Woke pastor teams up with Al Sharpton to revive Target’s woke agenda



Dr. Jamal Bryant, a liberal black preacher at a Baptist megachurch in Georgia, is angry that Target stores have dropped the secular left’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative. And so, along with Al Sharpton, he has urged black people to boycott Target.

Bryant is leading a deceitful political scam while insisting he is a man who seeks to help black people. DEI has never been about that. Instead, proponents of DEI play the race card, using black Americans to advance what amounts to a godless agenda. Worse, in pressuring Target to restore DEI, this man of the cloth is undermining the gains Christians have made in getting the retailer to remove homosexual-themed children’s clothing from their stores.

Should Bryant’s boycott grow enough to overwhelm complacent Christians, it could possibly provide Target a new political lifeline (and excuse) to reverse course on DEI.

As many will recall, back in 2023, Target made national news when conservative influencers and media outlets reported how the national retailer was using customer profits to target children with a marketing campaign promoting pro-homosexual-themed apparel. This was bad enough by itself.

You boycotted, Target listened

What added insult to injury was the way Target seemed to be riding a wave of some organized propaganda campaign pushing drag-queen story hours — where perverse men dressed in women’s clothing would read books to children — often while behaving in lewd and suggestive ways.

As a result, a tsunami of public outrage ensued, and an untold number of Americans immediately decided to boycott Target stores.

It made a difference: Target got the message that the bulk of its consumers reject the woke agenda. In June 2024, the retailer announced that it would no longer sell children’s apparel as part of its “Pride Collection.” Even though Target still sells merchandise that promotes the homosexual lifestyle, the removal of this apparel from the children’s departments is nonetheless a victory for morality.

This victory was followed by President Donald Trump’s executive order against DEI in January, which prompted Target to join other major companies — including Walmart, McDonald’s, and Ford — in announcing it would end several corporate DEI initiatives.

A counter-boycott

This is when the left-wing preacher Bryant stepped into the breach to stage a counter-boycott that attempted to mimic what conservatives had done.

Protesting against the corporate practices that include selling homosexual-themed paraphernalia to children is an odd move for a man with the title of preacher — one would hope he is in agreement with biblical values.

RELATED: Pastor compares Kamala to Esther from the Bible — then the sermon gets even crazier: ‘This is an idea that cannot be stopped’

Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

In fact, Bryant has never publicly denounced Target’s previous practices. Yet, he’s chosen now to speak up and fight for Target to restore DEI. And so has Twin Cities Pride, a homosexual activist group, which also lashed out at Target for ending its DEI initiatives.

Seeing that Bryant is taking the same side as Twin Cities Pride, it’s hard not to conclude that Bryant’s passionate drive to pressure Target to reinstate DEI is motivated by his full-throated agreement with the far left’s secular agenda.

There’s more proof of this.

Woke, not Christian

Not long ago, Bryant appeared on a podcast and engaged in a heated exchange about political and spiritual matters with Pastor Mark Burns, a black conservative pastor who has gained fame for his support of President Trump.

The takeaway from some online viewers was that Bryant did not align with the standard scriptural interpretation that the Bible supports only traditional marriage and opposes abortion.

To make matters worse, Bryant seems to be making inroads with Target CEO Brian Cornell. In a symbolic gesture of agreement, Cornell reached out and met with Al Sharpton because of Bryant’s boycott.

It’s important to note that Cornell was also CEO of Target back in 2023 and had initially refused to back down from selling rainbow-colored onesies for infants and T-shirts that say, “Pride Adult Drag Queen ‘Katya,’” “Trans people will always exist!” and “Girls Gays Theys.” He was so adamant about pushing the homosexual agenda on kids that, in response to conservative backlash, he told the press that he thought it was “the right thing for society.” Cornell also admitted that this agenda is directly linked to Target’s DEI initiatives: “The things we’ve done from a DEI standpoint, it’s adding value,” Cornell said.

Hold the line

Based on these comments, can there be any doubt that Target would love to restore DEI, including its children’s “Pride Collection”? Of course not. But the social pressure against it is finally having an effect. That is, it was until Bryant and others began to get louder.

