On a recent episode of "The Drive with Lauren and Karl," we had a conversation that was a little different — but just as telling about car culture today.

It started with something unexpected: Lego. Not just as a toy, but as a way to connect automotive history to a new generation.

For an industry that often focuses on what’s next — EVs, software, autonomy — it’s easy to overlook how important the past still is.

Our guest, Ford heritage brand manager and archivist Ted Ryan, shared the story behind a new Lego model of the Ford Model T — and what went into getting it right. And the level of detail may surprise you.

To a T

This wasn’t just a half-baked licensing exercise. According to Ryan, the designer behind the set spent months researching the Model T, even reaching out directly to Ford’s archives to verify historical details.

Where was the fuel tank located? How many lights did the car have? What year-specific features mattered?

Those details were checked, corrected, and refined — sometimes multiple times — before the final design was approved.

The whole process took a year of back-and-forth, with emails and revisions to make sure the finished product reflected the real car, not just a simplified version of it.

That’s a level of effort you don’t usually associate with something that ends up on a toy shelf.

Wheeling and dealing

There’s a bigger idea behind it.

As Ryan explained, Lego has shifted in recent years to focus on things that matter culturally — music, film, architecture, and increasingly, cars.

That last one makes a lot of sense.

From Formula 1 to classic American vehicles, automobiles are a huge part of global culture. They’re also a way to tell stories — about innovation, design, and how people lived at a particular moment in time.

And what better example than the iconic Model T.

This is the vehicle that put America on wheels, transforming transportation and making mobility accessible to millions. Bringing that story into a Lego set makes that history visible — and tangible — for people who might never read about it otherwise.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Pieces of history

What stood out in the conversation is how much these sets are now aimed at adults as well as kids.

Lego calls them “AFOLs” — adult fans of Lego — and it’s a growing category. They want builds that are more complex, more detailed, and more likely to be display pieces than playthings.

In this case, the Model T set also includes historical context, helping explain why the car mattered — not just what it looked like.

It's all part of a broader trend. Car culture isn’t just happening at racetracks or car shows anymore. It’s happening in living rooms, offices, and hobby spaces — through collectibles, models, and even digital experiences.

A classic you can keep

For an industry that often focuses on what’s next — EVs, software, autonomy — it’s easy to overlook how important the past still is.

Projects like this show there’s still real demand for that connection.

Not everyone is going to restore a classic car or attend a concours event. But a lot of people will build a model, display it, and learn something along the way.

For younger enthusiasts, this may be their first introduction to a crucial moment in history; for longtime car fans, it’s a potent reminder of what cars mean to them.

Either way, it goes to show that car culture — despite the carping of the environmental doomsayers — isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Stellantis just blew $26 billion on bad EV bet

Stellantis is facing a financial reckoning that should send a warning across the global auto industry.

After betting that the electric vehicle transition would move faster than consumers were ready to follow, the company is now reporting a staggering $26.3 billion net loss for 2025 — driven largely by roughly $30 billion in write-downs tied to scaling back parts of its EV strategy.

As recently as 2023, some workers received nearly $14,000 in profit-sharing payouts. This year, they received nothing.

For a company that was profitable just a year earlier, the reversal is dramatic. Stellantis’ experience highlights the risks of building product strategies around aggressive electrification timelines shaped by government policy and optimistic forecasts rather than actual consumer demand.

Stellantis, the Amsterdam-based automaker formed in 2021, oversees 14 brands, including Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Chrysler, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Peugeot, and Citroën. With that kind of global footprint, its strategic decisions ripple across workers, suppliers, investors — and ultimately car buyers.

Electric slide

The company’s 2025 financial results show how quickly those bets can unravel. Net revenue totaled $181.1 billion, down 2% from the previous year. But the real damage appears on the bottom line: a $26.3 billion net loss replacing what had been a $6.5 billion profit the year before. Free cash flow turned negative by roughly $4.9 billion. Dividends were suspended, and profit-sharing checks for UAW workers disappeared.

