Big news: California's iron grip on the automotive market could finally be over!
The Stop CARB Act, introduced in the U.S. Senate as part of larger legislative efforts to address vehicle regulations, is generating a lot of buzz for its aim to curb the influence of the California Air Resources Board on national auto standards.
Whether you’re a truck enthusiast, a daily commuter, or an auto industry worker, this bill touches your life.
This bill seeks to limit CARB’s ability to set stringent emission rules that impact not just California but 17 other states. As debates over vehicle costs, consumer choice, and environmental regulations heat up, the Stop CARB Act could reshape how cars are built and sold across America.
The Stop CARB Act is a proposed piece of legislation focused on restricting the California Air Resources Board’s authority to enforce its own vehicle emission standards, particularly those stricter than federal regulations.
While the bill is often discussed in connection with the Transportation Freedom Act (S.711), introduced on February 25, 2025, by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), the Stop CARB Act specifically targets CARB’s waivers under the Clean Air Act. The bill aims to eliminate these waivers, preventing California from dictating emission policies beyond its borders and blocking other states from following its lead.
Currently, S.711, which includes provisions aligned with the Stop CARB Act’s goals, is pending in the Senate Committee on Finance, with no floor vote scheduled as of September 3, 2025.
Sponsored by Sens. Moreno, Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), and Jim Justice (R-W.V.), the broader Transportation Freedom Act also seeks to repeal federal emission standards, such as the EPA’s Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 2027 and later model years and Phase 3 heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas rules, while offering tax deductions for auto manufacturing wages. The Stop CARB Act’s focus on CARB makes it a key component of this larger deregulation effort.
CARB’s influence stems from a unique provision in the Clean Air Act, which allows California to request waivers to set stricter emission standards than the federal government. Since the 1970s, CARB has used this authority to implement rules like the Advanced Clean Cars II program, which mandates zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
Seventeen other states, representing over 40% of the U.S. population, have adopted CARB’s standards, effectively giving California outsized influence over national auto markets — even though it arguably violates the Constitution.
The Stop CARB Act argues aims to remedy this in a few key ways:
Reducing costs for consumers: CARB’s strict standards require automakers to invest heavily in technologies like electric vehicles or advanced combustion engines. These costs often raise vehicle prices, with estimates suggesting compliance could add thousands to the sticker price of new cars. By limiting CARB’s waivers, the bill aims to lower these costs, making vehicles more affordable for everyday Americans.
Streamlining regulations: The patchwork of federal, California, and state-adopted CARB standards creates complexity for automakers. Companies must design vehicles to meet multiple requirements, increasing production costs and delaying innovation. The Stop CARB Act seeks to establish uniform federal standards, simplifying compliance and fostering a more predictable market.
Preserving consumer choice: CARB’s push for zero-emission vehicles by 2035 limits the availability of gas-powered cars, trucks, and SUVs, which many drivers prefer for their affordability, range, or utility. The bill aims to protect consumer choice by preventing California’s mandates from dominating national markets.
Supporting U.S. manufacturing: Companies like General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota — as well as the National Automobile Dealers Association — argue that CARB’s rules strain manufacturers, particularly smaller suppliers. By curbing CARB’s influence, the bill could reduce compliance costs, boost domestic production, and create jobs.
RELATED: Ride or die: How Ford, Honda, VW, and 3 more got stuck with California's strict emission standards
The bill’s progress is uncertain, given the polarized views on environmental policy and state rights. If scheduled and it passes the Senate, it must clear the House and gain presidential approval. Legal challenges from California or environmental groups could also delay implementation if the bill becomes law. The next goal is to get this bill on the floor to vote on it.
Whether you’re a truck enthusiast, a daily commuter, or an auto industry worker, this bill touches your life. Will it lower vehicle costs and preserve your choice of gas-powered cars? Or will California continue to tell you what to drive? It’s time to reach out to your senators and representatives to tell them to get this bill to the floor.
California is once again at the center of the nation’s automotive and energy policy debate. With federal electric vehicle tax credits set to expire this September, the state is considering whether to create its own replacement program.
This would not only affect car buyers but could also reshape the national conversation on emissions rules, vehicle affordability, and the balance of power between state and federal regulators.
With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a report on August 19 recommending that the state consider “backfilling” the federal credits with its own point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other incentives to keep EV sales moving.
