Car dealers stuck with unsellable​ EVs have nobody to blame but themselves



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.

Seeing green

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.

No more cushion

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:

  • New EVs (under $80,000): up to $7,500 in tax credits;
  • Used EVs (under $25,000): up to $4,000 in tax credits.
Meanwhile, automakers under the 200,000-EV threshold can still qualify for incentives under current law until 2026.

Too little, too late

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.

Judicial speed bump

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

  Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

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.

Return to sender

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.

Cui bono?

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.

Let the market decide

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.

  

Trump unplugged! One Big Beautiful Bill ends EV tax credit September 30



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.

USPS fleet unplugged

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. 

Hard reset on EPA overreach

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.

EV tax credits ending sooner

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.

More choice, more questions

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.

Winners and losers

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.

Why you should care

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.

Were Biden’s strict fuel economy standards illegal? Sean Duffy says yes.



Could the rules behind your car’s fuel economy be hiding a big secret?

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says Biden-era fuel economy standards were illegal, and he’s rolling them back. This move could lower car prices and give you more options. But what does it mean for your wallet and your drive?

Biden’s rules, Duffy argues, assumed massive EV growth, inflating fleet efficiency targets and effectively mandating more EVs.

The Trump administration is shaking up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which set miles-per-gallon targets for automakers.

In June 2025, Duffy announced that Biden’s rules requiring an average of 50 mpg for light-duty vehicles by 2031 were illegal. Those standards, finalized in 2024, demanded 2% annual efficiency gains for cars starting in 2027 and light trucks in 2029, banking on a surge in electric vehicle sales.

Duffy’s new interpretive rule, “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program,” doesn’t change standards yet but empowers the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise them soon. It argues that Biden’s team violated federal law by factoring EVs into CAFE calculations, something banned under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Adding fuel to the fire, Senate Republicans proposed scrapping fines for automakers missing CAFE targets with gas-powered vehicles, part of a June 2025 tax bill. These moves aim to ease burdens on carmakers and shift away from EV-heavy policies, but they’re sparking fierce arguments about cost, choice, and environmental impact.

Why ‘illegal’?

At the heart of Duffy’s claim is how Biden’s CAFE standards were set. Federal law requires NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” mpg goals for gas-powered vehicles, weighing technology, cost, and energy savings. But it explicitly prohibits counting EVs — classified as “dedicated alternative fuel vehicles” — in these calculations.

Biden’s rules, Duffy argues, assumed massive EV growth, inflating fleet efficiency targets and effectively mandating more EVs. This raised costs for automakers, who had to invest heavily in electric models or face hefty fines.

Supported by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Duffy says this approach broke statutory limits, making the standards unlawful. Major automakers like GM, Ford, and Stellantis agree, arguing that Biden’s targets were unrealistic and forced them to prioritize EVs over popular gas-powered SUVs and trucks. The Trump administration claims resetting CAFE will cut manufacturing costs, make cars more affordable, and let you choose what you drive, whether it’s gas, hybrid, or electric.

Inside Biden’s ambitious plan

To grasp the rollback, consider what Biden’s rules demanded.

Set in June 2024, they aimed for 50.4 mpg for light-duty vehicles by 2031, saving 64 billion gallons of gas and cutting 659 million metric tons of emissions by 2050. Heavy-duty pickups and vans faced tougher goals, with 10% yearly efficiency jumps from 2030 to 2032. These standards were part of a push to halve vehicle emissions by 2032, with EVs expected to dominate new car sales.

Biden’s team argued the rules would save drivers about $600 per vehicle in fuel costs over its lifetime, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and fight climate change. Environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund cheered, citing cleaner air and energy security.

But automakers weren’t convinced, citing sky-high compliance costs and a market where EVs, despite heavy investment, remain pricier and less popular than gas vehicles. A credit-trading system let EV makers like Tesla sell excess credits to others, earning billions but adding costs for traditional carmakers, who called it unfair. Duffy’s rule challenges this system, aiming for a fairer market.

How this affects you

This isn’t just a policy debate — it impacts your next car purchase.

Duffy says scrapping Biden’s rules will lower production costs, letting automakers offer cheaper vehicles, especially affordable models for families and small businesses. High CAFE standards drove up prices by requiring costly tech like turbochargers or hybrids. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation suggests this could revive entry-level cars. However, less efficient vehicles could mean bigger fuel bills, potentially wiping out savings.

The rollback could also expand your choices. Strict standards pushed carmakers toward EVs, sidelining gas-powered SUVs and trucks that lead U.S. sales. Looser rules might bring more variety, including heavier, safer designs, as data shows these fare better in crashes. But environmentalists like Katherine Garcia of the Sierra Club warn this could limit clean vehicle options, frustrating eco-conscious buyers. Older, less efficient cars — more common if prices drop — may also pose safety risks, creating a complex trade-off.