Let there be no doubt: Should Bryant’s boycott grow enough to overwhelm complacent Christians and conservatives, it could possibly provide Cornell a new political lifeline (and excuse) to reverse course on DEI. If that happens, you can bet that all perverse children’s merchandise will return to store shelves.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at Chronicles Magazine.

The real American factory killer? It wasn’t automation



Dylan Matthews at Vox wants you to believe that robots — not China — killed American manufacturing. Even if tariffs reshore production, he argues, they won’t bring back jobs because machines have already taken them.

This is not just wrong. It’s an ideological defense of a decades-long policy failure.

The jobs lost to offshoring aren't just the five million factory jobs that disappeared — the number is likely more than double that. The real toll could exceed 10 million jobs.

Yes, American manufacturing has grown more productive over time. But increased productivity alone does not explain the loss of millions of jobs. The real culprit isn’t automation. It’s the collapse of output growth — a collapse driven by offshoring, trade deficits, and elite dogma dressed up as economic inevitability.

Ford’s logic

To understand what actually happened, start with Henry Ford.

In 1908, Ford launched the Model T. What set it apart wasn’t just its engineering. It was the price tag: $850, or about $21,000 in today’s dollars.

For the first time, middle-class Americans could afford a personal vehicle. Ford spent the next few years obsessing over how to cut costs even further, determined to put a car in every driveway.

In December 1913, he revolutionized manufacturing. Ford Motor Company opened the world’s first moving assembly line, slashing production time for the Model T from 12 hours to just 93 minutes.

Efficiency drove output. In 1914, Ford built 308,162 Model Ts — more than all other carmakers combined. Prices plummeted. By 1924, a new Model T cost just $260, or roughly $3,500 today — an 83% drop from the original price and far cheaper than any “affordable” car sold now.

This wasn’t just a business success. It was the dawn of the automobile age — and a triumph of American productivity.

Ford’s moving assembly line supercharged productivity — and yet, he didn’t lay off workers. He hired more. That seems like a paradox. It isn’t.

Dylan Matthews misses the point. Employment depends on the balance between productivity and output. Productivity is how much value a worker produces per hour. Output is the total value produced.

If productivity rises while output stays flat, you need fewer workers. But if output rises alongside productivity — or faster — you need more workers.

Picture a worker with a shovel versus one with an earthmover. The earthmover is more productive. But if the project doubles in size, you still need more hands, earthmovers or not.

This was Henry Ford’s insight. His assembly line made workers more productive, but it also let him build far more cars. The result? More jobs, not fewer.

That’s why America’s manufacturing employment didn’t peak in 1914, when people first warned that machines would kill jobs. It peaked in 1979 — because Ford’s logic worked for decades.

The vanishing act

Matthews says manufacturing jobs vanished because productivity rose. That’s half true.

The full story? America lost manufacturing jobs when the long-standing balance between output and productivity broke.

From 1950 to 1979, manufacturing employment rose because output grew faster than productivity. Factories produced more, and they needed more workers to do it.

But after 1980, that balance began to shift. Between 1989 and 2000, U.S. manufacturing output rose by 3.7% annually. Productivity rose even faster — 4.1%.

Result: flat employment. Factories became more efficient, but they didn’t produce enough extra goods to justify more hires.

In other words, jobs didn’t disappear because of robots. They disappeared because output stopped keeping pace.

The real collapse began in 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. Over the next decade, U.S. manufacturing output crawled forward at just 0.4% a year. Meanwhile, productivity kept rising at 3.7%.

That gap — between how much we produced and how efficiently we produced it — wiped out roughly five million manufacturing jobs.

Matthews, like many of the economists he parrots, blames job loss on rising productivity. But that’s only half the story.

Productivity gains don’t kill jobs. Stagnant output does. From 1913 to 1979, American manufacturing employment grew steadily — even as productivity surged. Why? Because output kept up.

So what changed?

Output growth collapsed. And the trade deficit is the reason why.

Feeding the dragon

Since 1974 — and especially after 2001 — America’s domestic output growth slowed to a crawl, even as workers kept getting more productive. Why? Because we shipped thousands of factories overseas. Market distortions, foreign subsidies, and lopsided trade agreements made it profitable to offshore jobs to China and other developing nations.

The result: America now consumes far more than it produces. That gap shows up in our trade deficit.

