Washington eliminated the federal EV tax credit. California didn't waste much time replacing it.

Earlier this month, Gov. Gavin Newsom launched MyFirstEV, a new state program offering first-time zero-emission vehicle buyers $3,500 off a new vehicle or $1,750 off a used one, right at the point of sale.

Instead, somebody with no intention of buying an EV is helping pay for someone who does. And MyFirstEV doesn't even reserve that help for people who couldn't otherwise afford the car.

And Californians apparently noticed. Tesla's allocation of MyFirstEV money was exhausted almost immediately. According to Tesla, buyers had to place their orders between August 3 and August 7 to qualify, and the company now says its allocated funds have been depleted.

California split

The federal government spent years offering buyers a tax credit of up to $7,500 to encourage electric vehicle adoption. Congress eliminated the credit, ending it for vehicles acquired after September 30, 2025. California's response was essentially to build its own version.

The state has committed $135.5 million to MyFirstEV, with participating automakers matching California's contribution dollar for dollar. That creates a combined $271 million for first-time zero-emission vehicle buyers. On a new vehicle, California puts up $1,750 and the manufacturer contributes another $1,750. Used vehicles can receive $1,750, also split between the state and participating manufacturer.

Automaker participation is voluntary, but it's telling that manufacturers are willing to put up their own money to keep these incentives alive.

They have plenty invested in the EV transition. Automakers spent billions on battery plants, retooled production lines and new electric models in anticipation of a rapid shift toward EVs. Consumers haven't always moved as quickly as government planners and automakers expected. Now Washington has removed one of the financial incentives supporting that transition, while California is putting another one in its place.

Steven Gottlieb/Bloomberg/Getty Images

No cap

The rules get more interesting the closer you look.

MyFirstEV is limited to Californians buying or leasing their first zero-emission vehicle. If you already bought an EV, installed a Level 2 charger in your garage, loved the experience, and now want another one, you don't qualify.

But someone buying his first EV can qualify regardless of income.

New vehicles generally must have an MSRP of $50,000 or less, while used vehicles must sell for $25,000 or less through participating manufacturers' pre-owned programs. But CalMatters reports that automakers headquartered in California aren't subject to the same vehicle price cap.

So California has created an EV subsidy with rules that can favor California-based manufacturers.

Why subsidize?

And Sacramento isn't stopping with vehicle rebates. On August 18, Newsom announced another $95.2 million for electric charging and hydrogen-fueling infrastructure as California continues its push toward zero-emission transportation.

Which leaves me with a pretty basic question: If EVs are ready to compete on their own merits, why do taxpayers still need to subsidize their purchase?

I'm not anti-EV. If an electric vehicle fits your life, buy one. They're quiet, quick, increasingly capable, and inexpensive to operate in the right circumstances. If you want a hybrid, buy that. If a gasoline pickup works best for your family or business, buy that instead.

Give consumers choices and let them decide.

Instead, somebody with no intention of buying an EV is helping pay for someone who does. And MyFirstEV doesn't even reserve that help for people who couldn't otherwise afford the car.

Supporters can point to Tesla's experience and say the program is working. Buyers moved quickly enough to exhaust the company's allocation within days.

But I'd ask the obvious question: If buyers were lining up quickly enough to burn through the money in five days, why did they need the subsidy?

California has answered Washington's retreat from EV subsidies by spending state money to keep them going. Californians can decide whether that's what they want their government doing.

The federal EV subsidy may be gone, but in California, taxpayers are still picking up the tab.

Cheap Chinese cars: Trojan horse built to undermine US security?

Why are Washington and Detroit so worried about Chinese automakers?

Most Americans assume the answer is cheap cars. But lower-priced imports are only the visible part of China's advantage.

Companies like BYD aren't simply building vehicles. They're building integrated ecosystems that include batteries, software, and charging infrastructure.

The bigger story is who controls the batteries, software, supply chains, and technology that increasingly determine who wins — and loses — the future of the auto business.

Hard line

To control a nation's car industry is to control an industry that sits at the center of manufacturing, technology, and national security.

That's the assumption behind Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components entirely — and it signals a turning point. His message is blunt: Chinese automakers should not gain a foothold in the United States. This isn't an incremental policy adjustment. It's a hard line.

