Attention car buyers: For once, Washington has some good news for you.

The federal government has finalized a major change to fuel-economy rules that could make vehicles less expensive for automakers to build. The new standards are projected to produce a fleet-wide average of about 34.9 mpg by model year 2031, down from the 50.4 mpg trajectory under the previous rules.

If manufacturers now face tens of billions of dollars less in projected technology costs, I want to know what happens to those savings.

The Transportation Department estimates the change will reduce manufacturers' average cost by about $1,300 per vehicle and save Americans roughly $138 billion over five years.

Room to maneuver

But the number that jumped out at me is $60.6 billion.

That's how much the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration projects automakers' technology costs will decline through 2031 compared with the previous standards. General Motors alone accounts for an estimated $20.4 billion, followed by Stellantis at $6.6 billion, Ford at $5.8 billion, Toyota at $4.5 billion, and Honda at $4.1 billion.

Those aren't small numbers. Change the economics of building a car that much, and eventually I want to see the difference on the showroom floor.

For years, increasingly aggressive fuel-economy requirements pushed automakers toward additional fuel-saving technology and complicated compliance strategies. Electric vehicles were one way of improving fleet averages, and product planning increasingly had to account for what Washington demanded as well as what customers wanted.

Meanwhile, buying a new vehicle has become painfully expensive. The average new-vehicle transaction price hit $50,089 in August, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Now automakers have more room to maneuver. NHTSA says its new rules give manufacturers more flexibility to build vehicles based on customer demand. The agency is also changing vehicle-classification rules beginning with the 2030 model year. Under the current system, NHTSA says manufacturers have incentives to modify vehicles so they qualify as light trucks, while hatchbacks, wagons, and other smaller vehicles are discouraged.

That's the sort of regulatory change car buyers may actually notice.

Automakers don't build vehicles simply because somebody in Washington thinks they should exist. They build them when the economics work.

California split

California has been pushing in the opposite direction. Its Advanced Clean Cars II program required manufacturers to meet increasingly stringent zero-emission-vehicle targets on the way to 100% by 2035. And California's influence doesn't stop at the state line. The Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt California's vehicle-emission standards, and several have done so.

Congress moved against those rules last year. On June 12, 2025, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 88 into law, disapproving the EPA waiver that allowed California to enforce Advanced Clean Cars II.

California immediately sued, arguing that Congress had improperly used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a Clean Air Act waiver. That legal fight has continued, so the underlying dispute over California's authority isn't finished.

For car buyers, though, the direction of federal policy has plainly changed. Manufacturers have substantially more freedom under the new federal fuel-economy rules to decide which powertrains they want to sell.

My position on that hasn't changed. If you want an EV, buy one. If a hybrid works better for you, buy that. If you need a gasoline-powered SUV or pickup, you should be able to buy that too.

Let the cars compete.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

No free pass

But I'm not giving automakers a free pass. If manufacturers now face tens of billions of dollars less in projected technology costs, I want to know what happens to those savings. I'm not expecting $1,300 to disappear overnight from every window sticker. Automakers still have factories, employees, suppliers, research and development, and shareholders.

But don't tell us deregulation makes cars cheaper to build and then expect consumers not to look for the evidence.

Give us better prices. Give us more equipment. Bring back vehicles that didn't make financial sense under the old rules. Build the smaller cars, hatchbacks, wagons, pickups, and SUVs people will actually buy.

And let competition sort out the rest.

There is a cost on the other side of the ledger. NHTSA projects that the less stringent standards will increase fuel costs by more than $1,600 over the life of a vehicle compared with the rules they replace. The agency also projects 4.6% more gasoline consumption through 2050.

That's worth considering, especially if you drive a lot of miles or own a large truck or SUV.

Gas prices are high right now too. But today's pump price isn't necessarily tomorrow's. Oil production changes. Markets change. Wars end and new ones begin. We're going to dig into where gasoline prices are headed in a future article because that deserves its own investigation.

Right now, I'm interested in something easier to measure. Will cheaper compliance actually mean cheaper cars?

Automakers now face tens of billions less in projected technology costs. If that really gives them more freedom to build what customers want, eventually the person walking into the dealership ought to see it.

The rules changed. Now show us the cars — and the savings.

Automakers were ready to kill the gas car. Buyers had other ideas.

Remember when the gasoline engine was living on borrowed time?