As recently as 2023, some workers received nearly $14,000 in profit-sharing payouts. This year, they received nothing. When automakers absorb losses of this scale, the financial pressure eventually spreads through the entire system — from employees and suppliers to vehicle pricing and investment decisions.

Chief Executive Officer Antonio Filosa acknowledged the miscalculation directly, saying the results reflect “the cost of over-estimating the pace of the energy transition.” That unusually candid admission reflects a broader reality across the auto sector: Automakers, regulators, and investors collectively assumed EV adoption would accelerate faster than consumers, charging infrastructure, affordability, and political support would allow.

'Dare' or truth

The roots of the problem trace back to Stellantis’ “Dare Forward 2030” strategy under former CEO Carlos Tavares. The company set ambitious goals: 100% EV sales in Europe and 50% EV sales in the United States by 2030. To reach those targets, Stellantis invested billions in EV platforms, battery supply chains, and factory conversions.

Those investments were encouraged — and in some cases effectively required — by government mandates and regulatory timelines. But the strategy assumed that consumers would move to EVs at roughly the same pace as policymakers hoped.

That assumption proved overly optimistic.

EV adoption has grown, but not at the pace many projections predicted during the peak of electric vehicle enthusiasm. High vehicle prices, uneven charging infrastructure, rising insurance costs, and concerns about resale value have slowed adoption. As those concerns mounted, both Europe and the United States began easing some regulatory pressure tied to EV mandates.

When policy expectations change, automakers are left adjusting billions of dollars in investments that were made under very different assumptions.

Misery loves company

Stellantis was not alone in this miscalculation. Across the industry, automakers have announced more than $55 billion in EV-related write-offs. Reporting from the Financial Times estimates the broader financial toll of scaling back electrification plans — including restructuring costs and canceled programs — has reached roughly $65 billion. Ford alone has taken about $19 billion in charges connected to its EV reset, while General Motors and Volkswagen have also booked major write-downs.

Even in that context, Stellantis’ losses stand out. The company recorded about $25.9 billion in one-time charges, including nearly $20 billion tied directly to electric-vehicle programs, along with roughly $4.8 billion in warranty costs and other restructuring expenses. Those charges reflect a broad reset of the company’s strategy as Stellantis scrapped certain electric and plug-in hybrid models, revised production plans, and shifted investment back toward internal combustion and hybrid vehicles.

Buyers wanted

For consumers, these strategic resets matter because powertrain choices shape vehicle availability and pricing.

In North America, one of the clearest signals of Stellantis’ shift is the return of the 5.7-liter HEMI V8 engine. That move reflects continued demand for traditional powertrains, especially in high-margin truck and performance segments where buyers prioritize capability, reliability, and price over electrification targets.

In Europe, Stellantis is folding diesel and mild-hybrid gasoline options back into several models. Instead of betting exclusively on battery electric vehicles, the company is moving toward a broader powertrain strategy that includes EVs, hybrids, gasoline, and diesel options.

That shift reflects what many consumers have been saying throughout the transition: They want choices that fit their budgets, driving habits, and infrastructure realities.

Chicago Tribune/Getty Images

Smooth travels ahead?

Despite the enormous write-downs, there are early signs of stabilization. During the second half of 2025, after Filosa began unwinding elements of the prior strategy, Stellantis reported approximately $93.3 billion in revenue for the July-December period, a 10% increase year over year. Vehicle shipments rose 11% during that timeframe.

The company still reported an adjusted operating loss of roughly $1.6 billion during that period, but improved shipment volumes suggest the recalibrated strategy may be gaining traction.

The crisis did not develop overnight. It grew from several assumptions: that EV demand would rise steadily, that battery costs would fall fast enough to make EVs profitable, and that regulatory pressure would remain constant.

Instead, the transition has proven far more uneven. EV sales remain heavily dependent on subsidies, battery supply chains still rely heavily on China, and charging infrastructure remains inconsistent across many markets. When incentives shrink or economic conditions tighten, EV demand can slow quickly.