The automotive industry isn't some niche corner of the economy. It accounts for roughly 22% of trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, making it one of the most important industries on the continent. And now it's being challenged by a global competitor that plays by very different rules.

While the United States tightens restrictions, the international response remains divided. Europe has imposed steep tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, arguing they are being dumped below cost. Canada has taken a different approach, agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese EVs into its market.

That divergence matters because supply chains don't stop at national borders.

Washington is already signaling that any attempt to route Chinese vehicles through Canada or other backdoor channels will face scrutiny. The message is clear: If Chinese vehicles can't enter directly, they won't be allowed to enter indirectly.

Losing control

Nor is this happening in isolation. The Biden administration already laid much of the groundwork through executive actions targeting Chinese vehicle imports over concerns about software, hardware, and data security.

Those concerns aren't hypothetical. U.S. officials have confirmed that Chinese state-sponsored hackers have infiltrated critical infrastructure systems.

Now apply that reality to modern vehicles, which increasingly function as rolling computers. The issue isn't simply where a vehicle is assembled. It's who controls the software, connectivity, and data flowing through it.

That's why Moreno's proposal focuses not only on vehicles themselves, but also on software integration, component sourcing, and corporate partnerships.

That may be a step in the right direction, but the auto industry itself is now pushing for even tougher restrictions.

Fast lane

Major industry groups representing automakers, suppliers, and dealers argue that simply moving Chinese production onto U.S. soil doesn't solve the underlying problem if the technology, software, and supply chains remain controlled elsewhere. That leaves policymakers weighing the benefits of investment and jobs against concerns over long-term dependence on foreign-controlled technology.

At the same time, the global auto industry is changing faster than many manufacturers anticipated.

Toyota executives have warned that the industry's traditional cost structures and manufacturing assumptions may no longer be sufficient in a rapidly changing market. This isn't about minor adjustments. It's about adapting to a fundamentally different competitive landscape.

Chinese companies dominate battery production, accounting for roughly 80% of global output. Batteries are the most expensive component in most electric vehicles and increasingly important in hybrids as well. Control over battery production translates directly into pricing power and manufacturing flexibility.

Companies like BYD aren't simply building vehicles. They're building integrated ecosystems that include batteries, software, and charging infrastructure. That level of vertical integration allows them to move faster and often at lower cost than competitors relying on fragmented global supply chains.

Kevin Carter/Jeff Greenberg/Getty Images

Cashing in their chips

Technology companies are also entering the automotive space with a different mindset. They're not burdened by decades of manufacturing habits or legacy systems. They're focused on software, speed, and scale. Watch companies like NVIDIA and Qualcomm, which are becoming increasingly important players in automotive technology.

For traditional automakers, the challenge is no longer just building a better vehicle. It's building vehicles faster, cheaper, and smarter while navigating regulations that seem to change with every election cycle.

That uncertainty has become a growing frustration across the industry. Executives increasingly complain about regulatory whiplash that makes long-term planning difficult.

Two years ago, the industry was being pushed toward full electrification. Today, many automakers are shifting resources toward hybrids as consumer demand evolves. Those strategic pivots are expensive.

Hyundai executives have acknowledged that competing directly with Chinese manufacturers on price is likely a losing proposition. Their strategy is to compete on quality, brand reputation, and dealer networks.

Price is right

Consumers, however, ultimately care about affordability.

If Chinese manufacturers can consistently deliver competitive vehicles at significantly lower prices, pressure on Western automakers will continue to grow.

That's why this debate isn't going away.

The push to block Chinese vehicles and components is as much about buying time as it is about setting policy. It gives American and allied manufacturers time to strengthen battery production, secure supply chains, and improve their competitive position.

But time alone won't solve the problem.

The United States still possesses enormous advantages in engineering talent, established brands, and one of the strongest dealer networks in the world. Those advantages remain meaningful, but they aren't permanent. They have to be reinforced with competitive products, realistic pricing, and a clear, long-term strategy.

Cars are no longer just transportation. They are increasingly software platforms, data hubs, and strategic industrial assets.

That is why the debate over Chinese vehicles has become far bigger than tariffs or trade policy. The question is whether the United States can remain competitive in an industry being reshaped by technology, batteries, and global supply chains.

Once control of those systems is lost, getting it back becomes far more difficult than anyone expects.