Automakers were announcing ambitious electric-vehicle plans, governments were setting targets and deadlines, and consumers were repeatedly told that the future of the automobile had already been decided. The only real question seemed to be how quickly we would get there.

Gasoline vehicles weren't merely going to lose market share. At some brands, they were supposed to disappear.

Cadillac was among the most aggressive. The company said it planned to become an all-electric brand by the end of this decade. Its own website still declares that every new Cadillac model introduced in the United States by the end of the decade will be electric.

Something interesting happened on the way to that all-electric future: People kept buying gasoline-powered cars.

So many, in fact, that Cadillac is preparing a whole new generation of them.

Revving up

GM CEO Mary Barra confirmed this summer that Cadillac's next generation of internal-combustion vehicles will begin arriving in 2027. The lineup is expected to include a new CT5 sedan and new versions of the XT5 and XT6 crossovers. The XT6 is particularly interesting because Cadillac discontinued it after the 2025 model year. Now it's coming back with a gasoline engine.

The XT5 got a reprieve too. Cadillac had been expected to kill the gasoline-powered crossover but instead extended production of the current model and approved a new generation for the U.S. market. Cadillac said it was making "necessary adjustments" to its portfolio to meet customer demand.

There's that word again: demand.

Because while automakers have been adjusting their product plans, American EV sales have been sending a message of their own.

Money talks

Look at August. Despite a record increase in hybrid sales, Kia sold just 712 EV6s, down 60% from August 2025. Hyundai sold 28 Ioniq 6 sedans — yes, 28 — a 97% decline. Its much more popular Ioniq 5 fell 51%.

Ford's numbers were even more dramatic. Mustang Mach-E sales fell 72.5% to 1,989 vehicles. Ford sold only 148 F-150 Lightnings, down 95% from the same month last year.

Honda sold 1,788 Prologues, down about 81% from August 2025. Honda has already confirmed that Prologue production will end after the 2026 model year.

Subaru's Solterra dropped almost 87%, although that one comes with a major caveat: Subaru's newer Trailseeker and Uncharted EVs helped push the company's total EV sales up for the month, and limited Solterra inventory may have contributed to its collapse.

That's why I wouldn't judge the EV market by one model or even one month's sales. Some of these vehicles are being discontinued. Others are being replaced. And August 2025 is an unusually difficult comparison because buyers were rushing to take advantage of the federal EV tax credit before it disappeared.

Market correction

But zoom out and the picture is still striking. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, battery-electric vehicles accounted for 10.1% of new-vehicle sales in August 2025. One year later, their share had fallen to 6.2%. Overall new-vehicle sales weren't collapsing either. August sales were actually up 1.5% from the previous year on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis.

So Americans didn't suddenly stop buying cars. They became less interested in buying EVs.

That doesn't mean the electric car is dead. Far from it. Cadillac currently offers five EVs, and manufacturers continue to spend billions developing electric vehicles. Some individual EVs are selling well, and Subaru's August numbers show exactly why you have to be careful about declaring an entire technology a failure because one nameplate plunges.

But that's very different from what consumers were being told just a few years ago.

The industry's transition to EVs was often presented as inevitable and, more importantly, imminent. Gasoline vehicles weren't merely going to lose market share. At some brands, they were supposed to disappear.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sales force

Cadillac is a wonderful example. It didn't merely say it wanted to sell more EVs. It said it planned to be all-electric by the end of the decade. Now the company is developing another generation of gasoline-powered Cadillacs that will arrive with only a few years left on that clock.

Why? Because car companies eventually have to sell cars.

Consumers don't buy corporate transition plans. They buy vehicles that fit their lives, budgets, and driving habits. For some people, that's an EV. For others, it's a hybrid. And plenty still want an ordinary gasoline-powered car or truck. Manufacturers are finally acknowledging that reality.

I don't have a problem with electric vehicles. Build good ones. Make them affordable. Improve the charging network. Give consumers enough range and enough choices, and let them decide whether an EV works for them.

What I object to is deciding the answer first and expecting the customer to fall in line afterward. The auto industry spent years telling us where the market was going. Now the market is talking back. And judging by the gasoline-powered Cadillacs headed our way, somebody in Detroit is finally listening.

Think the EV mandate is over? One state has other plans.

You probably think the EV mandate is over. That's exactly what Washington wants you to believe.