In 2024, America ran a $918 billion net trade deficit — including services. That figure represents all the goods and services we bought but didn’t make. Someone else did — mostly China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

The trade deficit is a dollar-for-dollar reflection of offshore production. Instead of building it here, we import it.

How many jobs does that deficit cost us? The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that every billion dollars of GDP supports 5,000 to 5,500 jobs. At $918 billion, the deficit displaces between 4.6 and five million jobs — mainly in manufacturing.

That’s no coincidence. That’s the hollowing-out of the American economy.

We can’t forget that factories aren’t just job sites — they’re economic anchors. Like mines and farms, manufacturing plants support entire ecosystems of businesses around them. Economists call this the multiplier effect.

And manufacturing has one of the highest multipliers in the economy. Each factory job supports between 1.8 and 2.9 other jobs, depending on the industry. That means when a factory closes or moves offshore, the impact doesn’t stop at the plant gates.

The jobs lost to offshoring aren't just the five million factory jobs that disappeared — the number is likely more than double that. The real toll could exceed 10 million jobs.

That number is no coincidence. It matches almost exactly the number of working-age Americans the Bureau of Labor Statistics has written out of the labor force since 2006 — a trend I document in detail in my book, “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream.”

Bottom line: Dylan Matthews is wrong. Robots didn’t kill American manufacturing jobs. Elites did — with bad trade deals, blind ideology, and decades of surrender to global markets. It’s time to reverse course: not with nostalgia but with strategy, not with slogans but with tariffs.

Tariffs aren’t a silver bullet. But they’re a necessary start. They correct the market distortions created by predatory trade practices abroad and self-destructive ideology at home. They reward domestic investment. They restore the link between productivity, output, and employment.

In short, tariffs work.

Ford tells investors to vote against DEI and 'Net Zero' policies as years of diversity initiatives come to an end



The Ford Motor Company told its investors not to vote in favor of shareholder proposals related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In a letter to investors, Ford presented a series of proposals and voting items for shareholders to consider. The voting items included the election of its directors, which included at least three Ford family members such as Henry Ford III, the great-great-grandson of founder Henry Ford.

Other items up for vote included ratification of an independent accounting firm, a vote to approve compensation for executives, and a vote on the company's tax benefit plan.

The last two items on the voting list were labeled "a shareholder proposal relating to a Report on Supply Chain [Green House Gas] Emissions and Net Zero Goals," and "a shareholder proposal relating to a Report on DEI Strategy."

A list of voting items provided to shareholders from Ford Motor Company.

'Net Zero policies have really hurt the bottom line.'

At the same time, the company listed board recommendations for each voting item and person on the voting list. Under the column labeled "Board Recommends," Ford recommended "for," or in favor of, every single item on the list except for the net zero and DEI proposals. For those items, the company recommended "against."

Ford recommended that shareholders vote against DEI and Net Zero proposals.

"It's good to see Ford change their stance on DEI and Net Zero initiatives," said a Ford investor, who spoke to Blaze News under the condition of anonymity. "Net Zero policies have really hurt the bottom line of auto manufacturers in North America," the investor added.

It has been a long road for Ford and its DEI initiatives. In 2023, the company debuted its "very gay Raptor" truck with a commercial that showed the pickup coming out of the mud to reveal a vehicle wrap of the transgender pride flag. Then the ad showcased the phrase "redefining tough" as the transgender colors flashed through the text.

In the summer of 2024, Ford responded to activist Robby Starbuck with news that it would no longer participate in a credit system from the progressive activist group the Human Rights Campaign, nor would it make donations to gay Pride events.

Furthermore, the CEO called for respect and civility toward all ideologies.

The Human Rights Campaign responded to the announcement at the time by calling Ford "not-so-tough," mocking the usual Ford Tough motto. The HRC also said the company cowered to an "internet troll at the expense of employees and communities."

"With the LGBTQ+ community wielding $1.4 TRILLION in spending power and 30% of Gen Z identifying as LGBTQ+, we won't forget this shortsighted decision and its impact," the HRC wrote on X.

Ford's company shareholder vote closes on May 7.

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

How one journalist is stopping corporate DEI spending dead in its tracks



Journalist and filmmaker Robby Starbuck is responsible for enormous, multinational brands turning away from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that have permeated throughout culture and business for more than a decade.

