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



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

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

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

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

Junk science

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

Without them, many repairs would cost significantly more.

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

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

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

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

Eventually, those costs work their way through the system.

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

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

Batteries included

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: 10 tactics to beat even the pushiest car salesman

Mark Sullivan/Getty Images

Free to fix

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

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

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

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

Where there's fire ...

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

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

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

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

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

White House Refuses To Say Whether Trump Admin Will Keep Funding Electric Mail Trucks

The multi-year upgrade, expected to cost around $9.6 billion in total, comes as the USPS is rapidly losing money due to mismanaging its pension obligations.

'Weak Link' Gavin Newsom Took $50K From Chinese EV Exec of Now-Blacklisted 'Chinese Military Company,' According to New Pentagon Classification

California governor Gavin Newsom (D.) received $50,000 in campaign contributions from a Chinese electric vehicle executive whose company the Pentagon blacklisted this week over its ties to China's military.

The post 'Weak Link' Gavin Newsom Took $50K From Chinese EV Exec of Now-Blacklisted 'Chinese Military Company,' According to New Pentagon Classification appeared first on .

The REAL reason gas prices are so high (the federal tax is just the beginning)



We're hearing a lot of noise right now about the federal gas tax.

Some believe President Trump already eliminated it. Others are convinced an executive order is about to slash prices at the pump.

Americans are asking why drivers in some states consistently pay dramatically more than drivers elsewhere.

The reality is more complicated.

Piece of the puzzle

Even if Congress suspended the federal gas tax tomorrow, fuel prices would remain far higher than many drivers expect. That's because the federal tax has become one of the smaller pieces of a much larger pricing puzzle.

And that's the part of the debate most headlines miss.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has announced plans to introduce legislation suspending the federal gas tax, which today adds 18.4 cents per gallon to gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon to diesel fuel. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has argued that the tax has largely outlived its original purpose, since the interstate highway system it helped fund is mostly complete.

The proposals immediately sparked headlines suggesting relief could be coming for drivers.

Even if Congress approved a suspension tomorrow, however, the savings would likely be smaller than many consumers expect. Most estimates suggest drivers might see roughly 15 cents per gallon in actual savings.

That's real money, particularly for families with long commutes and businesses that rely on transportation. But it wouldn't suddenly make fuel inexpensive again.

Because federal taxes are only part of the equation.

California scheming

The bigger story is what many states continue adding on top.

California remains the clearest example. While the national average for regular gasoline recently hovered around $4.17 per gallon, California drivers were paying nearly $6 per gallon on average, with some regions approaching $7. Diesel prices climbed even higher.

That gap isn't an accident.

California drivers face some of the highest fuel taxes and regulatory costs in the country. State excise taxes, special fuel-blend requirements, low-carbon fuel programs, cap-and-trade costs, environmental fees, and refinery regulations all contribute to higher prices.

Those costs become permanent parts of the system, and consumers pay them every time they fill up.

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

Jade Gao/Bettmann/Getty Images

Policy pain

That's why Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.) introduced the Gas Tax Reduction Act, which would reduce certain federal transportation funding to states imposing gasoline taxes above 50 cents per gallon.

Whether the bill advances or not, it highlights a reality many drivers already recognize: Policy choices can have a significant impact on fuel prices.

Drivers are often told that fuel prices are primarily the result of global events or market conditions. What receives far less attention is the role government policy plays in determining the final price consumers see at the pump.

Taxes, refinery capacity, fuel mandates, and transportation policy all play a role in determining what consumers ultimately pay at the pump.

Most consumers don't follow every detail of energy policy, but they understand what happens when they fill up their vehicles. Higher fuel costs ripple through nearly every part of the economy.

Higher diesel prices increase shipping costs. Grocery prices rise. Contractors, delivery companies, farmers, and small businesses all face higher operating expenses that eventually get passed on to consumers.

Road rage

The gas-tax debate is resonating because many Americans are beginning to connect fuel prices to broader policy decisions. They're asking why drivers in some states consistently pay dramatically more than drivers elsewhere. They're questioning why taxes and fees continue rising while road quality often fails to improve at the same pace.

Those are reasonable questions.

The federal gas tax was originally created to help build and maintain the interstate highway system. Today, many motorists feel they are paying more while receiving less in return. Roads remain in poor condition in many areas despite billions collected annually from drivers.

At the same time, governments are already looking for new sources of transportation revenue.