Congress celebrated. The White House touted what it called one of the largest deregulatory efforts in modern history, highlighting the repeal of federal vehicle emissions rules as the centerpiece of more than $1 trillion in projected savings. Automakers began telling investors they were pivoting back toward the vehicles customers actually want. Dealers finally saw hope after years of trying to move electric vehicles that many buyers simply didn't want.

Gas-powered vehicles continued dominating large parts of the country because they remain practical, affordable, and easy to refuel.

'Not yet'

Then I started talking to people who follow automotive policy for a living.

I kept hearing the same answer: "Not yet."

The reason is California.

While Washington rolled back federal emissions rules, California's authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards largely survived. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia now follow California's rules, representing roughly 40% of the nation's new-vehicle market. That means one state's policies can effectively shape what automakers build for the entire country.

The fight now centers on four California Clean Air Act waivers that allow the state to enforce stricter emissions standards, including requirements that automakers sell increasing numbers of electric vehicles and meet tougher tailpipe-emissions limits. The EPA sent those waivers to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act. California immediately sued, arguing the waivers aren't subject to congressional repeal.

Congressional Republicans disagree.

California king

They're racing to overturn the waivers before the Congressional Review Act deadline expires. If they succeed, future administrations would face a much steeper legal hurdle before restoring California's authority. If they fail, the legal framework that has allowed California to shape the national auto market could remain in place for years.

To be fair, the Trump administration fundamentally changed federal auto policy. Repealing the EPA's greenhouse gas endangerment finding removed the legal foundation for nationwide greenhouse-gas regulations, marking one of the biggest deregulatory shifts in decades.

But Washington only dismantled part of the system.

Once enough states adopt California's standards, automakers face a simple business decision. They can engineer different vehicles for different parts of the country — or build to the toughest standard and sell it everywhere. Guess which option usually wins.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sunk costs

Now follow the money.

Over the last decade, automakers invested hundreds of billions of dollars preparing for an electric future regulators insisted was inevitable. Battery manufacturers expanded production. Charging companies attracted billions in public and private investment. Utilities planned for rising electricity demand. Entire business models were built around the assumption that government would continue pushing rapid electrification.

When that much money depends on one regulatory direction, nobody quietly accepts a change in course.

Businesses fight to protect their investments. Lobbyists fight to preserve the policies that created them. Investors fight to protect their returns. That's not a conspiracy. It's economics.

Consumers, however, had other ideas.

Real life over regulations

Electric vehicle sales in America never matched many of the industry's most ambitious forecasts. Hybrids surged because they offered better fuel economy without requiring people to change how they live. Gas-powered vehicles continued dominating large parts of the country because they remain practical, affordable, and easy to refuel. Dealers struggled with inventory that reflected regulatory priorities more than consumer demand, and manufacturers wrote off billions after investing ahead of the market.

None of this means electric vehicles are a bad option. Buy one if it fits your lifestyle. Buy a hybrid if that's the better option. Buy a gasoline-powered pickup if that's what your family or business needs.

That's what consumer choice looks like.

Looking back over the last decade, I don't see consumers driving this transition. I see regulations shaping investment, investment shaping production, and production shaping what buyers were offered in the showroom.

That's a very different sequence.

Washington may have dismantled the federal EV mandate. But unless Congress also closes California's regulatory back door, the pressure that reshaped the auto industry could return under a future administration.

The question isn't whether electric vehicles have a future. They do.

The question is whether consumers or regulators get to decide how quickly that future arrives.

Your new house comes with a green surcharge

Colorado's Energy Code Board has published its Model Low Energy and Carbon Code. The standards are sold as an efficiency measure. In practice, they lock years of new mandates into every home built in the state — and every mandate raises the price of housing.

Colorado lawmakers and utilities increasingly blame AI data centers for rising electricity bills. Data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and their growth deserves scrutiny. But they are a convenient scapegoat for a broader and more durable source of higher housing costs: state and local building and energy codes.

Policymakers who genuinely want cheaper housing should stop pretending affordability can survive endless mandates.

Colorado’s 2022 Building Greenhouse Gas Emissions law required local governments to adopt “electric-ready” and “solar-ready” provisions beginning in 2023. The new low-carbon model code tightens those requirements further.

In practice, every new home must be wired for a 208/240-volt electric-vehicle charger and sized to accommodate a future heat pump, electric water heater, and induction stove — whether or not the buyer wants or ever installs them. Multifamily projects must reserve charging spaces as a matter of course.