Through Starbuck’s work, Anheuser-Busch, Ford, Harley-Davidson, and Walmart have all pivoted away from their allegedly firmly held beliefs on inclusion.

In an exclusive interview, Starbuck told Blaze News that he holds no hidden agenda or malice toward particular brands or companies; rather, he simply does not agree with race-based hiring practices or funding for sex-based events that often flaunt disturbing content in front of children.

“Being a dad” is his chief motivator, he said. “I don’t want my kids to grow up in a crazy country.”

'Let's make the consumer aware.’

From woke to normal

The question has remained: How exactly does Starbuck, an outsider, convince companies that are worth billions to redirect their funding?

“It's a multipronged effort,” Starbuck began. “The reality is, up until we started this campaign in June [2024], these companies had not seen a whole lot of sunshine on their policies.”

He explained that companies have conducted a lot of DEI-related business “under the radar,” with the average consumers completely unaware that money they were spending at certain stores was helping prop up beliefs they “vehemently disagree with.”

“My concept from the very beginning was 'let's make the consumer aware,' because I think your average consumer has enough choices that they're going to say, ‘Oh, I don't want to fund this Pride event.'"

The next steps for Starbuck involved looping in other journalists and content creators with large followings to get the word out and help explain the importance of his work. This, coupled with whistleblowers who have voluntarily reached out to his group, has helped Starbuck conduct open-source investigations.

The approach is simple: Research the company, find out where the money goes, and reach out to its corporate entities to make them aware of it.

“We put everything together to build a picture of what the culture is at a company, what their policies actually are, and then the executives are very aware that we're not going to drop anything that we're doing until things have changed,” Starbuck explained.

It has not been easy, though. Starbuck stated that he has faced opposition from a few companies, particularly, he said, Tractor Supply, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson.

Despite other companies losing billions in market value as a result of consumers turning away, Harley-Davidson still held out the longest before eventually announcing the company has no “DEI function" remaining.

The bad press, combined with huge losses from the company's electric bike venture, caused the motorcycle giant to sell a reported 50% fewer motorcycles in 2024.

Starbuck noted that his results have sent a message to companies pushing DEI that culturally and politically, audiences are not as friendly to these initiatives as they once were.

“Other executives, they don't want to be that company that tests us again and then has the consumer sentiment turn on them, and then there are serious financial issues in the marketplace. So they recognize that we have an ascendant power, not just in the cultural realm, but also politically,” Starbuck claimed.

Inside the boardroom

When asked what his interactions with executives have been like, the 35-year-old outlined a few different categories of reactions he has received.

The first category was the rare CEO who truly believes in new-age progressivism and wants to see these programs continue. After that, though, Starbuck said there do exist a certain number of CEOs who are blissfully unaware of what their employees are pushing toward.

“Don’t get me wrong; there are some true believers out there, but there are also just CEOs unaware that these parts of the company have been hijacked by activists. Some people balk at that, and they go, ‘How could they be unaware?’ You have to realize for these mega-corporations, the job of a CEO is so compartmentalized in terms of what they look at day to day. They're not looking at the behaviors of training and HR. Like, that's just not their ballpark.”

Starbuck said that while some of the CEOs hear veiled complaints about woke operations at their companies, they do not know the extent to which the ideology has permeated through the ranks.

What that means, he explained, is that many CEOs did not exactly realize what they were funding, and many have been “very happy to pull back” and, furthermore, happy that Starbuck has given them a reason to do so.

— (@)

One thing that became clear to Starbuck was that executives are excellent judges of character who, when realizing what kind of person he is, became more receptive to his approach.

“What they're used to with a lot of corporate activists is they're used to shakedowns. They're used to people from the left coming in and they just want their check.”

Without wanting money or an ad campaign, Starbuck has focused on taking what the companies have said are their true values and helping relay that to the consumer. It also has helped his cause to reveal that many DEI programs have simultaneously pushed anti-capitalist agendas alongside their gender activism.

The majority of programs Starbuck has investigated have included literature from Ibram Kendi being recommended to employees. The irony of those teachings, the journalist revealed, is that they explain to the reader that “to be an anti-racist, you must be anti-capitalist,” something that is clearly at odds with the mantra of most CEOs.

As executives have become aware of the “absurdity,” as Starbuck put it, they have happily been willing to pull the funding back in most instances.