The details remain vague, but the intention is clear: California wants to keep its aggressive zero-emission vehicle goals on track, even as Washington scales back related programs.
But California has been here before. This is not the first time the state has clashed with the federal government over vehicle regulations — and it likely won’t be the last.
California has a unique history when it comes to vehicle emissions. Decades before the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency, California was already regulating air quality in response to its smog problem.
When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, California was granted a waiver that allowed it to set its own stricter emissions standards. Other states were given the option to adopt California’s rules, and some states have done so. Today, 11 states follow California’s lead.
This waiver authority has made California an outsize force in shaping vehicle propulsion. Automakers cannot ignore a market of this size, which means California’s rules often become de facto national standards.
California’s regulatory independence has not always sat well with Washington. Under different administrations, the federal government has either supported or resisted the state’s authority. During the Obama years, California partnered with the federal government to create a unified fuel economy and emissions program, giving automakers a single set of national rules.
Under the Trump administration, the EPA rolled back certain emissions standards, sparking legal battles with California, which insisted on enforcing its own tougher rules. The state formed alliances with other states and even some automakers to defend its position.
Today, with federal EV tax credits expiring at the end of September and policy focus shifting, California is again stepping into the driver’s seat by proposing its own financial incentives. These ongoing disputes highlight a deeper question: Should environmental and automotive policy be driven by national uniformity or by one state acting as the policy leader?
The discussion over tax credits cannot be separated from California’s ZEV mandate. Under CARB’s plan, automakers must steadily increase the percentage of EVs they sell, with the ultimate goal of phasing out new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035.
This is one of the most ambitious policies in the country, and automakers are scrambling to meet the targets. Some states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have pledged to follow California’s lead, while others remain skeptical. For consumers, this means that vehicle availability will increasingly be shaped by government mandates and not by market demand. Even if gas-powered cars remain popular, automakers will need to balance that demand with regulatory compliance.
The CARB report suggests that any new program would differ from the federal credits in key ways. Instead of tax credits, buyers could receive point-of-sale rebates, allowing them to benefit immediately rather than waiting until tax season.
Incentives may also vary depending on income level, vehicle type, or price, so luxury EVs could receive lower rebates while affordable models get more support.
Additionally, any new program would be tied to yearly funding availability, meaning that if budgets tighten, rebates could shrink or disappear. This approach could make the system more flexible, but it also introduces uncertainty for buyers trying to plan their purchases. In the past, the state of California and other states have run out of money in the EV fund and left buyers with nothing.
RELATED: Little Deuce Prius?! California's shocking plan to ban classic cars
The promise of continued incentives may be welcome news for some California drivers, but the reality is more complicated. EVs still come with challenges beyond sticker price. Even with rebates, EVs are often thousands of dollars more expensive than comparable gasoline cars.
California has built more chargers than any other state, yet many regions remain underserved, and home charging is not always an option, particularly for renters.
EVs also tend to depreciate faster than gas vehicles due to rapid advances in technology and concerns about battery life. Insurance rates are higher on electric vehicles as well.
And let’s not forget a major expense: Electricity rates are rising at double the rate of inflation.
One of the key criticisms of EV subsidies is that they often benefit wealthier households. Data from federal programs has shown that a large percentage of credits went to buyers in higher income brackets because these households are more likely to purchase new cars, and EVs remain disproportionately concentrated in the premium market segment.
California may attempt to address this with scaled incentives, but questions remain about whether the system can truly deliver benefits to everyone. Meanwhile, working-class families who rely on affordable used cars may find themselves subsidizing programs that they cannot realistically take advantage of.
For automakers, California’s decisions carry immense weight. The state accounts for nearly 12% of U.S. auto sales, and when you include the other states that follow its rules, the market share becomes impossible to ignore.
Manufacturers that fail to meet California’s requirements face penalties, while those that comply can earn credits to sell or trade. This system has created an uneven playing field, favoring companies with strong EV lineups.
Tesla, for instance, has profited significantly from selling ZEV credits to competitors in the past. If California establishes a robust new rebate system, it could further tilt the market toward EVs, encouraging automakers to prioritize them even more, take greater losses on each vehicle.
At its core, this debate is about whether government policy should drive technology adoption or whether the market should dictate the pace.