These requirements arrive well ahead of consumer demand. Fewer than 2% of vehicles on American roads are fully electric, while EVs and plug-in hybrids combined accounted for only about 7% of new vehicle sales in early 2026. Yet builders must oversize electrical panels and run extra copper wiring for a future many buyers may never use.

Builders aren’t absorbing those costs. They’re added to the mortgage.

New York offers another example. In 2023, the state passed the All-Electric Buildings Act, banning fossil-fuel hookups in most new residential construction and extending the requirement to commercial buildings later in the decade. A legal challenge and pressure over housing affordability forced Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration last year to delay enforcement pending an appellate ruling.

The cost is substantial. New-construction electrification requires heat pumps, all-electric appliances, additional labor, and upgraded electrical systems. An analysis commissioned by the New York State Association of Realtors estimated an added cost of $12,000 to $23,000 per unit.

State regulators argue that all-electric homes may save money over time. Builders and realtors dispute those projections. Either way, long-term operating savings do not erase the upfront price. That initial cost determines whether a project can be financed, whether it gets built, and whether a buyer can qualify for the mortgage.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

California shows what happens when supply restrictions accumulate for decades. The state's median home value exceeds $775,000, more than twice the roughly $370,000 national median. Restrictive zoning, prolonged approvals, high fees, and litigation risk have already constrained supply. California's 2025 Energy Code, effective in 2026, pushes new buildings further toward electric systems and tighter performance standards.

Supporters argue that electrification lowers emissions, reduces utility costs, and is cheaper to install during construction than to retrofit later. Some of that may be true. It still does not justify forcing every buyer to pay for electrical capacity and equipment he may never use.

If EV readiness and full electrification reliably paid for themselves within a few years, builders in competitive markets would advertise them as selling points. Builders adopted granite and quartz countertops, recessed lighting, smart thermostats, and other features because buyers valued them enough to pay. The need for a statewide mandate suggests the economics remain unattractive for many households.

Mandates also erase trade-offs. A first-time buyer may prefer a smaller electrical panel and a lower price. A retiree may have no intention of owning an electric vehicle. A rural homeowner may rely on propane or natural gas because it is cheaper or more dependable. Energy codes deny those buyers the option to decide which features justify the cost.

Cemile Bingol/iStock/Getty Images

Data centers are an easy villain because their electricity demand is visible, concentrated, and new. Building codes are quieter. They spread smaller costs across every new house, apartment, and commercial project for years. That makes them less dramatic — and potentially more damaging.

A data center may strain one region's grid. A statewide building mandate raises the cost of every new unit built under it.

Policymakers who genuinely want cheaper housing should stop pretending affordability can survive endless mandates. Colorado, New York, and California are showing what happens when officials demand more equipment, more wiring, and more compliance while insisting that homes remain affordable.

Voters should hold lawmakers accountable for codes that raise construction costs long after the current AI buildout slows. Housing does not become affordable through promises. It becomes affordable when governments stop forcing buyers to purchase features they neither chose nor need.

EXCLUSIVE: Senate Republicans Unveil First-of-Its-Kind Plan To Eliminate Fuel Economy Standards That Cost Americans Billions

Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) is preparing to introduce first-of-its-kind legislation that would scrap fuel efficiency rules for vehicles, regulations that Republicans say have cost consumers billions of dollars, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Senate Republicans Unveil First-of-Its-Kind Plan To Eliminate Fuel Economy Standards That Cost Americans Billions appeared first on .

The Senate wants to lock the door on cheap Chinese cars — is 'security' the whole story?

If you've spent any time on YouTube, you've probably seen videos of Chinese electric vehicles loaded with giant touchscreens, premium interiors, advanced driver-assistance systems, and impressive range — all selling overseas for the price of an entry-level compact car.

This week, Washington made sure they're likely to stay that way.

History suggests consumers usually benefit when new competitors arrive.

The official explanation is national security. But that's only part of the story.

Unacceptable risks?

On July 15, the Senate Commerce Committee advanced the Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026, bipartisan legislation introduced by Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno and Michigan Democrat Sen. Elissa Slotkin. The bill would permanently codify and strengthen Commerce Department restrictions on connected vehicles, software, and hardware from China and other designated foreign adversaries. It doesn't just target cars wearing Chinese badges; it targets the telematics units, cellular modems, GPS modules, and other connected technology that allows modern vehicles to constantly send and receive data.