Biden’s rules promised major cuts in emissions, but in some cases they could actually stall progress. In coal-heavy regions like the Midwest, EVs aren’t always cleaner than efficient gas vehicles. Curious? The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator shows how your local grid affects EV emissions — it’s worth a look.

Policy meets politics

This fight goes beyond mpg — it’s a battle of priorities. Biden used CAFE to speed up EV adoption, tying it to climate goals and the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV subsidies. Trump, backed by automakers and oil interests, sees it as government overreach. His January 2025 executive orders “Unleashing American Energy” and “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” directed agencies to ditch EV mandates and boost fossil fuels.

The timing adds intrigue. Duffy’s rule landed amid a public clash between Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, with Trump suggesting that Musk opposed a budget bill cutting EV tax credits. Musk pushed back, but it highlights tensions as EV policies unravel. The EPA, now led by Lee Zeldin, is also rethinking emissions rules and California’s 2035 gas car ban, signaling a wider retreat from green policies.

Environmentalists are alarmed. Garcia warns that weaker standards will raise fuel costs, increase pollution, and harm health. Automakers, however, see relief after struggling with EV investments and sluggish sales. Stellantis, for instance, delayed its electric Ram pickup and doubled down on gas models post-election, reflecting the industry’s shift.

What's next?

Duffy’s rule is a starting point. NHTSA will soon propose new standards, likely easing mpg targets and excluding EVs. Senate plans to eliminate fines could further relax enforcement, giving carmakers room to breathe. But legal battles are brewing — environmental groups may sue, arguing that NHTSA must set “maximum feasible” standards. California’s tougher rules could also trigger a federal-state clash.

For now, the rollback aligns with Trump’s promise of affordability and choice. Whether it delivers cheaper cars or dirtier air depends on NHTSA’s next steps and consumer response. Fuel economy standards, born during the 1970s oil crisis, remain a flashpoint for energy, economics, and the environment.

Why you should care

This story hits your driveway, your budget, and the world you live in. Biden’s CAFE rules aimed high but, per Duffy, broke the law by banking on EVs. The Trump rollback could make cars cheaper and give you more options, but it risks higher fuel costs and emissions.

Stay tuned for NHTSA’s next moves and tell policymakers what matters to you. Whether you love gas, lean electric, or ride hybrid, you deserve rules that balance cost, choice, and a cleaner future.

  

$8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda



California drivers, brace yourselves. Starting July 1, 2025, you could be paying 65 cents more per gallon — pushing gas prices to a staggering $8 by 2026.

Why? Because California regulators, fresh off the repeal of the federal electric vehicle mandate, are going full speed ahead with stricter clean fuel standards — which critics say amount to a hidden tax and a deliberate attempt to force drivers into electric vehicles.

'This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.'

Back in November, the California Air Resources Board — an unelected group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — voted to update the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The new rules penalize gasoline and diesel producers and reward low-carbon fuel options like EV charging infrastructure.

 

Cleaner fuels, higher prices

 

CARB’s goal is to cut the carbon intensity of transportation fuels 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. Fuel producers that exceed carbon limits must purchase credits, a cost that gets passed straight to you at the pump. While regulators tout benefits like reduced air pollution and $4 billion in new clean energy investments, experts project these rules will raise gas prices by 47 to 65 cents per gallon next year — and possibly $1.50 more by 2035.

Meanwhile, two major California refineries are shutting down, reducing capacity by over 8%. That means less supply and even higher prices. Some forecasts, including one from the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, warn of $8 gas by 2026.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calls it “blatant price gouging" by an "unelected board of wealthy bureaucrats.” He’s filed a public records request to expose what he says is a coordinated effort to bypass voters and crush gas-powered mobility.

 

About climate — or control?

 

The timing of this update is no accident. It came just days after the 2024 election, ignoring nearly 13,000 Californians who petitioned for a delay. Republican Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the changes, warns that rural and working-class Californians can’t afford the hike.

Even after the Office of Administrative Law paused the plan in early 2025 due to procedural issues, CARB was given 120 days to revise and resubmit — keeping the threat alive.

RELATED: California gas-car ban overturned by Senate

  The Enthusiast Network/Getty Images

Despite growing backlash, CARB has refused to revise its original 47-cent cost estimate, even as outside experts warn it could be far higher. Climate economist Danny Cullenward slammed the board’s secrecy, saying it erodes public trust.

Jones put it more bluntly: “This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.”

 

California in charge?