As electric vehicles and hybrids become more common, many states are experimenting with replacement taxes, including EV registration fees, mileage-based taxes, and road-usage charges. Officials understand that gasoline-tax revenue eventually declines when fewer people buy fuel.

Transportation taxes aren't disappearing. They're evolving.

Political theater

Which brings us back to the current debate.

The real issue isn't whether Congress temporarily suspends the federal gas tax and saves drivers a few cents per gallon.

The bigger question is how much of today's fuel pricing structure is driven by decades of taxes, regulations, mandates, and policy decisions layered onto the cost of energy.

That's the part many headlines overlook.

Americans don't need more political theater. They need honest conversations about energy policy, infrastructure spending, refinery capacity, and the real factors driving transportation costs.

Because drivers don't care about talking points when they're standing at the pump.

They care about affordability.

And right now, many Americans feel they're paying more every year while getting fewer answers about where all that money is going.

Report: California’s Partnership With The CCP To Undermine American Energy May Be Illegal

China is influencing climate control policy as a form of economic warfare to silently destroy the US.

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



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

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

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

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

Translation: The market isn’t cooperating.

Truck stop

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

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

Because that’s what Americans are actually buying.

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

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

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

RELATED: Stellantis just blew $26 billion on bad EV bet

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Hero to Zero

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

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

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

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

But consumers didn’t get the memo.

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

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

Money talks

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

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

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

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

Illinois wants to track every mile its drivers drive — is your state next?



The next big fight over your car isn’t about gas prices, emissions, or electric vehicles. It’s about something bigger: who controls the road — and how much control they have over you while you’re on it.

What’s happening in Illinois should get drivers’ attentions. Lawmakers are advancing the Road Usage Charge Act, introduced by state Rep. Ram Villivalam (D), as a pilot program to study a mileage-based tax. On paper, it sounds routine. In reality, it’s the first step toward replacing the gas tax with a system that charges you for every mile you drive.

History shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

For decades, drivers have paid for roads through fuel taxes. You fill up, you pay your share. It’s simple, predictable, and largely invisible. But as more drivers move into electric vehicles and high-efficiency cars, gas tax revenue is declining. States like Illinois, which rely heavily on that revenue, are looking for alternatives.

Instead of cutting spending or rethinking how funds are used, they’re moving toward a system that expands oversight.

Double trouble

Illinois drivers are already paying for the road — heavily. Under Gov. JB Pritzker (D), the state doubled its gas tax in 2019, making it one of the highest in the country. Add tolls, registration fees, and local taxes, and drivers are already funding the system at a premium. Now comes the next step: charging not for fuel, but for movement itself.

A mileage-based tax — often called a vehicle miles traveled tax — sounds straightforward. Drive more, pay more. But the details matter. Some proposals rely on annual odometer reporting. Others involve installing tracking devices or using connected vehicle data.

This is where it stops being just a tax policy.

Once a system is in place to measure how far you drive, it can also measure when you drive, where you go, and how often you travel. Even groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns about the risks that come with collecting that kind of data. And history shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

RELATED: FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock

VIEW Press/Getty Images

Miles to go

Supporters argue this is about fairness. If electric vehicle owners aren’t paying gas taxes, they should still contribute to road funding. On its face, that argument makes sense. But this proposal doesn’t just target EVs. It applies to everyone — including drivers already paying high fuel taxes every time they fill up.

The result could be double taxation.

There’s also the cost of running the system itself. A mileage-based tax isn’t free to administer. It requires new technology, enforcement mechanisms, and ongoing oversight. Those costs don’t disappear — they get passed on to drivers, adding another layer of expense before you even get to the per-mile charge.

Before any of that happens, there’s a more basic question: Where is the current money going? States already collect billions through gas taxes, tolls, and vehicle fees. Before asking drivers to pay more — or pay differently — there should be clear accountability for how those funds are being used.

That question rarely gets answered.

What tends to grow instead is the system itself — more programs, more layers, more cost.

I spy

Illinois has already seen pushback on similar proposals. A 2019 effort was shelved after public backlash. Drivers understood what was at stake: not just higher costs, but more oversight and less control.

At its core, this is about how driving is changing. Driving in America has always meant a certain level of independence — the ability to go where you want, when you want, without someone tracking the details. A mileage-based system, especially one tied to data collection, begins to change that, turning driving into something that’s measured, recorded, and managed.

That’s a fundamental shift.