California argues that aggressive incentives and mandates are necessary to address climate goals and push the auto industry forward. Critics counter that these policies distort the market, forcing automakers and taxpayers to shoulder costs that may not align with consumer demand. They also warn of unintended consequences, such as reduced affordability, lack of charging stations, and strained electrical infrastructure.
California’s proposal to replace expiring federal EV tax credits with state-funded incentives is the latest chapter in a decades-long story of the state asserting its role as the nation’s automotive regulator.
With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.
For some wealthier car buyers, this could mean continued financial support when purchasing an EV, but it also raises questions about long-term effectiveness. For taxpayers, it means another debate about where funds should be directed and increased taxes for residents. For the auto industry, it underscores more losses on vehicles that are designed by one state’s demands.
As history shows, when California moves, the rest of the country often feels the impact. The next few months will reveal whether the state can successfully design a program that keeps EV sales going without overburdening its citizens with more increased taxes. But one thing is certain: California still has significant power over the U.S. auto industry.
Electric or gas? The battle over the future of the automobile is far from over. Trump may have killed the federal EV mandate, but California’s still pushing hard for zero-emission vehicles, with a plan to phase out new gas-powered car sales by 2035.
While most of the industry is taking a wait-and-see approach, six major automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, Aston Martin, and Volvo — are firmly on Team California, whether they like it or not. That's thanks to contracts they signed in 2019 locking them into the state's strict emissions rules through 2026.
Are Ford, Honda, and the others at a disadvantage, stuck with more costly standards? Or are they ahead of the curve, ready for a future where emissions rules only get tougher?
Bad bet?
To be fair, the odds may have looked a little better six years ago. California isn’t just the land of beaches and Hollywood — it’s a regulatory powerhouse in the auto world. Thanks to Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, the Golden State has a unique privilege: It can set tougher vehicle emissions standards than the federal government as long as the Environmental Protection Agency gives it a thumbs-up.
Why? Decades ago, California started battling smog in cities like Los Angeles, and it’s been a trailblazer in clean air policy ever since. More than a dozen states — New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon among them — follow California's emissions standards, impacting about a third of the U.S. auto market.
Back in 2019, things got messy. The Trump administration pulled California’s EPA waiver, aiming to enforce one federal standard for fuel economy and emissions under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program. This move was like throwing a wrench into the auto industry’s engine. California pushed back hard, and automakers were caught in the crossfire, facing a patchwork of rules. Enter the California Framework Agreements — a deal that would tie six automakers to California’s standards, no matter what happened in Washington.
In July 2019, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW stepped up to the plate, signing voluntary but ironclad agreements with the California Air Resources Board. Aston Martin and Volvo later jumped on board. These Framework Agreements committed the automakers to boosting fuel efficiency by roughly 3.7% annually and slashing greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles sold in California and its allied states, all the way through the 2026 model year.
Why sign on to such a deal? For these companies, it was a calculated move. The 2019 revocation of California’s waiver created a regulatory nightmare — automakers faced the prospect of designing cars for two different sets of rules. By aligning with California, these six sidestepped potential lawsuits, gained a clear roadmap for compliance, and scored some eco-friendly street cred.
It was a bet that California’s influence would outlast federal flip-flops. But here’s the thing: These contracts are binding, no matter what the feds do. Even when the Biden administration restored California’s waiver in 2022, these automakers were still on the hook for the 2019 terms.
Not every company was ready to tie itself to California’s control. Big players like General Motors, Toyota, and Stellantis leaned toward the Trump administration’s push for a single federal standard, hoping to simplify their lives. This split has created a fascinating divide in the industry as well as some potential nightmares.
Imagine the auto market as a chessboard. The six signatories are playing a long game, betting on California’s standards becoming the industry benchmark. Meanwhile, their rivals have more flexibility, aligning with federal rules that might be looser or stricter depending on the political winds.
This raises a big question: Are Ford, Honda, and the others at a disadvantage, stuck with more costly standards? Or are they ahead of the curve, ready for a future where emissions rules only get tougher?
RELATED: GM’s electric gamble is failing — but Barra won’t hit the brakes
So what does this mean for the cars you drive? Meeting California’s standards is no small feat. It demands serious cash for research and development for hybrid systems, electric vehicles, and cutting-edge engines that sip fuel. For Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, Aston Martin, and Volvo, these costs are locked in through 2026. That could mean pricier vehicles for buyers in California and its partner states, as automakers pass on the expense of compliance to customers.