Who started it?

At the start of the DEI ride, companies were pulled into a “cultural tide,” according to David Bahnsen.

Bahnsen is the managing partner and CIO of the Bahnsen Group, a firm overseeing more than $4 billion (per Bloomberg).

The California native agreed that there have been “true believers” who talked themselves into wokeness, but he described the DEI era as being one of the greatest examples of “corporate penance” ever devised. This was a five-year period when meritocracy was abandoned and DEI policies became increasingly common, Bahnsen went on.

“The nexus of media, technology, political power, left-wing academia, and, yes, corporate America; all pulled the marketplace together towards DEI.”

While he noted that the companies themselves were ultimately responsible, Bahsen said that the DEI programs allowed businesses to keep being businesses, while keeping the powers that be at arm’s length through payments of cultural and political messaging.

The 50-year-old added that as the governing parameters have changed, some companies no longer have to “play a game they never actually believed in,” while other companies have been forced to learn the hard way that their ideals are no longer profitable.

Starbuck, on the other hand, pointed to a more sinister plot and alluded to the fact that he has unearthed divisive, deliberate operations infiltrating corporations across the country.

While there is certainly influence from college graduates bringing woke indoctrination into the workplace, Starbuck said there has been a coordinated effort from trained activists who have “absolutely” entered into marketing, public relations, and human resources roles to push DEI.

“It was carefully planned, who would go where and why. … This is a very, very disgusting situation. I’ll put it that way,” he added.

'Abandoning DEI boosts profits ...'

Which way, Western man?

A common question to consumers has been where to turn. Social media, news agencies, and even meat suppliers have popped up in the last decade to cater to a segment of the population who have grown tired of DEI policies.

As these sentiments have increased, Starbuck said it is important to act with “grace” and go with one’s gut feeling, in combination with common sense.

Starbuck revealed that his efforts have been to push companies down a neutral path in order for the results to be long-lasting and not to have a ping-pong effect, in which companies blow with the wind every four years.

“If a company does the right thing, then I think it is incumbent on us to have some grace.”

Starbuck advised that if there is no alternative, then consumers need to start making companies become worthy of their hard-earned cash.

At the same time, though, if an alternative does exist, consumers need to speak with their wallets and support a brand that is more aligned with their values.

The reality is, according to Bahnsen, that companies are seeing a boost in revenue after they abandon DEI principles. A series of immeasurable and measurable factors like quotas, human resources, legal resources, and untold amounts of bureaucracy have crippled many companies in his view.

While some can still turn a profit, DEI programs do have an assumed cost that weighs on revenue.

“Abandoning DEI boosts profits in the way that a runner taking off heavy ankle weights boosts speed!” Bahnsen joked.

Companies are not human beings, and consumers do not want to know what a company believes, politically, nor do they want the company to even have such beliefs, Starbuck concluded.

While it seems that most are agreeing, in ever-growing numbers, that companies should not be focused on divisive issues, it is also becoming more popular to tell companies that they should be focused on taking the ankle weights off and truly returning to being boring, bland corporations.

FACT CHECK: Is Ford Moving Four Of Its Factories Back To The US As A Result Of Trump’s Recent Tariffs?

A viral image shared on Threads claims Ford is purportedly moving four of its factories back to the U.S. as a result of President Donald Trump’s recent tariffs.   View on Threads   Verdict: False The claim is false and originally stems from a March 26 post shared by “America’s Last Line of Defense,” which […]

2025: The year car prices return to Earth



These vehicles are priced to move — straight into a brick wall.

Car prices have risen an average of $10,000 since 2020. Manufacturers love the profit margins — for now. But with models flooding the market at prices consumers simply can't afford, we've got prime conditions for a crash.

All brands are loading up their top-trim levels — only to find sticker shock scaring off the customers. As a result, dealers are getting desperate — and creative.

Insurance premiums have doubled, and repossession rates are the highest ever at 23% — which means banks are less likely to give out loans and leases. Not good, considering that inventory levels — across all vehicle manufacturers and dealerships — are the highest they’ve been in the last eight years.

Those buyers who do make the cut better be prepared: Monthly payments are sitting at an average of $760 and above.

Frozen Tundras

This all spells trouble.