Workers feel the pain

For workers, the consequences are immediate. Because Stellantis posted a loss, UAW employees will not receive profit-sharing payouts this year. Across the Detroit Three, the average payout is about $6,200 — roughly 40% lower than prior averages near $10,000. For Stellantis workers, the payout is zero.

The broader lesson is not that electric vehicles have no role in the future. They do, and EV technology will continue to evolve.

But the assumption that internal combustion engines would disappear rapidly now looks unrealistic. Consumers ultimately determine the pace of change, and their priorities remain clear: price, reliability, convenience, charging access, and resale value.

Filosa has framed Stellantis’ reset around restoring “freedom to choose” across electric, hybrid, gasoline, and diesel technologies. That message reflects a shift toward building vehicles that align with real-world consumer demand rather than political timelines.

The cost of the earlier miscalculation is now measured in tens of billions of dollars. Whether the reset ultimately strengthens Stellantis or simply marks the beginning of a smaller product lineup will depend on how effectively the company balances innovation with consumer priorities.

In the end, the lesson is simple. Automakers can design new technologies and governments can set policy goals, but consumers still decide what succeeds in the marketplace.

EV bubble bursting? Automakers lose billions as tax credits disappear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more from Stu?

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

Does Driving a Large, Gas-Powered Truck Make You a Gay Nazi? This Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Thinks So.

Journalists are the worst. Even the ones who don't cover politics are often incapable of writing normal sentences without flaunting their sneering disdain for normal Americans. For instance, you might not believe us if we told you the Wall Street Journal's Pulitzer Prize-winning auto critic recently compared Americans who enjoy large trucks with gas-powered engines to Hermann Göring, the Nazi commander who founded the Gestapo and whose "martial flamboyance" fueled persistent rumors about his sexuality. But that's exactly what he did.

The post Does Driving a Large, Gas-Powered Truck Make You a Gay Nazi? This Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Thinks So. appeared first on .

How automakers are quietly locking you out of your own car

Car ownership used to come with an unspoken assumption: You bought the vehicle, and it was yours to maintain, repair, and service in any way you saw fit. That assumption is quietly eroding. And one of the clearest signs doesn’t involve software updates or subscription features.

It involves a screw.

Tasks once considered routine — such as clearing fault codes or accessing safety systems — now often require dealer-level credentials or paid subscriptions.

BMW has filed a patent for a proprietary fastener shaped like its iconic roundel logo. It is not a Torx, not a hex, and not a Phillips head. The circular screw is divided into four quadrants mirroring the BMW emblem. Two quadrants are recessed to accept a matching tool, while the others remain flush, making it impossible for standard tools to grip. The BMW logo is embossed around the outer edge, ensuring the branding remains visible even after installation.

From a design perspective, it’s distinctive. From a functional perspective, it is proprietary by design.

Tightening the screw

According to BMW’s patent filing with the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, conventional fasteners are considered too accessible. Common tools, the company argues, allow “unauthorized persons” to loosen or tighten screws in sensitive areas of the vehicle. The purpose of the logo-shaped fastener is explicit: restrict access by requiring a specialized tool.

What has drawn the most concern is not just the screw itself but where BMW suggests it could be used. The patent lists applications beyond cosmetic trim, including seat mountings, cockpit assemblies, center consoles, and interior-to-body connections. These are components that already demand precise torque and careful installation. Adding proprietary fasteners to those areas raises obvious questions about who will be able to perform even routine work.

BMW also notes that some of these screws could be installed in visible parts of the cabin — meaning owners would be regularly reminded that parts of their own vehicle are effectively off-limits without brand-specific tools.

Dealer's wheel

The patent does not define who qualifies as “authorized” or “unauthorized,” but the repair industry has little doubt who would be excluded. Independent mechanics, collision repair shops, and do-it-yourself owners would likely need BMW-specific tooling to perform work that was once straightforward. Removing a seat for interior repairs could become a dealer-only task.

That concern is not hypothetical. Repair advocates and automotive media have long warned that proprietary designs widen the gap between modern vehicles and hands-on ownership. Independent shops may be forced to buy specialized equipment to remain competitive, while some repairs may no longer make economic sense outside dealership networks. For owners, the result is fewer choices, higher costs, and less control.