For you, the consumer, it’s a mixed bag. Cars meeting California’s standards might save you money at the pump with better fuel economy or lower emissions. But upfront costs could sting, especially for budget-conscious buyers. If you live in a state following California’s rules, your car options might differ from those in, say, Texas or Ohio, where federal standards apply. It’s a patchwork market, and these six automakers are navigating it under stricter rules than their rivals.
California’s ability to set its own standards has sparked heated debates. Supporters say it’s a vital check on federal inaction, pushing automakers to innovate and clean up the air. Critics argue it’s a bureaucratic headache, forcing companies to juggle conflicting rules and driving up costs. The Framework Agreements tilt the scales toward California, proving its influence even when federal policy wavers.
It's not such a great deal for the six automakers who signed those agreements. If federal standards get tougher, they might face overlapping rules. If they loosen, their competitors could gain an edge. The outcome will shape the industry for years to come.
In the meantime, the six are already gearing up, pouring billions into EVs and hybrids even with lower sales and losses. Ford’s betting on electric vehicles with its new manufacturing processes, Honda’s refining its hybrid tech and continuing its partnership with GM, and BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen, and Aston Martin are trying to figure out how to balance electric cars with what car people want. It's a tough situation.
If you want an electric vehicle, I suggest you move quickly and buy one before the end of September 2025, where the tax credit for new and used EVs disappears.
Ford is stepping back from an all-electric future and leaning hard into gasoline and diesel vehicles.
This is a huge pivot, setting the stage for a potential profit surge starting in 2026. This isn’t just a corporate maneuver — it’s a move that could redefine the American automotive landscape.
If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.
For years, Ford’s profits took a hit from federal regulations pushing electric vehicles. The U.S. government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions rules forced automakers to sell an increasing share of EVs, with mandates aiming for near-100% EV sales during the 2030s.
These policies brought steep fines and costly carbon credits, requiring Ford to subsidize unprofitable EVs with revenue from gasoline vehicle sales. The result? Higher prices for consumers and fewer of the vehicles Americans actually wanted.
That’s all changing. In July 2025, a budget reconciliation bill became law, easing these regulatory pressures. The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a step expected to eliminate GHG fines and credits by late 2025.
During a recent earnings call, Ford CEO Jim Farley highlighted the financial windfall, projecting $1.5 billion in savings for 2025 alone, with billions more to follow in 2026 if these credits disappear. These savings far outweigh potential tariff-related costs, positioning Ford for a profitability boom.
EVs aren’t vanishing entirely, but their role in Ford’s U.S. lineup is shrinking. The reason is straightforward: Most Americans aren’t interested. Despite heavy subsidies, EVs remain unprofitable for automakers. Consumers face high up-front costs, rapid depreciation, and low residual values, making gasoline vehicles a more practical choice. Ford’s sales data confirms this, showing EVs as a small fraction of demand while gasoline engines remain popular.
To comply with EV mandates, Ford had to inflate gasoline vehicle prices to offset losses. Technologies like start-stop systems, turbochargers, and electrification added thousands to production costs, which were passed on to buyers. Production quotas also limited how many profitable gasoline vehicles Ford could build. The outcome was a market where consumers paid more for vehicles they didn’t fully want, and Ford’s bottom line suffered.
RELATED: Were Biden’s strict fuel economy standards illegal? Sean Duffy says yes.
With regulatory constraints fading, Ford is realigning production to match consumer demand. The company is phasing out costly technologies like start-stop systems and turbochargers, which were required to meet fuel economy standards.
Without CAFE fines, these features are no longer necessary, paving the way for lower prices. Ford is also bringing back naturally aspirated engines, which are cheaper to produce and known for their reliability — qualities American buyers value. The 5.0-liter V-8, found in the F-150 and Mustang, is a standout example, and Ford may expand its use to models like the Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, Ranger, and Bronco.
While Ford isn’t abandoning EVs entirely, its focus will shift. EVs will remain for international markets, niche applications, and research to stay competitive if they become viable without subsidies. This strategic shift allows Ford to prioritize affordable, reliable vehicles that align with what Americans want.
Ford’s second-quarter 2025 financials offer a glimpse of the road ahead. The company reported a record $50.2 billion in revenue but a $36 million net loss due to special items.