KILL SWITCH AGENDA: You’ll own your car — until the government’s AI says you don’t

If you still believe you “own” your car, you’re already behind the eight ball. What you actually own is a permission slip on four wheels. A machine that watches you, evaluates you, and decides, in real time, whether you’re allowed to drive it.

Not a police officer. Not a court. Not even common sense. But instead — an algorithm.

Every piece of technology fails at some point. When it does, you’re stuck explaining to a machine why you deserve to drive your own vehicle.

And if that sounds like something ripped out of a dystopian script, it’s because we’ve crossed the line where dystopia gets rebranded as public safety. And our elected officials have voted for it.

View to a kill

Automakers are already moving toward biometric identification, behavior-based safety systems, and deeper integration with external data sources.

The stated goal is reducing drunk driving. The real-world effect is broader: cars that monitor drivers and increasingly act on that data. The trigger for all of this sits inside the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Buried in Section 24220 is a mandate that forces the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require “advanced impaired-driving technology” in every new car sold in America. That phrase sounds harmless on purpose.

Because if lawmakers called it what it actually is — a federally required driver surveillance system with the power to disable your vehicle — there might have been a real debate. Instead, it slid through.

Education Images/Getty Images

Designated driver

Here’s what is coming. Cameras locked on your face. Sensors tracking your eyes. Software analyzing your behavior, your attention, even your emotional state. The system doesn’t just look for alcohol impairment; it looks for anything it interprets as risk.

Are you tired? Distracted? Stressed? That’s enough for the system to decide you aren’t fit to drive.

And once that threshold is crossed, your car can refuse to move. You can sit there with the keys, with the title, with the payment book in your glove box, and the answer is still no. You’re not going anywhere.

This is the shift nobody voted for in plain English. And it’s already happening.

Driver monitoring systems are in millions of vehicles globally. Europe mandates them. U.S. automakers are embedding them. This isn’t theoretical. It’s slowly being built into new cars, and from 2027, every new car will have it. No exceptions.

I spy

At the same time, automakers are pushing even further. Ford Motor Company has filed patents that read less like safety features and more like surveillance blueprints. We’re talking about biometric identification, behavioral tracking, even the potential to integrate with external databases.

Your vehicle isn’t just transportation anymore. It’s a data collection terminal with wheels. And once that data exists, it doesn’t stay private.

In-cabin monitoring systems are already being used in fleet vehicles. Live feeds. Driver tracking. Behavior analysis. And it’s being sold as valuable data to whoever wants to pay for it.

Now connect the dots. This government mandate meets corporate capability. That’s not an accident. That’s alignment.

And here’s where it gets even more convenient for everyone involved, except you.

DADSS joke

Congress is pouring money into this. About $45 million has already been allocated for research, with over $100 million backing the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program.

Government and car businesses are not paying to install it in your car. You, the taxpayer, are paying for it.

Automakers will comply, then pass every dollar of cost straight down the line to the buyer. More expensive vehicles. More complex systems. More opportunities for failure. And more profit margins built into something you never asked for.

That’s the quiet part. The loud part? It is about control.

Because once your car has the authority to decide whether you can drive, you’ve handed over something bigger than convenience. You’ve handed over autonomy. And don’t expect a political rescue. Most politicians have bailed on you.

When Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Scott Perry (R-Penn.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas) tried to push back, they exposed a vote showing dozens of Republicans and over 200 Democrats supporting measures tied to this mandate. They passed this into law.

Road to nowhere

That’s not division. That’s consensus. And consensus in Washington usually means one thing: The machine is moving forward, whether you like it or not. This is how permanent change happens. Not with headlines, but with technical language most people will never read. Until it shows up in their driveway.

We’ve seen the warning signs before. In 2017, WikiLeaks revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency had explored the ability to hack vehicle control systems remotely. At the time, people were outraged. Now we’re building systems that make that capability look tame and calling it progress.

Supporters will say this saves lives. And yes, impaired driving is a real issue. But we already have targeted solutions like ignition interlocks for convicted offenders. Which, by the way, there are already over 30 devices that stop drunk driving.

This is universal monitoring.

This is your car assuming you’re guilty before you’ve done anything at all.

Fail safe?

And here’s the question nobody in Washington wants to answer honestly: What happens when the system gets it wrong? Because it will.