To be fair, proprietary tools are not new. Independent repair facilities already invest heavily in manufacturer-specific equipment as vehicles grow more complex. Advanced driver-assistance systems, electronic steering, and modern powertrains require specialized knowledge and tools. Even critics acknowledge that BMW’s logo-shaped screw is visually clever and consistent with the brand’s design philosophy.

But the issue isn’t aesthetics. It’s what the design signals.

Sepia Times/Getty Images

Bad 'Gateway'?

BMW’s patent arrives as other automakers publicly emphasize repair-friendly engineering. Mercedes-Benz, for example, has discussed modular designs intended to simplify service. Against that backdrop, BMW’s approach appears to move in the opposite direction — favoring exclusivity and control over accessibility.

It’s also important to note that the fastener exists only as a patent. Automakers file thousands of patents every year, many of which never reach production. Still patents are not filed casually. They reflect internal thinking and future direction.

More importantly, BMW is not alone.

Stellantis, parent company of Jeep, Dodge, and Chrysler, uses a Security Gateway Module that restricts access to diagnostic functions. Independent scan tools are blocked unless registered and authenticated through company systems. Tasks once considered routine — such as clearing fault codes or accessing safety systems — now often require dealer-level credentials or paid subscriptions.

Volkswagen Group, which includes Audi and Porsche, employs Component Protection, preventing certain electronic parts from functioning unless validated through manufacturer software. Independent shops can install the part, but without official authorization, the vehicle may still display errors or limit functionality.

Other automakers — including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai — control diagnostic software, telematics data, and vehicle information through subscription-based platforms. Lawmakers have warned that these practices undermine the very idea of ownership by placing essential repair information behind paywalls or limiting it to authorized networks.

Data grab

The common thread is not branding or engineering sophistication. It is control.

Modern vehicles generate enormous amounts of data, and automakers increasingly decide who can access it, who can use it, and under what conditions. Software locks, digital part pairing, cloud-based diagnostics, and proprietary hardware all steer repairs back toward manufacturer-approved channels.

This matters because repair access affects safety, affordability, and consumer choice. When independent shops cannot compete, prices rise. When owners cannot choose where — or whether — to service their vehicles, ownership starts to resemble a long-term lease with conditions attached.

BMW’s logo-shaped screw may never leave the patent office. But it has already made the debate tangible. It turns an abstract argument about software and data into a physical object drivers can understand.

After all, it doesn’t get much more basic than a screw.

Cars are no longer just machines. They are platforms, data centers, and branded ecosystems. The question for consumers is how much control they are willing to give up in exchange for innovation and design.

Ford just lost $20 billion on its EV investment

If you want a clear picture of where the American auto market is heading, don’t look at political speeches or glossy concept vehicles. Look at where manufacturers are spending — and writing off — real money.

Case in point: Ford’s $19.5 billion decision to abandon plans for a next-generation all-electric F-150.

Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.

The company’s change of direction for its massive BlueOval City complex in Tennessee is one of the clearest signals yet that the industry’s all-electric future, at least as it was sold to consumers and investors, is being fundamentally rethought.

Instead of building a new electric F-150 Lightning there, Ford will pivot the facility toward producing lower-cost gasoline-powered trucks while shifting electric strategy toward hybrids, extended-range electric vehicles, and smaller EVs.

Demand in the driver’s seat

This move matters because Ford did not quietly slow production or delay a model year refresh. It wrote down billions of dollars in electric vehicle assets, restructured long-term plans, and publicly admitted that customer demand — not forecasts or incentives — is now driving decisions.

Ford expects roughly $19.5 billion in special charges tied to this pivot, most of which will hit in the fourth quarter, with an additional $5.5 billion in cash costs spread through 2027. Of that total, $8.5 billion represents EV asset write-downs. That is corporate language for investments that will not deliver the returns originally promised.