Its EV division, Ford Model e, recorded a $1.3 billion loss, up $179 million from last year. However, Ford is optimistic. By redirecting resources from EVs to commercial trucks and full-size SUVs, the company sees a multibillion-dollar opportunity.
To brace for potential challenges, Ford secured a $3 billion line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, despite holding $20 billion in cash and $14 billion in liquid securities. This cautious move signals confidence in its long-term strategy. If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.
The end of EV mandates is a win for affordability. New vehicle prices have soared in recent years, with basic models jumping from $16,000 six years ago to much higher today, partly due to EV-related costs. As Ford shifts to naturally aspirated engines, gasoline vehicle prices could drop by thousands. Meanwhile, EVs will reflect their true cost, likely making them less competitive without subsidies.
This shift restores consumer choice. Whether you prefer the reliability of a gasoline truck, the power of a Mustang, or the utility of an SUV, you’ll find more options at better prices. Ford’s emphasis on commercial trucks and SUVs also caters to businesses and families, key drivers of demand.
Ford’s pivot underscores a fundamental truth: markets thrive when they reflect consumer preferences, not government mandates. The EV push forced automakers to prioritize unprofitable products, raising prices and limiting choice. Its rollback lets Ford invest in what Americans want — affordable, dependable vehicles. This could spark a revival for the U.S. automotive industry, with Ford at the forefront.
Other automakers are likely watching. If Ford’s profits soar, competitors may follow, reinforcing the trend toward gasoline and diesel. EVs will continue to evolve where they make economic sense, but for now, the U.S. market is hitting the gas.
Ford’s decision signals lower prices, more choices, and a market that listens to consumers. Whether you’re a truck driver, a family on the go, or a car enthusiast, this shift could mean better vehicles at better prices. Share this story with friends who love cars or hate high costs — they’ll want to know.
The Environmental Protection Agency has just set off what may be the most consequential policy shift in the auto industry in over a decade.
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposal to rescind the controversial 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal foundation that has been used for 16 years to justify greenhouse gas emissions regulations impacting every car, truck, and bus sold in the U.S.
If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.
If finalized, this proposal would dismantle more than $1 trillion in regulatory mandates, including President Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle requirements, and restore consumer choice to a market long constrained by unelected bureaucrats. It would also put the brakes on unpopular mandates like engine start-stop systems and costly EV infrastructure requirements that automakers say have driven up vehicle prices.
The Endangerment Finding gave the EPA unprecedented power to regulate six greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It asserted that these gases — carbon dioxide among them — posed a threat to public health and welfare, opening the door for sweeping emissions mandates on the auto industry.
Since then, the EPA has used the finding to justify a series of regulations designed to force automakers toward electric vehicles and away from gasoline-powered cars. Biden’s 2024 standards, for example, require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions in half by 2032 and predict that between 35% and 56% of all new vehicles sold will be electric within the next decade.
California and 11 other states have piggybacked on these standards with even stricter rules, including outright bans on gasoline-only cars by 2035.
Critics say these mandates amount to a de facto EV requirement that Congress never approved. They also argue that the Endangerment Finding was based on flawed legal reasoning and exaggerated climate risk assumptions.
Under Obama and Biden, the EPA "twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year,” Zeldin said at the announcement, which was held at a truck dealership in Indiana.
According to EPA estimates, rescinding the Endangerment Finding would roll back regulations totaling more than $1 trillion in compliance costs. Automakers have spent years re-engineering vehicles to meet complex emissions targets, often passing those costs on to consumers.
The American Trucking Associations estimates that Biden’s electric truck mandate alone would have “crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses.” ATA President and CEO Chris Spear welcomed the EPA’s move.
Indiana Governor Mike Braun (R), who joined Zeldin at the event, echoed that sentiment: “We can protect our environment and support American jobs at the same time."
The EPA argues that recent Supreme Court rulings — including West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo — make it clear that major regulatory decisions of this scale must come from Congress, not federal agencies. These decisions limit the ability of the executive branch to unilaterally impose sweeping economic mandates without explicit legislative approval.
Here’s what happens next.
Public comment period: The proposal is now open for public comment until September 21, 2025. Americans, automakers, environmental groups, and industry stakeholders can weigh in via regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194).
Final rulemaking: After reviewing comments, the EPA will finalize the rule. This process must also pass through the White House Office of Management and Budget for approval.