False positives. Glitches. Misreads. Software errors. Even placing drivers in dangerous situations. Every piece of technology fails at some point. When it does, you’re stuck explaining to a machine why you deserve to drive your own vehicle.

Good luck with that.

And once the door is open, it doesn’t close.

If your car can stop you for “impairment,” what’s next?

Speed enforcement built into the vehicle?

Geofencing where your car simply won’t go?

Insurance companies tapping into your driving data in real time?

Law enforcement accessing in-cabin feeds?

None of that requires a leap. It’s the next logical step.

And the groundwork is already being laid and can change with no notice.

No way out

Meanwhile, your escape routes are disappearing. Older vehicles are being pushed off the road through regulation, parts shortages, and policy pressure. The market is being engineered so that opting out becomes less realistic every year.

You won’t be forced into this overnight.

You’ll just wake up one day and realize every new car on the lot plays by the same rules. That’s how control scales. Slow, steady, and almost invisible until it’s too late.

To be precise, Section 24220 doesn’t flip a literal kill switch today. But it creates the legal and technological pathway for systems that can absolutely prevent your vehicle from operating based on algorithmic decisions. And this is the law, not just an idea. And it will be in all new vehicles.

Call it whatever makes it easier to swallow.

If your car decides you’re not driving, the outcome is the same.

This isn’t about left or right. It’s about power — who has it, who’s gaining more of it, and who’s quietly losing it.

Right now, drivers are on the losing end. And that is not about to change.

And once this system is fully embedded, reversing it won’t be simple, cheap, or quick. It will be treated as essential infrastructure, too big to remove, too normalized to question.

That’s the real endgame.

Not safety.

Not innovation.

Control, baked into the very machines Americans rely on every single day.

And as of today, only a few officials are fighting on our side.

Who gets to decide when you’re allowed to drive? Because if the answer isn’t you, then you don’t own your car. You never did.

Blinded by modern headlights? A new visor aims to cut the glare

Night driving used to be routine. Now for many drivers, it’s something they actively dread.

The reason is simple: Modern headlights are getting brighter — and for everyone outside the vehicle using them, that often means blinding glare. Drivers are dealing with harsh, white LED and laser lights that can overwhelm their vision in seconds. It’s not just uncomfortable. It’s a real safety issue.

Instead of flipping down a solid visor that blocks part of the windshield, the system uses a clear panel that darkens electronically.

Now Michigan-based auto tech company Gentex says it may have a solution.

Bright lights, big pity

Automakers have spent years pushing more powerful lighting systems in the name of safety. On paper, brighter headlights improve visibility for the driver behind the wheel.

But on real roads, the effect is more complicated.

For oncoming traffic, those same lights can reduce visibility, not improve it. Drivers report being dazzled, losing contrast, and struggling to see lane markings, pedestrians, or obstacles for several seconds after exposure.

That’s not a minor inconvenience. At highway speeds, even a brief loss of clear vision can have serious consequences.

And the data backs up what drivers already know.

A 2024 European survey found that 71% of drivers say headlight glare is intolerable or extremely annoying. More than half say they sometimes squint or briefly close their eyes to cope. A majority report difficulty seeing the road during those moments.

In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says glare is now the number one lighting-related complaint from drivers.

Nightly trade-off

This is a classic example of a well-intentioned change creating a new problem.

Headlights have become more powerful due to advances in LED and laser technology, along with evolving safety standards. But there has been less focus on how those lights affect everyone else on the road.

The result is a trade-off drivers feel every night: One driver sees better; everyone else sees worse.

That imbalance is now drawing regulatory attention. European regulators are studying whether lighting rules need to change, and in the U.S., complaints continue to rise.

But regulatory fixes take time — and in the meantime, drivers still have to deal with the problem.

Chris Graythen/Getty Images

Dim some

That’s where companies like Gentex come in.

The proposed solution is a transparent, dimmable sun visor designed to reduce glare from oncoming headlights. Instead of flipping down a solid visor that blocks part of the windshield, the system uses a clear panel that darkens electronically. You can still see through it, but the harsh light is softened.

The technology builds on something many drivers already trust: auto-dimming rearview mirrors. Sensors detect bright light, and the glass adjusts instantly to reduce glare.

Bringing that same concept to the front of the vehicle is a logical next step — and in practice, it works.