 

California’s policies don’t stop at its borders. About a dozen other states — covering 35% of the U.S. population — have adopted its EV sales targets, including the 2035 gas vehicle ban. States like New York, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts are now weighing how to enforce similar goals without federal backup.

While none of these states has matched California’s aggressive LCFS update, many use credit-based emissions programs that punish traditional fuels. Meanwhile, California’s refinery closures could send regional gas prices up 10 to 20 cents, even in states that don’t adopt LCFS-style rules.

The result? A creeping increase in gas prices across the country, driven not by market forces but by regulatory agendas.

 

Not buying it

 

An AAA survey earlier this month found that 63% of Americans are unlikely to buy an EV, citing cost, insurance, and lack of charging stations. In California, where electricity rates are double the national average, even charging an EV isn’t much cheaper than filling a tank. With EV financing averaging $783 per month and $105 billion in taxpayer subsidies on the line, the current system favors wealthier households — while working families pay more for both gas and electricity.

And it’s not just pump prices. The added costs ripple through the economy — affecting groceries, shipping, manufacturing, and transportation. The combined impact of the LCFS hike, refinery closures, and a scheduled excise tax bump could raise gas prices by as much as 90 cents per gallon in 2025.

 

Meeting consumers, not mandates

 

The auto industry is responding to real-world demand — not government mandates. With the federal EV mandate repealed, manufacturers are shifting their focus to hybrids and fuel-efficient gas cars while scaling back some EV plans. While new EV factories are still being built, carmakers are hedging their bets, giving consumers more options, not fewer.

That’s a refreshing contrast to California’s top-down approach.

 

Freedom vs. forced transition

 

California defends its LCFS update as a critical step toward its 2045 net-zero target. But critics argue that the environmental benefits are exaggerated and the economic burden is real. EVs, for instance, release 26% more tire particulate pollution than gas cars, posing their own environmental risks.

And if gas really hits $8 per gallon, the state’s policies may not just be unaffordable — they’ll be unsustainable.

Whether you live in California, Nevada, Arizona, or a state following California’s lead, this is about more than gas. It’s about who decides how you live and what you drive. With the federal EV mandate off the table, it’s time to ask: Should unelected regulators in Sacramento get to control the fuel in your tank?

 

Taking back the wheel

 

Will lawmakers block the 65-cent hike? Will other states follow California’s lead? If you care about affordability and choice, now’s the time to make your voice heard. This isn’t just about a gallon of gas — it’s about the freedom to drive what works for you.

For more on this, check out my video here.

GM head touts EV-only future — while pouring $1 billion into gas engines



Americans aren't buying them and Trump wants to take away their $7,500 tax credit — but General Motors CEO Mary Barra still thinks electric vehicles are the future.

Never mind the $888 million her own company just poured into gas-powered V-8 engines — Barra seems to think they'll go the way of the dinosaurs sooner rather than later.

Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

"I see a path to all EV," she announced at the Wall Street Journal's Future of Everything conference late last month. "I do believe we'll get there because I think the vehicles are better.”

Barra's commitment to phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 has made GM one of the frontrunners in the EV race.

Consumer doubts

Meanwhile, actual consumers still bring up the rear. A recent AAA survey reveals that 63% of Americans are skeptical about EVs, citing high costs, higher insurance premiums, and inadequate charging infrastructure.

Then, there's that almost billon-dollar investment in gas-guzzlers. Something tells us Barra's not exactly putting her money where her mouth is.

Can she have it both ways? As some automakers resist the all-EV push and others cling to outdated mandates, the auto industry is at a crossroads. Let’s unpack the contradictory strategy, consumer hesitancy, and the brands charting their own paths in this high-stakes debate.

This could impact the economy, your driving choices, and where you spend your money..

RELATED: Introducing 'Quick Fix': Practical answers to all your car questions

  Blaze Media

The rubber meets the road

Barra has positioned GM as an EV leader, boasting, “We have more EVs in the market right now than anyone else in this country.” GM’s lineup includes nine electric models, such as the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Cadillac Escalade IQ, and GMC Hummer EV, with four more planned.

The Equinox EV, priced around $35,000, aims to make EVs accessible to everyone. To support this, GM has invested $35 billion through 2025 in EV and autonomous vehicle development, including a battery cells factory outside Nashville.

In contrast, last December, GM announced it would sell its stake in the Ultium Cells plant in Lansing, Michigan, to LG Energy Solution. Partnerships with EVgo and Pilot Company aim to expand fast-charging stations, with Barra asserting, “Charging is just going to continue to get better.” GM has dropped the “Ultium” brand name for EV batteries.

Hedging bets

Yet, GM’s actions tell a different story. In a surprising move, the company announced an $888 million investment in its Tonawanda Propulsion plant, outside of Buffalo, New York, to produce the sixth generation of V-8 engines for full-size trucks and SUVs.