Yet Wall Street’s reaction was telling. Ford stock rose about 2% in after-hours trading following the announcement and remains up nearly 40% this year. Investors appear to see this not as failure, but as realism.

Sticker shock

The electric F-150 Lightning was once positioned as proof that electrification could conquer America’s best-selling vehicle segment. In theory, the idea made sense. In practice, the numbers never fully added up. High prices, heavy battery packs, range limitations under real-world towing conditions, and charging concerns narrowed the pool of potential buyers. Demand softened even as incentives increased.

Ford now plans to transition the Lightning into an extended-range electric vehicle, pairing an electric drivetrain with a gasoline-powered generator. This is not a retreat from electrification. It is an acknowledgment that pure battery-electric power trains do not yet meet the needs of a large portion of truck buyers.

Ford CEO Jim Farley framed the shift plainly. High-end EVs priced between $50,000 and $80,000 were not selling in sufficient volume. That reality is difficult to ignore when inventory sits on dealer lots and profit margins evaporate.

Hybrid vigor

At the same time, Ford is going all-in on hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, and reinvesting in its core strengths: trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. This reflects a broader industry trend. Hybrids offer meaningful fuel economy improvements without requiring buyers to overhaul their driving habits or rely on charging infrastructure that remains inconsistent in many parts of the country.

Ford’s revised outlook projects that by 2030, about half of its global volume will come from hybrids, extended-range EVs, and fully electric vehicles combined. That is a significant increase from today, but it is far more balanced than earlier projections that leaned heavily toward full electrification.

Lightning rod

One of the more curious elements of Ford’s announcement is its plan to build a fully connected midsize electric pickup starting in 2027, based on a new low-cost “Universal EV Platform.” The company suggests this truck could start around $30,000, a figure that raises serious questions.

To put that claim into context, Ford’s Maverick Hybrid, which uses a small 1.1 kilowatt-hour battery, already approaches $30,000 in many configurations. A midsize EV pickup would likely require an 80 kilowatt-hour battery or more. Battery costs have declined, but not nearly enough to make that math easy — especially while maintaining margins.

Consumers will ultimately decide whether such a vehicle makes sense. Price, capability, range, and charging convenience will matter far more than marketing language. Automakers are learning, sometimes the hard way, that affordability cannot be willed into existence by press releases.

Batteries included

Ford’s restructuring also includes repurposing battery plants in Kentucky and Michigan for a new stationary energy storage business. This is a strategic move that acknowledges batteries may find more reliable profitability off the road than on it, particularly in data centers and grid stabilization applications where weight, charging time, and cold-weather performance are less critical concerns.

The broader lesson here is not that electric vehicles are disappearing. They are not. It is that the one-size-fits-all electrification narrative has collided with economic and consumer reality. Automakers were pushed, through regulation and incentives, to prioritize battery-electric vehicles at a pace the market could not fully absorb.

When policy environments change, as they recently have, manufacturers regain flexibility. Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.

From a business standpoint, Ford is attempting to stabilize profitability. The company raised its adjusted earnings guidance for 2025 to about $7 billion, even as these restructuring charges weigh on net results. It is aiming for a path to profitability in its Model e EV division by 2029, with incremental improvements beginning in 2026.

That is a long runway, and it reflects how difficult it has been to make EVs profitable at scale. Traditional internal combustion and hybrid vehicles continue to subsidize electric losses across the industry. Ford is now being more transparent about that reality.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Turning radius

This shift also has implications for American manufacturing and jobs. BlueOval City was originally pitched as a cornerstone of the electric future. Its revised mission underscores how quickly industrial strategies can change when assumptions fail. Gasoline and hybrid trucks remain highly profitable, and demand for them remains strong.

Ford insists this is a customer-driven strategy, not a retreat. In many ways, that framing is accurate. Consumers have shown they value choice, reliability, and affordability more than power-train ideology. They want vehicles that fit their lives, not policy targets.

For buyers, this could be good news. A more balanced market tends to produce better products at more reasonable prices. Hybrids, extended-range EVs, and efficient gasoline vehicles all play a role in reducing fuel consumption without forcing trade-offs many drivers are unwilling to accept.