In testing and demonstration, the effect is noticeable. The glare is reduced without blocking the road ahead, which is the key difference from a traditional visor. It doesn’t feel like a work-around so much as a natural extension of a feature drivers already rely on.

Eye spy

For drivers who regularly deal with bright, poorly aimed headlights, this kind of technology could make a meaningful difference.

It reduces eyestrain. It makes night driving less fatiguing. And importantly, it does so without requiring drivers to change how they drive or where they refuel — something that has been a sticking point with other new automotive technologies.

That’s part of what makes this approach compelling.

Rather than waiting for a full redesign of headlight standards — or expecting perfect compliance across millions of vehicles — this is a solution that works within the reality drivers already face.

In many ways, this is how the auto industry has always evolved.

A problem emerges. Regulations lag behind. And suppliers step in with technology that improves the driving experience in the meantime.

Made in the shade

Gentex has done this before with auto-dimming mirrors. This visor builds on that same idea — using relatively simple, proven technology to solve a very real problem.

And because it doesn’t require a complete redesign of the vehicle, it’s easier for automakers to adopt.

Like most new features, the dimmable visor will likely appear first in higher-end vehicles when it launches around 2027. Over time, as costs come down, it could move into more mainstream models.

That matters because the underlying issue isn’t going away. Headlights will likely continue getting brighter as automakers pursue better forward visibility and new lighting technologies. Which means glare will remain part of the driving experience.

Practical work-around

Gentex’s dimmable visor doesn’t solve the root issue of headlight glare — but it doesn’t need to. What it does is something more immediate: It gives drivers a way to manage a problem they already deal with every night.

And based on early impressions, it does that in a way that feels intuitive, effective, and easy to live with. In today’s automotive landscape, that kind of practical innovation can go a long way.

Because for many drivers, the challenge isn’t seeing the road. It’s seeing clearly when the road lights up in front of them.

For more on this, check out my interview with Gentex's Craig Piersma.

EV bubble bursting? Automakers lose billions as tax credits disappear

America’s largest automakers are retreating from their electric vehicle ambitions after taking staggering financial hits — a shift highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal report revealing more than $50 billion in combined charges.

“Ford announced in December that it expected to take $19.5 billion in charges to retrench amid sinking EV demand. Together, Ford, General Motors and Jeep-maker Stellantis have now announced more than $50 billion in charges as they pull back on their EV ambitions,” the article in the Wall Street Journal reads.

“EV tax credit expiring, which was, of course, part of the Big Beautiful Bill, goes into effect late 2025,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere explains while looking at a chart from the Wall Street Journal.

“And you see monthly sales have dropped off by well over 50%, which is remarkable,” Stu says.

“Net profit, you see, everything going fine for these companies — General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis — until this EV credit goes away. Things drop through the floor. Again, when you’re building your business based on some government credit — if the only way it can succeed is if the government is giving you money, then you haven't built a business,” he explains.

“What you’ve built is a rent-seeking operation. What you’ve built is an opportunity to bilk other taxpayers to pay for your crappy business. That’s what we’ve built here with the EV bubble,” he continues.

And while other companies' EV sales are doing better than GM, Ford, and Stellantis, they are still dropping.

“The sales are dropping, and yes, they are dropping by more in the United States,” Stu says.

“Remember, if you have built a company, basically, that is completely dependent on the government giving you free money every time you sell something, you haven’t really built a business at all,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trading in your car? Here's how to get the biggest payout

When you find the right new car after a long search, it can be tempting to close as soon as possible. But before you sign, there’s one question that can save — or cost — you thousands.

What should you do with your current car?

Should you trade it in at the dealership or sell it privately? It’s more than a convenience question — it’s a strategy. And with used-car prices still unsettled, the right choice can make a real financial difference.

Let’s break down what actually matters and what the dealership won’t always volunteer.

Financial fork

Most buyers can’t keep their old car when upgrading. They use it as part of the down payment. But there are two very different paths:

Trade it in.
Sell it privately for typically more money.

Reality check: Dealerships rarely offer full market value. They need to buy low and sell high — it’s business. Knowing that puts you in control.

If your car is worth $15,000 privately, a dealer may offer $12,000. That’s $3,000 lost — money you could use to lower your loan or upgrade trims.