These engines promise stronger performance, better fuel economy, and lower emissions through new combustion and thermal management innovations.

This follows a $579 million investment in January 2023 to upgrade the Flint Engine plant for the same V-8 engines, marking Tonawanda as the second facility to produce them.

Barra defended the move, saying, “Our significant investments in GM’s Tonawanda Propulsion plant show our commitment to strengthening American manufacturing and supporting jobs in the U.S.” She added that the Buffalo plant, operational for 87 years, will deliver “world-class trucks and SUVs to our customers for years to come.”

This dual strategy raises questions. Is GM truly committed to an all-electric future, or is Barra hedging her bets to meet consumer demand for gas-powered vehicles?

Consumers might argue she’s trying to have it both ways — pushing a government-favored EV agenda while quietly acknowledging that Americans still want gas trucks and SUVs. Barra’s claim of “choice” feels like a nod to market freedom, but it’s hard to ignore the influence of past presidential administrations’ heavy-handed EV mandates.

If GM is serious about consumer choice, why not let the market — not bureaucrats — set the pace?

'No' to top-down mandates

Americans aren’t buying the EV hype. AAA’s latest survey shows only 16% of U.S. adults are “very likely” or “likely” to buy an EV as their next car, the lowest interest since 2019. Meanwhile, 63% are “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to go electric, up from 51% last year.

Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering, noted, “While the automotive industry is committed to long-term electrification and providing a diverse range of models, underlying consumer hesitation remains.”

The reasons are clear: high battery repair costs (62%) and purchase price (59%) top the list. AAA’s "Your Driving Costs 2024" analysis confirms EVs’ higher upfront costs, despite long-term savings. Additionally, 57% see EVs as unsuitable for long-distance travel, 56% cite insufficient public charging stations, and 55% fear range anxiety. Safety concerns trouble 31%, 27% struggle with home charging (especially in apartments), and 12% worry about losing tax credits.

These numbers reflect a market rejecting top-down mandates. Consumers aren’t anti-EV — they’re anti-being told what to buy when the infrastructure and affordability aren’t there. Barra’s EV push aligns with policies mandated by past administrations, but her V-8 investment suggests she knows the market isn’t ready to abandon gas. This contradiction exposes a flaw in centrally planned transitions: You can’t force consumers to want what doesn’t work for them.

Hybrid theory

While GM straddles both worlds, other automakers are rejecting the all-EV narrative.

Toyota has been vocal about its skepticism, focusing on hybrids like the Prius, which deliver fuel efficiency without charging hassles. Toyota’s investment in hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks positions it as a pioneer in alternatives to battery EVs.

RELATED: Toyota, Jeep, and the big emissions scam

  Camerique/Getty Images

Mazda, with its MX-30 EV, prioritizes gas engine improvements and hybrids, citing battery production costs and environmental concerns.

Subaru, offering the Solterra EV, emphasizes hybrids and awaits better charging infrastructure.

Hyundai is navigating the shifting auto landscape with a pragmatic strategy that prioritizes consumer demand over government mandates, a move drivers can applaud. The company’s $7.6 billion Metaplant in Georgia is now expanding to include hybrids, with Kia models joining the lineup in 2026.

Hyundai’s focus on hybrids, like the 2026 Palisade, reflects growing demand for fuel-efficient options that don’t rely on sparse charging infrastructure. Meanwhile, Hyundai continues to produce gas-powered vehicles, recognizing that internal combustion engines still dominate consumer preferences in many markets.

Unlike GM’s Barra, who pushes an all-EV future while investing in gas engines, Hyundai’s approach avoids hypocrisy by openly embracing a mix of EVs, hybrids, and gas vehicles. This flexibility shields Hyundai from policy swings — like potential tariff hikes or the loss of EV subsidies — while giving drivers the freedom to choose what fits their lives, not what bureaucrats dictate.

Stellantis, parent of Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler, balances plug-in hybrids like the Jeep Wrangler 4XE with gas vehicles, catering to diverse consumer needs.

These brands are listening to the market, not bureaucrats. By offering hybrids and gas options, they’re giving consumers what they want — freedom to choose — while GM’s $888 million V-8 investment suggests even Barra knows gas isn’t going away soon. In addition, GM currently does not offer a hybrid powertrain in its vehicles.

This resistance to EV mandates reflects buyers' common sense: Let the market, not the government, decide what drives America.

The road to freedom?

Barra’s vision for 2035 is ambitious, but her actions betray uncertainty. GM’s EV efforts for affordable models, batteries, and charging partnerships are serious, but the $1.4 billion combined investment in V-8 engines for Tonawanda and Flint shows she’s not ready to abandon gas.