The types of cars not selling may surprise you: New Toyota Tundras, which used to fly off the lot in weeks, now languish in park for as many as 250 days. What changed? Try the new $60,000-$70,000 price tag.

Then, there are the new Ford Explorers. You'd think the savings of shifting production to Mexico would get passed on to the consumer. Think again — at around $80,000 a piece, these cars are wildly overpriced. A few extra features and safety measures are easy to skip when you can get a Ford Maverick for $30,000.

Sticker shock

All brands are loading up their top-trim levels — only to find sticker shock scaring off the customers. As a result, dealers are getting desperate — and creative. According to Kelley Blue Book, incentives designed to attract buyers now average 7.7%, or $3,744, “the highest amount in over three years and about $200 more than September.”

KBB also reports a sharp increase in the number of automakers offering 0% financing and other deals to qualified buyers for less in-demand vehicles like the non-hybrid models of the 2024 Kia Sportage.

A lack of used vehicles means that trade-in value has also increased. I predicted this three years ago, based on the chip shortage and the subsequent lowered production. Used car pricing is strong, with less inventory available.

So while the market is still too expensive for many buyers, we may soon see far more favorable conditions.

Basic is beautiful

The Fed's three consecutive rate cuts since September should trickle down to car buyers later this year.

According to Cox Automotive chief economist Jonathan Smoke (as quoted by KBB): “I expect the best time for lower rates will be by the spring. ... [Buyers] could see 1-1.5 points of further improvement, more on used vehicles.”

This could mean 3%-5% drop in new car prices by the end of the year, bolstered by greater incentive programs.

Expect to see more entry-level trims and lower-priced cars returning to the market — meeting the huge demand for vehicles under $25,000. I also expect EV sales will slow way down without mandates and tax credits, the only exception being Tesla.

Whatever happens — as always — we'll keep you posted.


Meet the dealership owner turned senator out to save the auto industry



"At the end of the day, the $7,500 incentive is catastrophically stupid."

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio isn’t pulling any punches when it comes to government support for electric vehicles.

'If China is dramatically ahead of us on EVs, good for them. But we’re dramatically ahead of them in combustion and hybrids.'

Elected last year, Moreno immigrated from Colombia with his family when he was 5. Before entering politics, he worked in auto sales, eventually building an empire of luxury car dealerships.

Dealer's choice

Moreno is the first-ever senator with experience in automobile sales, which he says makes him the perfect person to be president Trump's "car czar."

One of his main targets is the $7,500 tax credit for EV purchases and leases, which has been a major driver of EV sales. Trump himself has agreed with removing the tax credit and the mandates.

The tax credit, says Moreno, is a way for the government to do what it has no business doing: “tell companies what to do and how to have a strategy.”

The results of this meddling speak for themselves.

The tax credit, along with other incentives and benefits included in president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, has forced automakers to sell EVs at a loss, as well as to increase their investments in EV-related technology.

Fuel me once ...

Needless to say, this has been very bad for the bottom line.

Take Ford Motor Co., which took a $1.22 billion loss in its EV division last quarter.

Removing the incentive should help manufacturers in the long term by allowing them to focus on what their customers want: gas-powered vehicles. As Moreno puts it, "There’s never been a case in time where consumers have been more clear about what they want and don’t want."

Still, this change may be painful in the short term, as unsold inventory piles up.

In October, industry trade association the Alliance for Automotive Innovation asked Congress to keep the EV tax credits to help them sell the EVs they've already produced.

Hyundai Motor Co. recently accelerated its plans to build a new factory in Georgia to take advantage of the tax credits. Now the company will pivot to hybrid, plug-in hybrids, and gas-powered cars.

Like many Republicans, including Trump, Moreno also supports scrapping Biden’s rules on tailpipe emissions, which opponents say amount to a de facto EV “mandate."

And while it is true that there has been a bump in EV sales, the rate of growth is winding down. In the face of that, many automakers have pulled back or delayed investments in order to lower costs and develop more profitable vehicles.

Hybrid theory

Several automakers, including Ford, see a major benefit in investing heavily in new hybrid vehicles and plan to keep both hybrid and traditional gas-powered cars as part of their sales mix for the next several years.

Moreno says this is good for the automakers — and good for the country, as it plays to our strategic advantages.