Why trade-ins win

Sometimes a trade-in is the smarter move — especially in states offering a sales tax credit.

Example: Buy a $40,000 car and trade in a $10,000 vehicle. You’re taxed only on $30,000, which can save you hundreds.

If the tax break closes the gap between your private-sale price and the trade-in offer, taking the trade may be the better move. Plus, there’s no hassle: no listings, no test drives, no strangers.

The timing sweet spot

Timing matters. The best moment to sell or trade is before your factory warranty expires.

3 years / 36,000 miles for basic.
5 years / 60,000 miles for powertrain.

Cars still under warranty are easier to resell and command higher prices. If your car is paid off, clean, and under those mileage limits, you’re in the prime window.

When you owe money

You can trade in a car with an outstanding loan — but be careful. If your car’s value is less than the payoff, that’s negative equity.

Your options: pay the difference Or roll it into your new loan (not ideal).

This is how people end up upside-down for years. Avoid it by calling your lender for your payoff amount and checking your car’s true value on KBB or Edmunds.

If you have positive equity, that difference becomes your down payment.

CBS/Getty Images

Watching the market

Used-car prices have swung wildly since the pandemic. The market is still strong for vehicles that are under five years old; well below 14,500 miles/year; and properly maintained.

If that describes your car, a private sale may be worth it. If not — high miles, cosmetic issues, or a soft local market — a trade-in may be the smarter, calmer choice.

Mileage and condition

Both private buyers and dealers care about the same things: mileage and condition. Before selling or trading, get the car detailed; fix small cosmetic flaws; replace worn tires or weak batteries; and gather maintenance records.

A clean, documented car always sells faster and for more.

The private sale payoff

Selling privately usually brings the highest price. But it has strings attached: writing the listing, taking photos, answering questions, meeting buyers, and handling title and payment. If that sounds like too much, a trade-in may be worth the lower price. But if you have a desirable car and the patience, a private sale can easily beat any dealer offer.

Final decision points

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. The right move depends on your equity, your time, your state's tax laws, your loan payoff, and your tolerance for hassle.

What matters is going in informed.

Know your numbers. Know your choices. Don’t let a dealer rush you. Done right, you can upgrade smoothly and walk away financially ahead.

Bottom line: Do your homework, understand the trade-offs, and choose the path that keeps the most money in your pocket.

Locked out: How Big Auto could destroy the used-car market

When it comes to replacing your daily driver, “used” is often the smartest buy. A low-mileage model from a few years back can save you real money while offering nearly all the same features. And as long as you do your homework, a well-maintained used car is every bit as serviceable as something brand new.

But that might not be true for much longer.

In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.

Automakers are steadily locking down the data that modern cars generate. If they succeed, independent repair shops, do-it-yourself mechanics — and your wallet — will feel the squeeze. The stakes are enormous: 273,000 repair shops, 900,000 technicians, and 293 million vehicles could be affected.

Stick with me. By the end of this, you’ll know exactly why the national right-to-repair movement is pushing the REPAIR Act — and why it’s worth calling your legislator today.

Gatekeeping data

For decades, car repair was straightforward. The OBD-II port — standardized in 1996 — gave shops and owners direct access to diagnostic data. That openness fueled competition, kept repairs affordable, and protected your right to choose who services your car.

Today’s vehicles are computers on wheels, containing hundreds of microprocessors and dozens of electronic control units. And instead of sending data through that familiar port, cars now stream diagnostics wirelessly through telematics systems. In 2021, half of all vehicles already had this capability. By 2030, McKinsey projects 95% of new cars will be fully connected.

Here’s the problem: That wireless data goes straight to the manufacturer. They become the gatekeeper — deciding who gets access, at what time, and for what price.

Independent shops get shut out or forced to pay steep fees for limited information. Consumers get funneled back to dealerships. And while telematics can offer real benefits — remote diagnostics, predictive maintenance — those perks mostly stay inside the dealership network when automakers control the data.

Drivers pay the price

When manufacturers monopolize data, drivers pay the price.

Higher repair costs: Independent shops must buy expensive, manufacturer-approved tools or subscriptions — or they can’t complete repairs at all.
Fewer options: Your trusted neighborhood shop may be unable to work on newer models, leaving you with dealership-only service.
Privacy erosion: Every drive generates information on your habits, location, and behavior. Automakers routinely share or sell that data to insurers, advertisers, and third parties — often without clear consent.