AAA’s survey proves consumers aren’t convinced, and brands like Toyota, Stellantis, Mazda, Hyundai, and others are betting on hybrids to bridge the gap. Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

If you’re eyeing an EV, the lineup is diverse, but AAA’s data urges caution. Can you charge reliably? Can you afford the cost? Does the range work for your life? If not, you’re among the 63% holding back — and that’s your right.

You're in the driver's seat; where you go should be up to you — not bureaucrats.

Trump to kill $7,500 EV credit ... and Elon agrees?



No more $7,500 tax credit for electric cars.

That crucial proposal is tucked away in Trump's big, beautiful bill — and even Elon Musk likes it. (At least, that's what he's saying.)

As Stellantis Ram brand manager Tim Kuniskis says, “Americans like to count cylinders.”

If passed, it would spell the end of up to $7,500 in federal subsidies per EV and would shut the door on an increasingly controversial and costly pillar of the Biden administration’s transportation policy.

Cash for Clunkers 2.0

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about disliking innovation or electric vehicles. Some people love them. Americans love tech and efficiency. But many are waking up to the realization that we’ve been here before — back in 2009 — with the infamous “Cash for Clunkers” program.

That federal boondoggle was touted as a win-win: Stimulate the economy, clean up the roads, and help Americans afford new, fuel-efficient cars. Instead, it destroyed perfectly good vehicles, reduced the used car supply, inflated car prices, and ultimately did little for emissions.

RELATED: Extend your EV battery's lifespan with two simple steps

  Education Images/Getty Images

Fast-forward to today, and the government is repeating history with a different name and a different agenda. This time, it’s EVs that are being pushed through incentives, tax breaks, and regulations. The problem? Americans aren’t buying it — literally. According to AAA’s latest 2024 survey, only 16% of U.S. adults say they’re likely to purchase an EV as their next vehicle, the lowest percentage since 2019. A staggering 63% say they’re unlikely or very unlikely to go electric.

Not buying it

The reasons are clear and reasonable. High purchase prices, unreliable charging infrastructure, battery range anxiety, higher insurance rates, and sky-high repair costs are all legitimate concerns. Add to that the challenge of charging at home — especially for apartment dwellers — and you have a product that’s simply not ready for mass adoption.

That hasn’t stopped the federal government from funneling billions of your tax dollars into EVs, much of it to automakers who were already profitable. What’s worse, companies that don’t even manufacture in America are reaping the rewards, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

No EV-only future

Brands like Toyota and Stellantis (which includes Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, and Jeep) have already expressed skepticism about a full-EV future. Toyota's and Hyundai’s leadership continues to advocate for a mixed drivetrain approach — hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, and even internal combustion — arguing that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't make sense globally or domestically.

They aren’t alone. Honda and Mazda have also taken more cautious steps, resisting the full-EV tunnel vision. It’s not resistance for the sake of rebellion; it’s an approach that represents the truth, rooted in economics, infrastructure, and real consumer behavior.

RELATED: Gas car ban by 2035? EPA sets stage for electric-only future

  Raul Arboleda/Getty Images

Meanwhile, EVs sit on dealer lots for months at a time. Automakers are slowing production. Ford slashed its F-150 Lightning production goals by half. GM is backpedaling on its EV transition timeline, delaying new launches, and many brands are following. Even Tesla, the king of EVs, is feeling the squeeze, with fluctuating demand and concerns about long-term profitability.

Stuck on green autopilot

And yet, the federal government has remained stuck on green autopilot. The current EV tax credit system — expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act — is projected to cost more than $200 billion over the next decade, according to Capital Alpha Partners. These aren’t small subsidies; they’re massive market distortions. And like Cash for Clunkers, the unintended consequences may haunt us for years.

The Republicans’ proposal doesn’t stop at EV credits. It also seeks to eliminate incentives for commercial EVs, used EVs, and other so-called clean energy projects. But don’t confuse this with an anti-tech or anti-progress stance. It’s about rebalancing the market, restoring consumer choice, and stopping the flood of taxpayer dollars toward an agenda that simply doesn’t align with how Americans drive — or want to drive.

As Stellantis Ram brand manager Tim Kuniskis says, “Americans like to count cylinders.”

Americans deserve a transportation future that prioritizes freedom, innovation, and infrastructure that works. That means more choices — not mandates. It means supporting vehicles people actually want and can afford, not forcing premature transitions through subsidies.

President Trump’s new tax plan could do more than balance the books — it could finally bring some sanity back to our roads. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

  

California gas-car ban overturned by Senate



We have some huge news that directly affects your freedom and your ability to drive your car.

The U.S. Senate just voted on a bill to halt the California EV mandate, which requires 80% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2035 and has been adopted by 11 other states.