For investors, Ford’s announcement may mark a turning point toward discipline and realism. Writing down nearly $20 billion is painful, but continuing to chase unprofitable volume would be worse.

For the industry, the message is unmistakable. Electrification is evolving, not ending. But it will happen on consumer terms, not political timelines.

Ford’s course correction is not about abandoning the future. It is about surviving the present — and doing so with a clearer understanding of what American drivers are actually willing to buy.

The American car industry would be in a much stronger position today had its CEOs not embarked on the EV joy ride with politicians promising subsidies. Next time maybe the brands will listen to the customer.

Would you buy a car from Amazon?

Amazon cars?

Amazon changed the way America buys books, clothes, electronics, and groceries. Now it is moving on the auto industry — and if you think this is just another “online shopping feature,” you’re missing the real story.

States that are friendly to corporate expansion will see no problem granting Amazon a dealer license — especially if Amazon frames it as 'consumer choice.'

The retail behemoth isn’t dipping a toe into car sales. It is positioning itself to become the central hub for buying new and used vehicles, and the consequences for automakers, dealers, independent media, and referral sites could be massive.

This isn’t a future concept. It is already happening.

First Hyundai, now Ford

Amazon’s initial partnership with Hyundai was framed as a new, streamlined shopping experience. The pitch sounded harmless enough: browse Hyundai vehicles on Amazon, apply for financing online, complete most of the paperwork digitally, then head to a participating dealer to pick up your car. Simple, familiar, and built into the platform millions of people already use every day.

The original Hyundai-Amazon announcement described the partnership as “a first-of-its-kind digital shopping destination” that makes buying or leasing “easier than ever.” It taps directly into Amazon’s strongest asset — consumer trust.

But Hyundai was only the beginning.

Ford is now joining Amazon Autos with its certified pre-owned inventory. Behind the scenes, Amazon is simultaneously negotiating with CarMax, Carvana, AutoNation, and some of the largest dealer groups in the country. This isn’t a test run. It’s the early build of a national automotive marketplace — one that Amazon plans to control.

Referral sites in retreat?

For years, companies like Cars.com, CarGurus, TrueCar, Edmunds, and Cox Automotive have dominated the referral business. Their entire model revolves around sending shoppers to dealers and collecting millions in referral fees — often the largest part of their revenue.

Amazon is about to pull the rug out from under them. This could put their business model and future in jeopardy.

If car shoppers can browse inventory, arrange financing, compare models, complete paperwork, and reserve vehicles on Amazon, why would they bother with referral sites that offer a fraction of the convenience?

Amazon has a proven track record: Once it enters a sector, it tends to dominate it. It did it to bookstores. It did it to electronics retailers. It did it to big-box chains. And now it’s setting its sights on automotive commerce.

If Amazon becomes the go-to destination for car-buying, referral-based businesses won’t just take a hit — they could be wiped out entirely.

Licensed dealership

The long-term play is even more ambitious.

Amazon’s next strategic step is to secure dealer franchises and licenses — state by state, brand by brand. With enough lobbying power (and Amazon has plenty), it could position itself not just as a marketplace but as a licensed dealer for multiple brands across numerous states.

At that point, Amazon wouldn’t just connect you with a dealership. It would be the dealership.

And it’s not far-fetched. Amazon already has the infrastructure, logistics, consumer reach, and political influence to take this step. States that are friendly to corporate expansion will see no problem granting Amazon a dealer license — especially if Amazon frames it as “consumer choice."

Once Amazon becomes a licensed dealer for even one or two brands, the floodgates open.

Global ambitions

Make no mistake: Amazon is positioning itself not just as an American car retailer, but as a global auto marketplace.

Imagine a future where you search for a vehicle the same way you search for appliances or running shoes — across multiple brands, with real-time comparisons, financing, protection plans, verified seller ratings, and home delivery.

For Amazon, becoming the global hub for car shopping isn’t just appealing — it’s a potential trillion-dollar expansion.