A better way

To be clear, declining gas tax revenue is a real issue. As vehicles become more efficient and electric adoption grows, states will need to adapt. But there are simpler ways to do it. If EVs aren’t contributing equally, adjust registration fees. Create transparent, targeted solutions. Keep the system straightforward and limited.

What’s being proposed goes further. It builds a framework that could apply to every driver, not just the segment creating the revenue gap. And once that framework exists, it won’t stay narrow — these systems tend to expand over time.

Illinois may be calling this a pilot program. But other states are watching closely.

Drivers should be asking a basic question: Is paying for the road one thing — and being tracked to use it something else entirely?

Because once the system is in place, it won’t be easy to roll back.


5 cars from the 2026 New York International Auto Show you might actually want to buy



The New York International Auto Show still draws a crowd — but like all auto shows these days, it's not what it used to be.

That’s something Karl Brauer and I talked about on a recent episode of "The Drive." Automakers don’t rely on shows the way they once did. Big reveals happen online now. A lot of media events are private. The industry has moved on, even if the show is still here.

For consumers, though, it still works. You can walk the floor, sit in everything, and compare cars side by side without a salesperson pressuring you.

Award-winners get the headlines. Concept cars pull people in. But if you’re seriously shopping for a vehicle — or even thinking about it over the next year — what matters is what you can actually buy, what it costs, and how it fits into your life.

Here are five vehicles from this year’s show that stood out for real-world buyers.

1. Volkswagen Atlas

Volkswagen didn’t try to reinvent the Atlas. When you've nailed the basics like this, that’s probably the right call.

It’s still one of the few SUVs where the third row actually works for real passengers, not just kids. Pricing starts around $40,000, and the updated interior is simpler and easier to use.

It's not pushing the boundaries of car design. But it is beautifully practical — and that’s exactly why it sells.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

2. Kia EV3

There’s been a lot of talk about “affordable EVs.” Very few have actually shown up.

The EV3 could be different.

Kia is targeting a starting price under $30,000, with roughly 300 miles of range and access to Tesla’s charging network. If it delivers, the EV3 becomes one of the first electric vehicles that makes sense for mainstream buyers.

That’s still a big “if.” But it’s one to watch.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

3. Hyundai Boulder Concept

Hyundai caught people off guard with the Hyundai Boulder Concept, a Bronco- and Wrangler-style off-roader — and it’s expected to be gas-powered.

That’s not random.

While parts of the industry are still pushing all-electric lineups, Hyundai is clearly leaving room for what buyers actually want: options. Gas, hybrid, or electric.

If the Boulder makes it to production without being watered down, it could shake up a segment that hasn’t seen much real competition.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

4. Genesis GV70

Genesis keeps showing up at these events, but the bigger story is what’s happening outside the show.

The GV70 is its best-selling model — and it makes sense. It’s competitively priced, well-equipped, and doesn’t overcomplicate things.

At the same time, Genesis is rolling out its new Magma performance line. That’s more about brand building, but it shows confidence — and momentum.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

5. Kia Seltos

Quality doesn't always announce itself with huge fanfare. Case in point: the refreshed Kia Seltos.

It’s smaller, more affordable, and now styled more like a mini Telluride. For a lot of buyers, that’s the sweet spot — usable, reasonably priced, and easy to live with.

It’s not going to win many awards — but it’ll handle the everyday stuff that actually matters.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Alleged forced labor scandal rocks EV industry: ‘This is the price of environmentalism’



A disturbing exposé from the Washington Post is raising serious ethical questions about the global electric vehicle boom, detailing alleged “slavery-like” conditions tied to a Brazilian plant operated by Chinese automaker BYD.

The exposé details a specialized task force’s findings of the alleged scheme, which “began in China, where job postings and foremen issued false promises of good pay — usually more than $1,700 per month — often without committing them to writing.”

“At the Brazilian border, workers were brought in on visas sponsored by [Chinese electric automaker] BYD that identified them incorrectly as specialized technicians rather than manual laborers,” the exposé alleges.


“They didn’t speak Portuguese. Many of their passports, investigators found, had been locked inside a drawer at the jobsite. Most of their pay — around half of what was promised, prosecutors said — was deposited in China, not Brazil. Some of the housing structures were patrolled by an armed guard, according to investigators,” it continues.

“What China was doing was saying, ‘Hey, yeah, we’re going to pay you all this money. We’re just going to deposit it in an account that you can’t access because you’re halfway around the world. How does that do for you?’” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere comments.