Supporters argue that's necessary because today's vehicles collect enormous amounts of information, including location data, driving behavior, camera feeds, microphones, and wireless communications. Given China's national security laws, which require companies to cooperate with government intelligence requests, lawmakers say allowing Chinese-connected vehicles onto American roads creates unacceptable risks.

Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.

But the legislation also blocks what could become the biggest source of price competition the American auto industry has faced in decades.

CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images

Good for the goose ...

The average new vehicle now sells for close to record prices. Even compact crossovers routinely exceed $35,000, electric vehicles often cost much more before incentives, financing has become more expensive, insurance premiums continue climbing, and used-car prices remain stubbornly high. Americans can watch BYD, Geely, MG, Chery, XPeng, and other Chinese brands selling well-equipped vehicles overseas for thousands less than comparable models available here — sometimes for nearly half the price — and naturally wonder why they can't buy them.

Washington's answer is national security.

Fair enough — but if protecting Americans' data is the goal, why does the conversation stop with China?

Modern vehicles already collect extraordinary amounts of information about their owners. Domestic automakers know where many vehicles travel, how they're driven, and when they're serviced, while connected-car data has already found its way to insurers and third-party data brokers. Congress appears highly motivated to prevent China from collecting that information, but it has shown far less urgency about limiting who else can.

Competition wanted

There's also an economic reality. Keeping Chinese competitors out protects existing manufacturers from the kind of price competition they've largely avoided. Over the past decade, automakers have steadily abandoned affordable entry-level cars in favor of SUVs and pickups with much higher profit margins. Introducing dozens of lower-priced competitors would put pressure on those margins — which is exactly what competition is supposed to do.

History suggests consumers usually benefit when new competitors arrive. Japanese automakers forced Detroit to improve in the 1970s and 1980s, while Korean manufacturers evolved from budget brands into respected global competitors. Better quality, stronger reliability, and lower prices followed. Whether Chinese manufacturers would have had the same effect is now a question Americans may never get to answer.

Even if finished Chinese vehicles never reach U.S. dealerships, much of the global battery supply chain still runs through China. The country dominates battery mineral processing and many of the components used in electric vehicles assembled around the world, including those built in North America. America is trying to reduce its dependence on China while remaining heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing for some of the industry's most important technologies — a contradiction that won't disappear simply because imported vehicles are banned.

The Connected Vehicle Security Act may ultimately prove to be good national-security policy. But Americans deserve an honest conversation about its economic cost as well.

Restricting Chinese vehicles limits competition, reduces consumer choice, and almost certainly helps keep vehicle prices higher than they otherwise might be. If lawmakers believe those trade-offs are necessary, they should make that case openly, because the people paying the price won't be members of Congress or auto executives.

They'll be the families walking into dealerships wondering why their next vehicle costs thousands more than they expected.

National security matters. Consumers deserve the full picture, including what those protections may cost them every time they shop for a new car.

California clean-air regulator deals Disneyland an ultimatum: Overhaul gas-powered attraction or pull the plug on iconic ride

Disneyland is facing a strict deadline set by a powerful California environmental regulatory agency to axe current gas-powered engines at a popular automobile-themed ride inside the amusement park, according to multiple reports. If Disneyland fails to overhaul the ride, the amusement park faces the risk of the iconic attraction being shut down.

The California Air Resources Board — the state’s clean-air regulator – ordered the amusement park to retire the current gas‑powered engines used at the long-standing Autopia ride, which has been entertaining park guests for over 70 years.

'As the industry moves toward alternative fuel sources, we have developed a road map to electrify this attraction and are evaluating technology that will enable us to convert from gas engines in the next few years.'

According to the official Disneyland website, thrill-seekers can "cruise the scenic winding roads of this classic attraction in a souped-up coupe" on the Autopia ride.

"Featuring a working gas pedal and steering wheel, each classy chassis seats 2 adults or 3 children and navigates curves and inclines just like the real thing," the site stated.

Disney noted, "Autopia is the only existing Tomorrowland attraction dating back to Disneyland Park’s opening day in 1955. When the cars first took to the road, they captured America’s fascination with the latest transportation innovation, the 'freeway.'"

Despite the iconic attraction being based on traditional combustion engines, Disneyland is being compelled to swap them out for an all-electric fleet.

The California Air Resources Board is the state's regulatory agency with legal authority to set emissions rules.