In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.

The aftermarket fallout

Independent repair is a massive economic engine. Cut off their access to data, and the ripple effects are huge:

Aftermarket parts makers struggle to design compatible components.
Innovation slows.
Dealers gain monopolies on everything from diagnostics to repairs.
Wait times increase while prices rise.

Voters have noticed. Massachusetts passed a telematics right-to-repair initiative in 2020 with 75% approval. Maine followed in 2023 with 84%. Those wins matter — but a patchwork of state laws won’t protect drivers nationwide.

Enter the REPAIR Act

Industry groups — including the Auto Care Association, MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers, and the CAR Coalition — are backing the REPAIR Act (H.R. 906). It’s not radical. It simply updates consumer rights for the connected-car era.

Four core principles drive the bill:

No artificial barriers to repair or maintenance.
Owners and their chosen shops get direct access to vehicle-generated data.
No manufacturer can mandate proprietary tools or dealer-only equipment.
A stakeholder advisory committee keeps the rules current as technology evolves.

The act restores choice. You can repair your own vehicle — or choose any shop you trust. It bans anticompetitive behavior like withholding service information or requiring dealer-exclusive parts. And crucially, wireless data must be shared through secure, standardized, owner-approved channels.

NHTSA and the FTC would set cybersecurity rules. Consumers would receive clear data-sharing notifications. And if manufacturers abuse the system, the FTC can act fast.

400tmax via iStock/Getty Images

Skimp my ride

Without the REPAIR Act, the used-car market collapses into uncertainty. Vehicles that require dealer-only repairs will lose value quickly. Planned obsolescence accelerates. And as cars become fully connected, the familiar OBD-II era winds down.

A car you buy in 2025 could be effectively “dealer-locked” by 2030.

Manufacturers argue they need total control for cybersecurity. But secure, standardized data access — the model used globally — proves you can protect vehicle integrity without destroying competition.

The aftermarket already has a workable framework: encrypted data, authenticated access, owner permissions, and interoperable platforms. It's practical, safe, and ready today.

The price of inaction

Without federal action:

Repair costs rise 20%-50%.
Independent shops close.
Innovation dries up.
Consumer privacy evaporates.
The used-car market contracts.

The REPAIR Act reverses all of that. It creates a fair system where manufacturers build the cars — but the aftermarket keeps them running.

Don’t wait. Act.

This affects every driver. Contact your representative and urge support for the REPAIR Act.
It protects choice, savings, and your right to repair in a digital automotive world.

Your car, your data, your repairs. That’s what’s on the line.

Ford tells investors to vote against DEI and 'Net Zero' policies as years of diversity initiatives come to an end

The Ford Motor Company told its investors not to vote in favor of shareholder proposals related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In a letter to investors, Ford presented a series of proposals and voting items for shareholders to consider. The voting items included the election of its directors, which included at least three Ford family members such as Henry Ford III, the great-great-grandson of founder Henry Ford.

Other items up for vote included ratification of an independent accounting firm, a vote to approve compensation for executives, and a vote on the company's tax benefit plan.

The last two items on the voting list were labeled "a shareholder proposal relating to a Report on Supply Chain [Green House Gas] Emissions and Net Zero Goals," and "a shareholder proposal relating to a Report on DEI Strategy."

A list of voting items provided to shareholders from Ford Motor Company.

'Net Zero policies have really hurt the bottom line.'

At the same time, the company listed board recommendations for each voting item and person on the voting list. Under the column labeled "Board Recommends," Ford recommended "for," or in favor of, every single item on the list except for the net zero and DEI proposals. For those items, the company recommended "against."

Ford recommended that shareholders vote against DEI and Net Zero proposals.

"It's good to see Ford change their stance on DEI and Net Zero initiatives," said a Ford investor, who spoke to Blaze News under the condition of anonymity. "Net Zero policies have really hurt the bottom line of auto manufacturers in North America," the investor added.

It has been a long road for Ford and its DEI initiatives. In 2023, the company debuted its "very gay Raptor" truck with a commercial that showed the pickup coming out of the mud to reveal a vehicle wrap of the transgender pride flag. Then the ad showcased the phrase "redefining tough" as the transgender colors flashed through the text.