Legal challenges: Environmental groups and states like California are expected to sue, arguing that rescinding the Endangerment Finding violates the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
It’s likely the issue could end up before the Supreme Court again, prolonging uncertainty for automakers and consumers.
RELATED: $8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda
If the proposal is finalized and withstands legal challenges, it would reshape the entire automotive landscape.
The end of Biden’s EV mandate: Automakers would no longer be forced to prioritize EV production at the expense of gasoline-powered vehicles.
Lower vehicle costs: With fewer costly compliance requirements, manufacturers could pass savings on to consumers.
Restored consumer choice: Drivers could decide for themselves whether they want to buy EVs, hybrids, or gasoline-powered vehicles.
The end of California's outsized influence: The EPA could revoke California’s ability to set stricter emissions rules than federal standards, affecting 11 other states that follow California’s lead.
However, the process will take time. Automakers must plan years in advance, and environmental groups and states are are expected to fight every step of the way.
The public comment period gives everyday Americans a rare chance to influence federal policy. If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.
You can submit your comments directly through the Federal eRulemaking Portal by searching for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194. Comments must be received by September 21, 2025.
The EPA will also hold a virtual public hearing on August 19 and 20, with an additional session on August 21 if needed. Details are available on the agency’s website.
This isn’t just about EVs. The Endangerment Finding has been the legal backbone for every major greenhouse gas rule in the last 16 years. Rolling it back would not only upend Biden’s climate agenda but also shift power back to Congress and the states.
Supporters of the rescission say it’s about restoring accountability. Opponents, however, argue that eliminating these regulations would stall progress on climate change and undermine the transition to cleaner technologies. They vow to fight the proposal in court.
This move by the EPA could fundamentally change the future of the auto industry and the vehicles available to American drivers. Whether you support or oppose it, this proposal deserves your attention. Over the next 45 days, the agency is accepting feedback from the public — and your input can help determine whether these costly and controversial mandates remain in place or are rolled back for good.
You have a voice in this process. Make sure it’s heard.
For more information and to view supporting documents, visit the EPA’s official docket page.
The electric vehicle market is hitting a critical tipping point — and the mainstream media won’t talk about it.
In a no-holds-barred episode of “Car Coach Reports,” we sat down with two of the sharpest minds in the industry: Anton Wahlman, a veteran financial analyst and columnist for Seeking Alpha, and Karl Brauer, a respected automotive expert known for his data-driven insights on iSeeCars and YouTube.
Together, we pull back the curtain on what’s really happening in the EV world.
Here’s the reality: The federal EV tax credit — up to $7,500 per vehicle — expires September 30, giving automakers under 90 days to move more than 140,000 EVs currently sitting on dealer lots. That’s more than a 100-day supply of inventory, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. And while some companies are positioned to adapt, others are dangerously overcommitted.
We break down which brands might survive the coming EV shakeout — Toyota, Ford, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Tesla, and others — and which ones are at risk of collapse once the subsidies disappear. The entire industry is being reshaped by political decisions, not consumer demand. It’s a wake-up call for car buyers and a challenge for automakers.
This isn’t about being for or against EVs — it’s about exposing the truth with no agenda.
Don’t miss this essential conversation — especially if you’re shopping for a new vehicle or wondering what comes next for the automotive world.
When auto dealers began writing impassioned letters to Congress demanding to keep electric vehicle tax credits alive, it was a clear sign the honeymoon phase of EV policy was over.
Behind the public messaging of “going green” and “building the future,” EV dealers and manufacturers are panicking now that President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has ended the incentives propping up weak consumer demand.
Let’s not sugarcoat this. EV incentives overwhelmingly benefit upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans.
It turns out the incentives did less to protect the environment than to protect an industry shift that never had strong grassroots support in the first place.
CarMax, Carvana, and several dealer groups had urged Congress to preserve the subsidies underwriting their investments in EV sales and service. Now that the "big, beautiful bill" is set to eliminate these subsidies on September 30, these groups are scrambling.
But let’s be honest — this hasn't been about saving the environment for a long time, if it ever was. It’s about protecting profit margins and preserving political capital after years of lobbying silence.
These same companies and their lobbying arms didn’t push back when mandates were being written into law. Now that the tide has turned, they want taxpayers to continue footing the bill for what is, at its core, a luxury purchase for high-income households with easy access to charging infrastructure. For most Americans, this is out of their price range, and charging infrastructure isn’t available.