The Senate’s vote isn’t just about cars — it’s about protecting a $100 billion sector of the US economy.

The outcome affects vehicle options, prices, and fuel choices for drivers nationwide. This is a pivotal moment for the auto industry.

This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a decision that will ripple through car lots, gas stations, and your wallet. From vehicle prices to fuel choices, the Senate’s move is a game-changer, and you’ll want to stick with me to understand why this matters and what’s next.

A win for consumer choice

Yesterday the Senate passed a hat trick of resolutions with a 51-44 vote to cancel California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which aimed to phase out new gasoline-only vehicle sales by 2035.

H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 strike down the three waivers that allowed states to adopt stronger vehicle pollution standards than those required federally. In English, this removes the electric vehicle mandate.

Enabled by a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency waiver, this mandate didn’t just affect California — it influenced a dozen states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, covering roughly 40% of the U.S. population.

The Senate’s decision, following a 246-164 House vote on May 1, sends the bill to President Donald Trump’s desk, where it’s expected to be signed into law.

This isn’t just about electric vehicles versus gas-powered cars. It’s about consumer choice, economic stability, and the future of an industry that employs millions.

Setting the tone

The Congressional Review Act, used to repeal the EPA waiver, limits judicial review, making this decision more concrete than an executive action. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) spearheaded the effort, arguing that California’s mandate overstepped federal authority, inflated vehicle costs, and risked straining the nation’s power grid.

California’s plan wasn’t just a West Coast experiment — it set the tone for the auto market nationwide. If this rule had stayed in place, it would have forced manufacturers to only sell EVs in the U.S., because it wouldn't be worth the cost to build one car for half the population and a different car for the other.

And this isn't speculation. We've seen statements from the auto manufacturers and know that this was the plan. Repealing these regulations preserves your choice.

Easing sticker shock

Also, EVs come with sticker prices thousands higher than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. For example, the average EV costs about $66,000, compared to $48,000 for a gas-powered car.

Federal tax credits of up to $7,500 have helped bridge that gap, but House Republicans are now proposing to eliminate those credits, potentially making EVs even pricier. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Then there’s the infrastructure issue. With only about 64,000 public charging stations nationwide — compared to over 145,000 gas stations — rural drivers and long-distance commuters could face serious hurdles.

Thune warned that the mandate could overload the power grid, especially in areas with limited charging options. Imagine being stuck in a small town with no charger in sight. That’s not just inconvenient; it’s a deal-breaker for many.

'No authority'

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers offered these comments:

Congress has made clear that California regulators have no authority to dictate what cars Americans can buy or to ban internal combustion engine vehicles. President Trump can now deliver on a major part of his campaign promise to end EV mandates in the United States. This is a massive win for consumers and working families all across the country.

The National Automobile Dealers Association backed the Senate’s move, arguing that the mandate distorted the vehicle market. NADA President and CEO Mike Stanton stated, “This unrealistic mandate, coupled with an insufficient and unreliable charging infrastructure, would have drastically reduced consumer choice and raised prices for new and used cars and trucks for all Americans.”

Even General Motors, once a vocal EV supporter, is reportedly pushing to revoke the mandate after April 2025 EV sales dipped, signaling consumer hesitation.

The empire strikes back

California isn’t going down without a fight. Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have vowed to sue the federal government, calling the Senate’s vote “illegal” and a violation of decades of precedent under the Clean Air Act.

Newsom said, “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent.”

Bonta agreed, accusing Senate Republicans of weaponizing the Congressional Review Act to undermine California’s efforts to curb pollution. The state argues that its waivers are critical for reducing emissions and combatting climate change.

California’s regulations have historically been aggressive, but critics, including Thune, argue that the state’s outsized influence limits consumer choice and burdens automakers with costly compliance.

Saving jobs

The Senate’s vote isn’t just about cars — it’s about protecting a $100 billion sector of the U.S. economy. The specialty automotive aftermarket, which relies heavily on ICE technology, supports over 330,000 jobs. By halting California’s mandate, Congress has safeguarded this hub of American innovation, ensuring stability for workers and businesses.

This decision also raises questions about the federal EV push. While the Senate vote targets state-level mandates, the Biden administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — raised to 50.4 miles per gallon in 2024 — have been criticized as an indirect EV mandate.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy stated that these standards “illegally” drove up car prices. Over 120 House Republicans echoed this, arguing that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration overstepped its authority by factoring EVs into its calculations.

The Senate’s vote reshapes the auto market, but it’s not the final word. California’s lawsuit could delay or complicate implementation, though the CRA’s limited judicial review strengthens Congress’ position.