The article also points out that the workers “never seemed to do anything for fun,” and their food was prepared in a garage “amid industrial detritus and vermin.”

But it gets even worse, with the Washington Post writing that “authorities alleged BYD and its partners had preyed upon 220 vulnerable laborers — some of whom were illiterate — duping them with false promises of high pay.”

“They were then pressed into punishing labor from which they could not escape. Many had their passports confiscated, prosecutors alleged, and much of their promised pay was withheld,” the article continues.

“This is the price of your environmentalism, boys and girls. This is what’s happening all over the place. ... BYD is making these vehicles incredibly cheaply. This is not the way that Tesla is doing business by any means. But there are companies that do it this way,” Stu comments.

“We’re used to this type of thing from places like China. They can get these prices way, way down, and they’re building it on the backs of people like this,” he alleges.

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.

America built smart cars on dumb road funding



On Friday, in an open letter to the 119th Congress, I joined more than 100 economists and public policy experts from universities, think tanks, and businesses across the country urging practical reform of the Highway Trust Fund. Our message is straightforward: Congress can — and should — take incremental, bipartisan steps now to put the fund on a stable, sustainable path.

The Highway Trust Fund long embodied a simple user-fee compact: People who use the roads pay for them. That bargain delivered predictable funding and reinforced fiscal discipline.

Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Now the system is fraying. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with inflation, rising construction costs, or improved fuel efficiency. Electric and hybrid vehicles — a growing share of the fleet — often contribute little or nothing through fuel taxes. Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Congress does not need to solve every long-term challenge in one bill. It can make meaningful progress in the next surface transportation reauthorization, which lawmakers must pass by Sept. 30.

First, lawmakers should reinforce the user-pay principle by ensuring all road users — including drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles — contribute a fair share through transparent, enforceable mechanisms. Fairness demands no less. When some users effectively get an exemption, the burden shifts to everyone else or to taxpayers at large.

Second, Congress should improve price sensitivity. Heavy commercial vehicles impose disproportionate wear and tear on highways and bridges. User fees should better reflect vehicle weight and road impact. That change would improve fairness and send clearer economic signals about infrastructure costs. A system that reflects actual use and damage is more rational — and more defensible.

Third, legislators should evaluate a transition from per-gallon fuel taxes to mileage-based user fees. A well-designed road-usage charge would ensure payments reflect miles driven and vehicle characteristics.

Any transition must preserve the core user-pay principle while avoiding disproportionate burdens on low-income households, small businesses, and farmers. State pilot programs show mileage-based systems can protect privacy and maintain public trust. Congress should build on that experience rather than delay modernization.

Fourth, Washington should reduce reliance on general-fund bailouts and set clearer expectations for revenue reform in the next major reauthorization cycle. Temporary patches undermine fiscal responsibility and create uncertainty for state planners and private investors.

RELATED: Trump is getting the job done for American truckers

Photo by Chris Kleponis/Polaris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Revenue reform alone will not secure the system. Transportation infrastructure now depends on digital systems that guide vehicles and manage logistics. America’s economy relies heavily on GPS-enabled positioning and timing. Disruptions to systems overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation would ripple across freight networks, emergency services, and daily commutes.

China and Russia have shown the capability to interfere with satellite systems and GPS signals. A prolonged outage would cost billions of dollars per day. Vehicles sold in the U.S. should incorporate tested backup positioning technologies to guard against such threats.

Supply-chain security also demands attention. Chinese firms such as BYD and CATL dominate global battery production. The concentration of manufacturing — and embedded telematics — in companies subject to influence by the Chinese Communist Party raises legitimate concerns about espionage and strategic vulnerability.

The U.S. should expand domestic battery production and charging infrastructure, reducing dependence on foreign-controlled systems that can compromise data security and resilience.

Finally, Congress should pursue sensible federal deregulation to reduce the needlessly high cost of transportation projects — and require state and local partners to do the same. Streamlined permitting, faster reviews, and fewer duplicative requirements would stretch every Highway Trust Fund dollar and deliver projects faster.

These proposals are not partisan. They are practical steps rooted in fiscal responsibility and national security. A stable source of funding for roads is not merely a budget issue; it is essential to economic competitiveness, national mobility, and public safety. By reinforcing the user-pay principle, modernizing revenue mechanisms, protecting digital infrastructure, and strengthening supply chains, Congress can signal a shared commitment to safeguarding America’s transportation future.

The 119th Congress has an opportunity to restore the Highway Trust Fund’s integrity. Lawmakers should seize it.