Automakers, especially those with weaker dealer networks, may see this as an opportunity. But others will find themselves pressured into joining Amazon’s ecosystem simply because they can’t afford not to.

Collateral damage: Independent media

There’s another consequence many aren’t talking about: the impact on independent automotive media.

A large share of industry publications rely on advertising, sponsorships, affiliate links, and referral revenue from dealers and OEMs. Amazon’s dominance would compress or eliminate those revenue streams — especially for outlets that depend on SEO-driven traffic or links sending shoppers to dealer websites.

If Amazon becomes the central platform for car buying, reviews, ratings, and consumer research will inevitably shift to Amazon’s ecosystem — just as they have for home goods, tech products, and household essentials.

The result? Independent voices may struggle to survive.

This is not theoretical. This is the pattern Amazon has repeated in every industry it enters.

At first glance, more convenience sounds great for shoppers. And in many ways, Amazon’s entrance will make car-buying easier.

But there are real questions about:

Competition: What happens when Amazon dictates the marketplace?
Pricing leverage: Will dealers be forced into Amazon’s system to survive?
Data control: Amazon would have unprecedented access to sensitive buyer information.
Dependence: When everything flows through one platform, innovation suffers.

Automotive choice in the U.S. has always relied on competition. Amazon’s expansion risks shifting that power to a single company.

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Own the funnel

Amazon isn’t simply adding cars to its website. It is setting the foundation to become the dominant force in automotive retail.

Hyundai was the first step. Ford is the next. They are selling used and certified pre-owned inventory. The question is when, not if, more brands will follow.

And when they do, the entire structure of the auto industry — from referral sites to dealer groups to independent media — will feel the effects.

This is one of the most significant shifts in automotive commerce in decades. And while many consumers may appreciate the convenience, the long-term consequences deserve serious attention.

Amazon wants to be the new place to buy cars. It plans to own the entire funnel — from discovery to financing to purchase. And if history tells us anything, once Amazon commits to owning a category, it tends to get what it wants.

This story is still unfolding. And it is far bigger than most people realize.

Canadian leader blinks first, calls off anti-tariff ads after Trump terminates trade talks

President Donald Trump announced late Thursday evening that he was terminating all trade negotiations with Canada on account of a $75 million anti-tariff advertising campaign initiated last week by Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

Trump leaned into his criticism of Canada Friday morning, stating, "CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!" and accused the northern nation of using the ad "to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country."

The purpose of the ad, which featured excerpts from former President Ronald Reagan's April 25, 1987, radio address regarding the benefits of free trade and downsides of protectionism, was to make the case against American tariffs on Canada to Republican voters.

Ford evidently figured the ad was not worth the cost.

The premier said in an X post on Friday afternoon that after speaking to Prime Minister Mark Carney, his government "will pause its U.S. advertising campaign effective Monday so that trade talks can resume."

'Let's work together to build Fortress Am-Can and make our two countries stronger.'

"Our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses," Ford wrote. "We've achieved our goal, having reached U.S. audiences at the highest levels."

While the ad will not run as planned next week, Ford indicated that he has directed his team to "keep putting our message in front of Americans over the weekend so that we can air our commercial during the first two World Series games."

The Toronto Blue Jays host the L.A. Dodgers for Game 1 on Friday night and Game 2 on Saturday.

Photo by EVAN VUCCI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

"The people elected our government to protect Ontario — our workers, businesses, families and communities," Ford continued. "That's exactly what I'm doing. Like I said earlier today: Canada and the U.S. are neighbors, friends and allies. We're so much stronger when we work together. Let's work together to build Fortress Am-Can and make our two countries stronger, more prosperous and more secure."

While Ontario is backing down, at least one other provincial leader appears eager to poke the bear.

The leftist premier of British Columbia, David Eby, revealed on Friday that his province was similarly making anti-tariff ads, stating, "Our wood faces higher US tariffs than Russia. Absurd. Truth will win!"

The Trump administration's tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber were recently brought up to a combined 45%.

The Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly later told reporters, "We need to make sure that we reduce our dependency on the U.S. and that we support our businesses."