For drivers, this means more choices at the dealership. Gas-powered and hybrid vehicles will remain widely available, preserving options for those who can’t afford EVs or live in areas with sparse charging infrastructure.

Credit check

Back to the $7,500 tax credit.

President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” cleared the House of Representatives. Now it has to go to the Senate, where it faces an equally hard fight.

And here’s what the auto industry is watching carefully. The legislation, as it stands now, phases out the $7,500 sales rebate for new EVs, the $4,000 rebate for used EVs, and the $40,000 rebate for clean commercial vehicles at the end of this year.

That’s seven years earlier than they were originally set to expire. Same goes for the $1,000 tax credit for installing a Level II charger in your home. If passed, all this goes away on December 31. The bill also tacks on a $250 annual federal fee to all EVs, which we talked about last week. Maybe some of this will get changed under reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.

This story is far from over.

The Senate also voted 51-45 to cancel EPA waivers for California’s heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules and 49-46 to address nitrogen oxide regulations, signaling a broader push against stringent environmental policies. These votes, combined with the ACC II repeal, reflect a Republican-led effort to prioritize consumer choice and economic stability over aggressive mandates.

Balancing priorities

But the fight isn’t just in Washington.

California’s legal challenge could set a precedent for how states balance local priorities with federal oversight. And with automakers like GM reassessing their EV strategies amid fluctuating demand, the industry is at a crossroads.

For now, drivers can expect more choices at the dealership, but costs could rise if EV subsidies end. This story is still unfolding, and its impact will be felt from showrooms to highways.

This is a defining moment for the auto industry, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether you’re a car enthusiast, a daily commuter, or just someone who cares about the future of transportation, this decision affects you. Share this article with friends, family, and fellow drivers, and stay informed.

Can a new CEO save Stellantis from bankruptcy?



Stellantis is on the hunt for a new CEO — and whoever it is better be a miracle-maker.

I've talked about the company's recent woes before. Stellantis has reported a steep 70% decline in net profit, falling from 18.6 billion euros ($19.5 billion) in 2023 to 5.5 billion euros ($5.77 billion) in 2024.

Imagine the new Barracuda as a Challenger replacement, while using the 'Cuda name for performance versions.

On top of that, the company is in the midst of a leadership transition following the sudden departure of CEO Carlos Tavares late last year. Until a successor is named — expected in the first half of 2025 — Chairman John Elkann is overseeing operations alongside an interim executive committee.

Big enough to fail

The future seemed a lot brighter back in 2021, when Stellantis was formed from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA. Now the world's fourth-largest automaker, the company was ready to throw its weight around.

But with size came lack of focus. Stellantis' broad brand mix — which includes names like Jeep, Peugeot, DS, Lancia, Maserati, and Alfa Romeo — has proven difficult to manage efficiently.

Investing big in EVs hasn't helped, either.

Nonetheless, Stellantis is confident the right CEO will be able to turn things around. Whoever it is will have to make some tough decisions when it comes to some heritage brands. It's doubtful all will make it through.

A better Barracuda?

On the other hand, we could see some iconic names coming back. A smaller, twin-turbocharged, all-wheel-drive V8 coupe Barracuda, anyone?

It could happen if rumors are true that performance guru Tim Kuniskis will return to the company. There are a lot worse strategies than putting Kuniskis behind the wheel of the Stellantis portfolio of brands.

Cooking with gas

Imagine the new Barracuda as a Challenger replacement, while using the 'Cuda name for performance versions, as the company has in the past, all with a V8 version that is smaller, lighter, and more sophisticated than its predecessors.

They'll sell like hotcakes.

The syrup and whipped cream on top will be if the U.S. Federal EV mandate truly goes away. When that happens, automotive stocks for companies making gasoline cars will see a dramatic revaluation.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

Trump pulls plug on government's 8,000 EV chargers



The word has come down from on high: Shut down the power, and sell the fleet.

The Trump administration's General Services Administration is set to pull the plug on all EV charging stations in federal buildings nationwide. In addition, the agency plans to off-load newly purchased EVs from the federal vehicle fleet.

Shutting this down isn’t just about saving pennies; it’s a signal. The Trump administration is pumping the brakes on the whole EV push, big time.

Tell me again how Trump's in the tank for Elon?

Fleet cheat

The GSA is the agency that keeps the federal government’s buildings humming and manages a massive fleet of about 650,000 vehicles.

Under Biden, the GSA went all in on EVs — ordering over 58,000 zero-emission rides and installing thousands of charging ports nationwide. The goal? Electrify everything by 2035.

But now, with Trump back in the driver’s seat, the GSA is hitting the brakes hard. It is pulling the plug on hundreds of charging stations — think 8,000 plugs going dark — and off-loading those brand-new EVs faster than you can say "range anxiety."