The Orange County Register reported that Disneyland disclosed to the California Air Resources Board that the gas-powered engines "had been modified in a way that violated state regulations for small off-road engines."

In April 2024, Disneyland initially announced plans to convert Autopia's gas-powered engines to electric by fall 2026, according to the Orange County Register.

Disneyland also agreed to a settlement with the California Air Resources Board.

The California Air Resources Board released a statement regarding a $56,250 settlement with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. in August 2024 that read:

To settle the case, Disney agreed to the penalty of $450 per unit of noncompliant SORE equipment for a total penalty of $56,250. Disney elected to provide $28,125 to a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) entitled Cleaner Air Greener Schools. The funds will be used to install indoor air quality sensors, air purifiers, and outdoor air quality sensors in 10 schools in Southern California.

The civil penalty amount of $28,125 will be deposited into CARB’s Air Pollution Control Fund, which provides funding for projects and research to improve California's air quality. Disney fully cooperated with CARB to resolve this matter and agrees to comply with all regulatory requirements.

The engines in the go-karts are built by Honda, which has sponsored the Autopia ride since 2016.

A corporate compliance plan from the California Air Resources Board stated that Honda "failed to certify the Disneyland-specific modified engines" because of an "administrative error," KTLA-TV reported.

Michael Montfort/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Climate-Colored Glasses, a climate Substack, reported that the Autopia attraction must be in compliance by Feb. 1, 2027, or be shut down.

Disneyland spokesperson Jessica Good told the Los Angeles Times in April 2024:

Since opening with Disneyland park in 1955, Autopia has remained a guest favorite, most popular with young kids experiencing driving for the first time. As the industry moves toward alternative fuel sources, we have developed a road map to electrify this attraction and are evaluating technology that will enable us to convert from gas engines in the next few years.

This May, a spokesperson provided an update to People that the Autopia ride would retire combustion engines by early 2027.

"Work is under way on the design, engineering, and testing of a fully electric vehicle prototype, and we look forward to sharing more details soon," the spokesperson said.

Disney fan website MousePlanet reported that Honda's corporate sponsorship of Autopia is slated to end at the end of 2026.

D23, the self-described website for "daily home of the ultimate Disney fan," noted that Chevron was the sponsor before Honda between 2000 and 2012. The now-defunct Richfield Oil Corporation was Autopia's sponsor from 1955 until 1970, according to D23.

According to Disney fan site WDW News Today, there are similar versions of the Autopia car ride at Florida's Magic Kingdom and Disneyland Paris.

Disneyland did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

Stellantis’ China gamble could reshape America’s auto industry forever

Chinese cars are a security risk.

That's the message Washington has been sending the American consumer: Cheaper vehicles aren't worth exposing sensitive data to theft. Hence the massive tariffs aimed at China.

The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.

But while America was focused on keeping brands like BYD and NIO out of local dealerships, the global auto industry quietly found another way in.

And Stellantis just made that strategy official.

Ties that bind

The parent company of Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat has embraced deeper partnerships with Chinese automakers and suppliers as part of its global restructuring effort. New CEO Antonio Filosa is betting the company's future on partnerships, software integration, shared manufacturing, AI systems, and Chinese EV technology.

That should concern every American consumer, every UAW worker, every supplier, and every policymaker. The issue is no longer simply about cars built in China. It's about China becoming embedded inside the future of the American auto industry itself.

Stellantis recently announced a roughly $1.17 billion partnership with China's Dongfeng Group to build new-energy vehicles at a Wuhan manufacturing plant beginning in 2027. The agreement includes future Peugeot and Jeep models for China and other global markets.

But that's only part of the story.

FaST and furious

At its recent Investor Day presentation, Stellantis unveiled its "FaSTLAne 2030" strategy, a $70 billion restructuring plan featuring 60 new models, expanded AI integration, autonomous-driving development, and manufacturing partnerships stretching across China, Europe, India, and North America.

The message from Filosa was unmistakable: Partnerships will be "embedded" in Stellantis' future strategy.

That should have set off alarms in Washington.

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno (R) has been leading the effort to block Chinese vehicles and components from gaining a foothold in the United States because of concerns over technology and supply-chain dependence. Yet while lawmakers debate tariffs, one of America's best-known automakers is openly moving deeper into partnerships with China.

For years, Americans were told tariffs would stop China from gaining influence over the U.S. auto market. But tariffs mainly target finished vehicles imported directly from China. They do little to prevent American or European automakers from incorporating Chinese-developed batteries, software, electronics, and EV platforms into vehicles sold under Western brands.

