expiring at the end of September and policy focus shifting, California is again stepping into the driver’s seat by proposing its own financial incentives. These ongoing disputes highlight a deeper question: Should environmental and automotive policy be driven by national uniformity or by one state acting as the policy leader?

Forever ZEV?

The discussion over tax credits cannot be separated from California’s ZEV mandate. Under CARB’s plan, automakers must steadily increase the percentage of EVs they sell, with the ultimate goal of phasing out new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035.

This is one of the most ambitious policies in the country, and automakers are scrambling to meet the targets. Some states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have pledged to follow California’s lead, while others remain skeptical. For consumers, this means that vehicle availability will increasingly be shaped by government mandates and not by market demand. Even if gas-powered cars remain popular, automakers will need to balance that demand with regulatory compliance.

Different strokes

The CARB report suggests that any new program would differ from the federal credits in key ways. Instead of tax credits, buyers could receive point-of-sale rebates, allowing them to benefit immediately rather than waiting until tax season.

Incentives may also vary depending on income level, vehicle type, or price, so luxury EVs could receive lower rebates while affordable models get more support.

Additionally, any new program would be tied to yearly funding availability, meaning that if budgets tighten, rebates could shrink or disappear. This approach could make the system more flexible, but it also introduces uncertainty for buyers trying to plan their purchases. In the past, the state of California and other states have run out of money in the EV fund and left buyers with nothing.

Justin Sullivan/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Electric slide

The promise of continued incentives may be welcome news for some California drivers, but the reality is more complicated. EVs still come with challenges beyond sticker price. Even with rebates, EVs are often thousands of dollars more expensive than comparable gasoline cars.

California has built more chargers than any other state, yet many regions remain underserved, and home charging is not always an option, particularly for renters.

EVs also tend to depreciate faster than gas vehicles due to rapid advances in technology and concerns about battery life. Insurance rates are higher on electric vehicles as well.

And let’s not forget a major expense: Electricity rates are rising at double the rate of inflation.

One of the key criticisms of EV subsidies is that they often benefit wealthier households. Data from federal programs has shown that a large percentage of credits went to buyers in higher income brackets because these households are more likely to purchase new cars, and EVs remain disproportionately concentrated in the premium market segment.

California may attempt to address this with scaled incentives, but questions remain about whether the system can truly deliver benefits to everyone. Meanwhile, working-class families who rely on affordable used cars may find themselves subsidizing programs that they cannot realistically take advantage of.

Bowing to the bear

For automakers, California’s decisions carry immense weight. The state accounts for nearly 12% of U.S. auto sales, and when you include the other states that follow its rules, the market share becomes impossible to ignore.

Manufacturers that fail to meet California’s requirements face penalties, while those that comply can earn credits to sell or trade. This system has created an uneven playing field, favoring companies with strong EV lineups.

Tesla, for instance, has profited significantly from selling ZEV credits to competitors in the past. If California establishes a robust new rebate system, it could further tilt the market toward EVs, encouraging automakers to prioritize them even more, take greater losses on each vehicle.

Off the market

At its core, this debate is about whether government policy should drive technology adoption or whether the market should dictate the pace.

California argues that aggressive incentives and mandates are necessary to address climate goals and push the auto industry forward. Critics counter that these policies distort the market, forcing automakers and taxpayers to shoulder costs that may not align with consumer demand. They also warn of unintended consequences, such as reduced affordability, lack of charging stations, and strained electrical infrastructure.

California’s proposal to replace expiring federal EV tax credits with state-funded incentives is the latest chapter in a decades-long story of the state asserting its role as the nation’s automotive regulator.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

For some wealthier car buyers, this could mean continued financial support when purchasing an EV, but it also raises questions about long-term effectiveness. For taxpayers, it means another debate about where funds should be directed and increased taxes for residents. For the auto industry, it underscores more losses on vehicles that are designed by one state’s demands.

As history shows, when California moves, the rest of the country often feels the impact. The next few months will reveal whether the state can successfully design a program that keeps EV sales going without overburdening its citizens with more increased taxes. But one thing is certain: California still has significant power over the U.S. auto industry.

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.

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.