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

Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

The house of cards is starting to fall.

Stellantis, one of the world’s biggest automakers, just pulled the plug on its all-electric Ram 1500 REV pickup. Chrysler is scaling back its EV-only promises. Jeep is leaning back into hybrids and even reviving the Hemi V8.

The reality is simple: People want options. Some may choose EVs. Others will stick with hybrids or V8s. That’s how a free market works.

What’s happening here isn’t just a business decision. It’s a rebuke of the political agenda that tried to force Americans into an all-electric future, whether they wanted it or not.

For years, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Brussels dictated what automakers “must” build. Billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into subsidies and charging infrastructure. Regulations made gas-powered engines harder to produce, and deadlines were set for their elimination. Automakers fell in line — publicly touting bold EV promises, while privately worrying that the market wasn’t there.

Now the truth is impossible to ignore: Consumers aren’t buying the vision.

Ram jammed

Ram’s 1500 REV was supposed to be the brand’s answer to the Ford Lightning and Chevy Silverado EV. But months of delays, weak demand, and slow sales across the full-size EV pickup segment forced Stellantis to cut its losses.

Instead of an all-electric truck, Ram is pivoting to a range-extended version — essentially a hybrid that can drive on gas when the battery runs out. The “Ramcharger” name is being dropped, and the range-extended truck will simply carry the 1500 REV badge.

Congrats to Ram for finally admitting that the electric pickup fantasy doesn’t match the real-world needs of truck buyers.

Hemi roars back

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it admitted it “screwed up” by killing the Hemi. The replacement, a turbocharged inline-six called Hurricane, might have been efficient, but it lacked the soul, sound, and the brute force that Ram owners expect.

Even customers of the high-performance RHO complained. Stellantis listened. The Hemi is coming back, and Ram partnered with MagnaFlow to offer aftermarket exhausts that restore the roar that regulators tried to silence.

Truck buyers demanded power and personality, and Stellantis is delivering it, even if it flies in the face of government mandates.

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

Chrysler had once promised to go fully electric. Not anymore. Its 2027 crossover, built on the STLA Large platform, will now offer hybrid options instead of being EV-only.

Jeep is doing the same. The Cherokee is returning as a hybrid, the Grand Wagoneer will get range-extending tech, and the brand is reintroducing the Hemi across multiple models. Even with its new Wagoneer S EV, Jeep isn’t gambling everything on one technology.

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

Antonio Filosa, the new Stellantis CEO, is making a strategic shift: Forget rigid EV deadlines, and instead build flexible platforms that can support gas, hybrid, electric, or even hydrogen drivetrains.

It’s a survival move. EV mandates weren’t written with consumers in mind; they were written by regulators trying to engineer a market from the top down. But when customers walked into showrooms, they didn’t buy the hype. They saw higher prices, long charging times, weaker towing, and shorter range.

The politicians assumed the public would play along with their games. They didn’t.

White flags

Stellantis isn’t the only automaker waving the white flag. Ford has slashed production of the F-150 Lightning. GM has delayed the Silverado EV and rethought its timeline. Even Tesla’s Cybertruck (hyped as a revolution) is struggling to gain traction.

Billions in subsidies can’t change the fact that EVs still don’t deliver what most Americans need. And now, automakers are being forced to admit it.

Drivers take the wheel

The moral of the story? Automakers can’t build cars for regulators and expect consumers to fall in line. Politicians can’t legislate demand into existence.

The EV mandates weren’t about innovation — they were about control. But control only works until consumers push back. And now they are, with their wallets.

Stellantis may have “screwed up,” but its decision to return to engines, hybrids, and flexibility shows it learned a lesson that Washington still refuses to hear: The future of driving should be decided by drivers, not bureaucrats.

Ride or die: How Ford, Honda, VW, and 3 more got stuck with California's strict emission standards

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?

California muscle

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.

Locked in

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.

Federal trumps state

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?

Photo by Bill Pugliano / Stringer via Getty Images

Consumer retorts

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.

Read 'em and weep?

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.