Beneath the badge

Consumers may soon be driving vehicles wearing Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, or Ram badges while much of the underlying technology comes from Chinese partnerships: batteries, semiconductors, AI systems, autonomous-driving technology, and connected-car software.

To control these is to control the modern automotive supply chain. China already dominates large portions of that ecosystem, and many legacy automakers increasingly appear to believe they cannot compete globally in EVs without Chinese involvement.

For the UAW and the industrial Midwest, the implications are enormous.

For decades, organized labor fought outsourcing to lower-cost countries. But the shift toward electric vehicles creates a different challenge. EVs generally require fewer moving parts than traditional internal-combustion vehicles, reducing demand for engines, transmissions, and many of the suppliers that support them. If battery production, electronics, and software also migrate overseas, the economic consequences could ripple through the entire manufacturing base.

America's automotive economy extends far beyond assembly plants. It includes steel suppliers, logistics companies, plastics manufacturers, tool-and-die shops, engineering firms, rail networks, repair facilities, dealerships, and thousands of small businesses. When supply chains move, entire local economies move with them.

Andy Cross/Getty Images

If you can't beat 'em ...

Stellantis' own strategy reflects that trend.

By the end of the decade, the company wants half its global production running on just three platforms. Its new STLA One architecture will support more than 30 models while integrating advanced software, steer-by-wire systems, AI capabilities, and connected cockpit technologies.

At the same time, Stellantis plans to cut more than 800,000 units of manufacturing capacity in Europe while aggressively restructuring operations around efficiency and lower costs.

Even more revealing is its expanding relationship with Leapmotor, the Chinese EV company in which Stellantis already owns a controlling stake through a joint venture. What began as a distribution agreement has expanded into manufacturing cooperation and joint sourcing designed to improve "cost competitiveness."

Rolling computers

The auto industry has seen this pattern before.

Detroit once dominated global manufacturing before outsourcing and offshoring reshaped the landscape. Today's version isn't just about where vehicles are assembled. Modern cars are rolling computers connected to cellular networks, cloud services, cameras, microphones, GPS systems, and over-the-air software updates.

That is why national security concerns now collide directly with automotive policy.

The Biden administration imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EV imports and proposed restrictions on connected vehicle technology because of concerns over data collection and infrastructure security. Those concerns are legitimate. Modern vehicles collect extraordinary amounts of information, including location data, driving behavior, communications, and other personal information.

Now, imagine foreign-developed software integrated into millions of connected vehicles operating across the United States.

That concern helps explain why Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components represents a major escalation in the debate over America's automotive future.

His message is straightforward: Chinese companies should not gain a strategic foothold inside the U.S. auto industry.

China syndrome

President Trump spent years warning about unfair Chinese trade practices and the hollowing out of American manufacturing. His tariffs forced companies to rethink supply chains and brought China's influence into the political spotlight.

Yet despite those efforts, many automakers continued moving deeper into China's EV ecosystem because executives saw lower costs, faster development, and access to advanced battery technology.

Stellantis is hardly alone. Ford has partnered with CATL. Volkswagen expanded its ties with Xpeng. General Motors continues to rely on Chinese-linked battery supply chains, and Tesla maintains an enormous manufacturing footprint in China.

The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.

If America loses control of automotive batteries, semiconductors, software platforms, AI systems, and electronics manufacturing, the consequences could extend far beyond the auto business. This remains one of the country's largest manufacturing sectors and one of its biggest sources of middle-class industrial employment.

Consumers were promised that the EV transition would spark a manufacturing renaissance. Instead, America risks becoming increasingly dependent on foreign-controlled supply chains for many of the most important technologies inside next-generation vehicles.

The next generation of cars may still wear familiar American badges while relying heavily on Chinese-developed batteries, software, and technology underneath the sheet metal.

That's the issue Washington is finally beginning to confront.

The real battle is no longer about where vehicles are assembled. It's about who controls the technology inside them, who owns the supply chains behind them, and whether America still intends to build the next generation of vehicles itself.

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

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

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

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

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

Junk science

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

Without them, many repairs would cost significantly more.

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

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

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

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

Eventually, those costs work their way through the system.

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

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

Batteries included

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Sullivan/Getty Images

Free to fix

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

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

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

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

Where there's fire ...

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

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

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

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

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