Congressional Republicans, backed by growing public skepticism of EV mandates, removed the taxpayer-funded cushion that made EVs appear more affordable than they actually are.
The Senate version of the “big, beautiful bill” ends EV tax credits by September 30, 2025 — three months earlier than the House version. The credits were initially set to expire in 2032.
Here’s what’s going away:
Dealers and manufacturers had years to challenge the growing federal mandates that funneled billions into EV production and infrastructure. They didn’t. Why? Because the gravy train was still running.
Billions in government contracts, purchase incentives, and sweetheart regulatory deals made it too lucrative to speak out. Now, with the Trump administration's sharp reversal of course, the industry wants the benefits to stay — even if the rules are changing.
Sorry, but this is the cost of doing business. You don’t get to opt out of pushback now that the political winds have shifted. If customers want EVs, they’ll buy them.
That’s how the free market works. What we’re seeing now is an attempt to artificially prop up demand with taxpayer dollars, even as surveys show most Americans still prefer internal combustion or hybrid vehicles, citing price, range anxiety, and lack of infrastructure as major concerns.
In a twist that highlights the tangled relationship between politics and policy, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from halting EV infrastructure funds for 14 states.
These funds, stemming from former President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, were designed to eliminate “range anxiety” by building a nationwide EV charging network. The result was $5 billion spent and seven EV chargers that are live today. A massive waste of your tax dollars.
RELATED: Fudged figures wildly exaggerate EV efficiency
U.S. District Judge Tana Lin ruled that withholding these funds exceeded federal authority. Because the U.S. attorney general's office failed to appeal the order, states like California, New York, and Colorado will see their EV charging infrastructure plans reinstated.
Still, this judicial intervention doesn’t fundamentally shift the larger momentum. Trump’s Department of Transportation has made it clear: The Biden-Buttigieg National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program was a failure, and it’s being removed. The outcome of this legal battle could delay the administration’s intent to unwind EV mandates and boondoggles. But in the end, the EV mandate and incentives will disappear.
Even the U.S. Postal Service is caught in the EV policy crossfire, as the new legislation has ended its $9.6 billion program to electrify its fleet. A substantial part of this budget went to Ford and Oshkosh Defense to supply the USPS with all-electric Next Generation Delivery Vehicles.
Why does this matter? Because it shows just how embedded (and expensive) this EV experiment has become. Forcing the USPS to go 100% electric is a waste of tax dollars and causes problems and delays of mail deliveries — especially considering that manufacturers were having difficulty meeting the promised deadlines and the agreed upon price.
Let’s not sugarcoat this. EV incentives overwhelmingly benefit upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans. They’re the ones who can afford $60,000 Teslas or $80,000 Hummer EVs. They can afford home chargers, and they have multiple cars and easy access to public charging. The very Americans who are footing the bill for these incentives — the working class — are the least likely to benefit from them.
Moreover, EVs are not as “clean” as their marketing and mainstream media suggest. The mining of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals comes with serious environmental and human consequences, often in countries with little regulation. And the electricity that powers these vehicles? Still largely generated from coal and natural gas in many parts of the U.S.
The EV market hasn’t succeeded like the past administration claimed. There’s still minimal demand; drivers want lower-cost gas vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids. But the idea that EVs are the inevitable future and must be subsidized into dominance is not grounded in economic or consumer reality.
Manufacturers and dealers made a business bet. Some will win, others will lose. But the solution isn’t to keep squeezing taxpayers. It’s to give consumers choices — gas, hybrid, diesel, or electric — and let the best technology win in a fair and open marketplace.
Instead of begging Congress to keep the incentives, maybe the industry should have taken a hard look at how it got here. Consumers want freedom of choice, not government mandates wrapped in green marketing. If EVs are truly better, they’ll succeed on their own merits.
President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act just sent a jolt through America’s automotive industry — and this time, it’s not about subsidies or mandates. It’s about getting Washington out of the driver’s seat.
Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation is packed with major changes that will affect your next car, your fuel bill, and maybe even your job.
Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works.
Whether you’re a mechanic, a car dealer, or someone simply trying to afford a reliable ride, this bill deserves your full attention. It dismantles a decade of EV favoritism, slashes penalties for automakers, and puts gas-powered vehicles squarely back in the spotlight.