The reasoning? These assets aren’t "mission critical." Translation: The GSA doesn’t think EVs fit the government’s real priorities.

Free ride

Let’s break this down. These chargers weren’t just for government vehicles and federal employees; they were being used for personal EVs, too. We’re talking Denver Federal Center, VA sites, military bases, and other places where federal employees could cop a complimentary charge for their personal vehicles.

The free ride is over. And GSA is unloading its electric vehicle fleets, too. No word yet on whether the government is selling them cheap or just parking them in some giant government lot. Either way, this is a seismic shift. The Biden administration spent billions of your tax dollars to push this green dream, and now the GSA has yanked the emergency brake.

And let’s not kid ourselves — shutting this down isn’t just about saving pennies; it’s a signal. The Trump administration is pumping the brakes on the whole EV push, big time.

War on the green agenda

It's no secret that President Trump is not a fan of Biden’s EV mandate. He’s already paused $5 billion in public charger funding and nixed plans for more federal EVs. This is war on the green agenda. Biden’s team dropped BILLIONS of dollars of your money to electrify everything by 2035.

The GSA is responsible for managing federal assets including a fleet of approximately 650,000 vehicles. Under the Biden administration, it embarked on a plan to transition to zero-emission vehicles. That included the procurement of over 58,000 EVs and the installation of more than 25,000 charging ports. It never came anywhere close to achieving those figures though, and this new directive puts that plan to a swift end.

It's not clear where all those unwanted EVs will go. Technically, the GSA could simply take the vehicles out of the fleet and put them into storage rather than sell them at a loss.

It’s also uncertain how the agency will replace the vehicles being phased out; possibilities include purchasing new gas-powered models or reallocating older ones from retirement. I hope they reuse the older ones and stop wasting our tax dollars.

Waste management

Three years ago, the Biden administration gave out a total of $7.5 billion in grants for states to develop EV charging infrastructure; since then, only about a dozen charging stations have been built nationwide.

This is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Carmakers need to shift gears and stop cranking out EVs that are not selling and sitting on dealer lots. Making what their customers want rather than what is mandated will return the profits they once enjoyed.

So what’s your take? Is the GSA right to ditch EVs and chargers? Hit me up in the comments. I want to hear your opinions!

  

EV mandate killed in 'biggest day of deregulation in American history'



"The greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen."

That's what Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin said of today's announcement that the onerous fuel efficiency standards opponents have called a de facto electric vehicle mandate will be rescinded.

'The American auto industry has been hamstrung by the crushing regulatory regime of the last administration.'

That includes 31 specific regulatory rollbacks designed to unleash American energy, lower the cost of living, boost the domestic auto industry, and give more power back to the states.

Putting the brakes on inflation

The first step: using the Administrative Procedures Act to re-evaluate policies enacted last year by the Biden administration to reduce emissions for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. This would have increased the costs of shipping goods, with estimated regulatory and compliance costs of over $700 billion.

That gets passed on to the consumer.

On day one, President Trump signed a series of executive orders on energy policies that he said would tackle inflation after consumer costs soared by 22% during former President Biden’s term in office.

Protect consumer choice

One of President Trump’s executive orders also included reversing a policy that pushed carmakers to make 50% of their output electric vehicles by 2030, which would increase costs and limit consumer choices.

The ultimate goal was to go 100% EV by 2032 — something our power grid simply cannot support.

In March 2024, the Biden administration finalized a rule to require carmakers to dramatically reduce carbon emissions beginning for model year 2027 light- and medium-size vehicles. This is why car prices have increased to an average of $50,000 for gas cars and $66,000 for electric vehicles.

“The American auto industry has been hamstrung by the crushing regulatory regime of the last administration,” Zeldin told the New York Post.

President Trump campaigned on scrapping Biden’s fuel efficiency rules by arguing that consumers should have the options of buying hybrid, gasoline-powered, or diesel-powered vehicles without government interference or mandate.

Waiver bye-bye?

On February 15, 2025, Lee Zeldin, chair of the EPA, sent the California's Clean Air Act waiver (which is directly connected to the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation) to Congress for review.

We are waiting for this to go to a vote, and we will report to you on the votes and results.

The CRA states that if this is passed, the EPA and federal government cannot reattempt to approve this rule. The process allows the vote to come to the floor in an expedited fashion, forcing all members to go on the record with their votes.

If Congress votes to undo a rule, the agency cannot propose a similar regulation. It would require an act of congress to override the CRA.

To summarize:

The EPA takes its biggest action ever to help President Trump save Americans trillions of dollars, lower the cost of living, and make it more affordable to buy a car, heat a home, or operate a business. And it will boost job growth!

Welcome to the golden age of America!