In the summer of 2024, Ford responded to activist Robby Starbuck with news that it would no longer participate in a credit system from the progressive activist group the Human Rights Campaign, nor would it make donations to gay Pride events.

Furthermore, the CEO called for respect and civility toward all ideologies.

The Human Rights Campaign responded to the announcement at the time by calling Ford "not-so-tough," mocking the usual Ford Tough motto. The HRC also said the company cowered to an "internet troll at the expense of employees and communities."

"With the LGBTQ+ community wielding $1.4 TRILLION in spending power and 30% of Gen Z identifying as LGBTQ+, we won't forget this shortsighted decision and its impact," the HRC wrote on X.

Ford's company shareholder vote closes on May 7.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Trump Can Make The Auto Industry Great Again

Some of the world’s largest automakers may not survive our government-created debacle, but collapse of the industry can still be stopped.

UAW backs Biden's 'strongest-ever' vehicle emission standards, claims it won't cut autoworker jobs

The United Auto Workers union recently voiced its support for the Biden administration's finalized vehicle emission standards, according to a Wednesday statement from the union.

The administration's Environmental Protection Agency unveiled the "strongest-ever" pollution regulations, effectively forcing most new car sales to be electric vehicles by 2032, Blaze News previously reported.

The regulations impact light-duty vehicles starting with the model year 2027, ensuring that more than 56% of new cars sold are zero-emissions by 2032. The restrictions targeting gas-powered vehicles aim to push the American market to opt for hybrid- and electric-powered alternatives.

The finalized standards scaled back on the agency's previous proposal by rolling out a slower implementation to allow automakers additional time to reach the administration's goals. The decision to pull back the standards was made after several manufacturers called the EPA's initial proposal impractical.

However, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan assured reporters this week that the slower rollout would not impact the end target.

"Let me be clear: Our final rule delivers the same, if not more, pollution reduction than we set out in our proposal," he stated.

On Wednesday, the UAW declared its support for the new EPA restrictions on light-duty vehicles, noting that the agency considered its concerns when finalizing the standards. It called the new regulations "more feasible" than the agency's initial proposal.

The union reaffirmed its support for "protecting the environment" by "creat[ing] a cleaner domestic auto industry," claiming that the "climate crisis has taken a heavy toll on working people."

"We reject the fearmongering that says tackling the climate crisis must come at the cost of union jobs. Ambitious and achievable regulations can support both. We call on the Biden Administration to hold automakers accountable so that this rule is not used as an excuse to cut or offshore jobs," the UAW said.

Late last year, Stellantis announced upcoming layoffs, partly due to "the need to manage sales of the vehicles they produce to comply with California emissions regulations that are measured on a state-by-state basis."

The union called on the federal government to implement "tariff protections" to ensure the EV industry would not become dominated by import automakers.

In January, the UAW endorsed President Biden in the upcoming presidential election, stating that he is "someone who stands up with us and supports our cause."

Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford Motor Company, posted a statement on X in response to the EPA's announcement.

"The @EPA final rule is ambitious and challenging, and meeting these goals will require close public-private cooperation. @Ford is absolutely committed to lowering CO2 emissions while offering customers real choice across hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles," Farley stated.

Even the UAW claims that the EV market is "growing." However, car rental company Hertz, which committed significant investments to expanding its EV fleet, announced in January that it would sell off 25% of its inventory due to "expenses related to collision and damage." On Monday, the company announced that its CEO, Stephen Scherr, who supported the switch to EVs, would be stepping down at the end of the month. The company stated that it would use the profits from the sale of the EVs to purchase gas-powered vehicles to restock its fleet.

Meanwhile, thousands of automobile dealerships nationwide have reported that the demand for EVs has significantly slowed. In November, a coalition of nearly 4,000 dealerships urged the Biden administration to roll back its new "unrealistic" emissions standards, claiming that EVs are "stacking up on our lots" despite "deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives." The auto dealers called the EPA's proposed regulations "unrealistic based on current and forecasted customer demand."

The EPA contends that the move to zero-emission vehicles will "avoid more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions and provide nearly $100 billion of annual net benefits to society, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits due to improved air quality, and $62 billion in reduced annual fuel costs, and maintenance and repair costs for drivers."