Let’s break it down — without the fluff — and explain exactly why this matters to you.
This legislation starts by hitting reverse on the U.S. Postal Service’s $9.6 billion push to electrify its fleet, which began in January 2024 with the purchase of 7,200 Ford E-Transit electric vans, developed especially for the USPS.
Now that this entire program has been marked "return to sender," USPS can get back to delivering mail instead of testing environmental policy.
While an earlier version of the bill called for the USPS to sell off the electric vans, that provision was missing from the final document.
Next up: the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill takes direct aim at overreaching green energy policy eliminating California’s ability to set its own tougher vehicle emissions standards. California’s EPA waiver had long allowed the state to push automakers into building more EVs and hybrids — regardless of what the rest of the country wanted. That’s over. And with it, the ripple effect on nationwide vehicle standards could collapse.
More importantly, the bill removes the penalties automakers faced for missing fuel economy targets. Companies like Stellantis paid nearly $191 million in fines during just one two-year window (2019–2020) under CAFE standards. Now, those penalties are set to zero.
This gives automakers breathing room — and the ability to focus on building vehicles Americans actually want to buy: SUVs, trucks, and gas-powered cars with real utility or hybrid vehicles. Not battery-powered compliance boxes.
Here’s the part that really flips the EV market upside down: The tax credits are going away — and sooner than expected.
The $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs will vanish after September 30, 2025 — a full three months earlier than the House originally planned. And it gets more aggressive: Leased EVs from non-U.S. automakers lose their credits immediately. The EV charger tax credit also ends in June 2026.
What remains? A manufacturing tax credit for U.S.-built EV batteries, but even that excludes any company with links to China.
This is a major economic pivot. With EVs costing an average of $9,000 more than gas-powered vehicles, losing these incentives could price many buyers out of the market. Analysts are forecasting a 72% drop in projected EV sales over the next decade, along with a possible loss of 80,000 U.S. jobs and $100 billion in expected investment.
Tesla may survive the fallout. But other automakers — like Ford and Hyundai — will likely delay or scale back future EV development. Expect fewer EV ads, slower rollouts, and more conventional models hitting showrooms.
So what does all this mean for you, the driver?
Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works. Expect more variety, lower prices, and vehicles designed for the actual demands of American families and businesses.
RELATED: WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off 250th anniversary of the US with patriotic rally
Fuel demand is expected to stay high — and that’s good news for domestic energy production. Oil and gas industries have long warned that EV policy was artificially distorting the market. Now, that distortion is being corrected.
The bill also helps car buyers more directly with a proposed tax deduction for buyers saddled with auto loan interest — a nod to the growing number of Americans financing vehicles in a high-rate environment. It’s a way to offer relief without distorting the product landscape.
And while an annual $250 EV road-use fee didn’t make it into the final bill, don’t be surprised if that resurfaces in the next round of negotiations. Right now, gas drivers pay federal fuel taxes that help fund roads and infrastructure. EVs pay nothing. That imbalance may not last. This fight could be taken up by the EPA or the Department of Transportation.
This legislation favors automakers willing to build vehicles Americans want — not those chasing regulatory credits. It’s a win for traditional manufacturers, oil and gas workers, and dealers in heartland states where EV demand has always been low.
It’s a loss for global automakers betting big on electric growth in the U.S. market — especially those with heavy investment in Chinese battery supply chains. And it’s a headache for urban planners, utilities, and environmental groups counting on mass EV adoption to hit clean energy targets.
The National Automobile Dealers Association, CarMax, and others were pushing for a longer transition period. They feared a sudden market disruption. Meanwhile, critics of the bill claimed it jeopardizes climate goals, raises future utility bills, and hands the EV lead to countries like China.
This isn’t just a debate about cars or clean air — it’s a fight over how much control government should have over your choices, your money, and your mobility.
Do you want a vehicle that fits your life, your budget, and your needs? Or do you want a central planner in Washington — or Sacramento — dictating your options? That’s the question this bill forces us to ask.
By pulling back mandates, cutting artificial market manipulation, and letting consumers — not bureaucrats — drive the demand, this bill aims to restore sanity to an industry that’s been distorted by politics and ideology for too long.
It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
So think carefully about what this means, not just for the next car you buy — but for the future of freedom on America’s roads.
For more, check out my video here.
www.theblaze.com