“If China is dramatically ahead of us on EVs, good for them. But we’re dramatically ahead of them in combustion and hybrids.”

Not that China isn't trying to close the gap — especially with the emergence of European tariffs on EV imports.

Hybrid vehicle exports made up 18% of China’s total to Europe last quarter, compared to 9% in the first quarter of 2024. Several companies, including Geely and BYD, have developed new hybrid cars, with Tesla rival XPeng planning to launch its first hybrid in early 2025.

Chinese carmakers are also still selling a lot of gas-powered vehicles, especially abroad in countries where EVs aren’t popular yet.

Will Tesla create a range extender for its vehicles or remain a purely electric car company? In order to increase market share, Tesla may pivot to compete. We shall see.

As the industry adapts, automakers are shifting focus toward diversified lineups, including hybrids, rather than adhering to aggressive all-electric mandates of going all electric by 2035.

Additionally, Moreno advocates for reducing government intervention in the automotive market. He stated, “We will establish a favorable environment for car companies with good taxes, regulations, and skilled workers. Let the marketplace operate without government interference.”

Ford’s Partner in Billion-Dollar Michigan EV Factory Is a Chinese Military Company, Pentagon Says

The Department of Defense added Chinese electric vehicle battery maker CATL—which Ford Motor Company has partnered with on a billion-dollar EV project in Michigan—to a list of companies that actively aid China's military.

The post Ford’s Partner in Billion-Dollar Michigan EV Factory Is a Chinese Military Company, Pentagon Says appeared first on .

How Trump Can Make The Auto Industry Great Again

Some of the world’s largest automakers may not survive our government-created debacle, but collapse of the industry can still be stopped.

Ford's plan to turn the inside of your car into one big eavesdropping, ad-spewing smartphone



Be careful what you say while driving — your car may be listening.

Automaker Ford has recently applied for a patent for what it calls the“In-Vehicle Advertisement Presentation System.”

If this doesn’t anger you, wait till you're bombarded with texts, messages on your center screen, and more garbage emails.

This technology uses in-car microphones to listen to passengers’ conversations and display targeted advertisements. It can also analyze voice commands and navigation data to serve relevant ads, like promoting local businesses or services.

This is no doubt welcome news for those of us who can't get enough of billboards — or those of us who've always wished our vehicles could invade our privacy as much as our smartphones do.

The Ford patent is just one of the ways automakers are exploring ways to monetize user data — a sign that the days of the automobile as a sanctuary for private conversations are coming to a close.

But the Ford Global Technologies patent is particularly invasive, demonstrating insidious “systems and methods” to bombard you with personalized ads.

Not only would the new technology be able to listen to conversations, it would also capture and analyze data such as vehicle location, speed, and traffic conditions.

The system would also use information on the driver’s destination and location history to predict what kind and what length ads to show them.

Listening to passengers' conversations would also help the company learn how they react to the ads and the best times to run them through audio and human-machine interface systems installed in the car.

The application also mentions using historical user data and third-party app information to refine ad targeting.

Ford has shrugged off any privacy concerns.

"Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property," a Ford spokesperson told the Record. "The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans."

In other words: We're not really doing it ... and it's good that we're doing it.

In a follow-up statement, Ford said it "will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services."

The patent application does not offer specifics regarding data-protection measures, likely adding to the unease expressed by privacy advocates.

While such a system would rely heavily on data, the patent doesn’t show the collected data would be protected. Nevertheless, as with many issued patents, the released document doesn’t guarantee that the invention will be implemented in the future.

It also should be noted that auto manufacturers have been found to sell data about drivers' habits behind the wheel to auto insurance companies, which is then used to set insurance rates. This suggests that they view user data as another revenue stream to market to interested parties other than advertisers.

If this doesn’t anger you, wait till you're bombarded with texts, messages on your center screen, and more garbage emails.

Ford has filed other patent applications that have raised privacy concerns. One recent example is a patent for "Systems and Methods for Detecting Speeding Violations." We have covered this on our channel.

And another controversial patent, which Ford later abandoned after widespread criticism, proposed a system for repossessing vehicles from owners who had missed payments. The system would either direct self-driving cars to repossession lots or disable standard vehicles by locking their steering wheels, brakes, and air conditioning.

For more on this, see the video below: