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.

RELATED: Can a new CEO save Stellantis from bankruptcy?

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?

RELATED: GM’s electric gamble is failing — but Barra won’t hit the brakes

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.

Ford shifts gears, leaves EVs in the rear view



Ford is stepping back from an all-electric future and leaning hard into gasoline and diesel vehicles.

This is a huge pivot, setting the stage for a potential profit surge starting in 2026. This isn’t just a corporate maneuver — it’s a move that could redefine the American automotive landscape.

If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of the EV mandate

For years, Ford’s profits took a hit from federal regulations pushing electric vehicles. The U.S. government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions rules forced automakers to sell an increasing share of EVs, with mandates aiming for near-100% EV sales during the 2030s.

These policies brought steep fines and costly carbon credits, requiring Ford to subsidize unprofitable EVs with revenue from gasoline vehicle sales. The result? Higher prices for consumers and fewer of the vehicles Americans actually wanted.

That’s all changing. In July 2025, a budget reconciliation bill became law, easing these regulatory pressures. The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a step expected to eliminate GHG fines and credits by late 2025.

During a recent earnings call, Ford CEO Jim Farley highlighted the financial windfall, projecting $1.5 billion in savings for 2025 alone, with billions more to follow in 2026 if these credits disappear. These savings far outweigh potential tariff-related costs, positioning Ford for a profitability boom.

Why EVs haven’t won over America

EVs aren’t vanishing entirely, but their role in Ford’s U.S. lineup is shrinking. The reason is straightforward: Most Americans aren’t interested. Despite heavy subsidies, EVs remain unprofitable for automakers. Consumers face high up-front costs, rapid depreciation, and low residual values, making gasoline vehicles a more practical choice. Ford’s sales data confirms this, showing EVs as a small fraction of demand while gasoline engines remain popular.

To comply with EV mandates, Ford had to inflate gasoline vehicle prices to offset losses. Technologies like start-stop systems, turbochargers, and electrification added thousands to production costs, which were passed on to buyers. Production quotas also limited how many profitable gasoline vehicles Ford could build. The outcome was a market where consumers paid more for vehicles they didn’t fully want, and Ford’s bottom line suffered.

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

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Back to what works

With regulatory constraints fading, Ford is realigning production to match consumer demand. The company is phasing out costly technologies like start-stop systems and turbochargers, which were required to meet fuel economy standards.

Without CAFE fines, these features are no longer necessary, paving the way for lower prices. Ford is also bringing back naturally aspirated engines, which are cheaper to produce and known for their reliability — qualities American buyers value. The 5.0-liter V-8, found in the F-150 and Mustang, is a standout example, and Ford may expand its use to models like the Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, Ranger, and Bronco.

While Ford isn’t abandoning EVs entirely, its focus will shift. EVs will remain for international markets, niche applications, and research to stay competitive if they become viable without subsidies. This strategic shift allows Ford to prioritize affordable, reliable vehicles that align with what Americans want.

Profits in sight

Ford’s second-quarter 2025 financials offer a glimpse of the road ahead. The company reported a record $50.2 billion in revenue but a $36 million net loss due to special items.

Its EV division, Ford Model e, recorded a $1.3 billion loss, up $179 million from last year. However, Ford is optimistic. By redirecting resources from EVs to commercial trucks and full-size SUVs, the company sees a multibillion-dollar opportunity.

To brace for potential challenges, Ford secured a $3 billion line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, despite holding $20 billion in cash and $14 billion in liquid securities. This cautious move signals confidence in its long-term strategy. If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of EV mandates is a win for affordability. New vehicle prices have soared in recent years, with basic models jumping from $16,000 six years ago to much higher today, partly due to EV-related costs. As Ford shifts to naturally aspirated engines, gasoline vehicle prices could drop by thousands. Meanwhile, EVs will reflect their true cost, likely making them less competitive without subsidies.

This shift restores consumer choice. Whether you prefer the reliability of a gasoline truck, the power of a Mustang, or the utility of an SUV, you’ll find more options at better prices. Ford’s emphasis on commercial trucks and SUVs also caters to businesses and families, key drivers of demand.

Driven by demand

Ford’s pivot underscores a fundamental truth: markets thrive when they reflect consumer preferences, not government mandates. The EV push forced automakers to prioritize unprofitable products, raising prices and limiting choice. Its rollback lets Ford invest in what Americans want — affordable, dependable vehicles. This could spark a revival for the U.S. automotive industry, with Ford at the forefront.

Other automakers are likely watching. If Ford’s profits soar, competitors may follow, reinforcing the trend toward gasoline and diesel. EVs will continue to evolve where they make economic sense, but for now, the U.S. market is hitting the gas.

Ford’s decision signals lower prices, more choices, and a market that listens to consumers. Whether you’re a truck driver, a family on the go, or a car enthusiast, this shift could mean better vehicles at better prices. Share this story with friends who love cars or hate high costs — they’ll want to know.

EV sales are sinking — which automakers will go down with the ship?



The electric vehicle market is hitting a critical tipping point — and the mainstream media won’t talk about it.

In a no-holds-barred episode of “Car Coach Reports,” we sat down with two of the sharpest minds in the industry: Anton Wahlman, a veteran financial analyst and columnist for Seeking Alpha, and Karl Brauer, a respected automotive expert known for his data-driven insights on iSeeCars and YouTube.

Together, we pull back the curtain on what’s really happening in the EV world.

Here’s the reality: The federal EV tax credit — up to $7,500 per vehicle — expires September 30, giving automakers under 90 days to move more than 140,000 EVs currently sitting on dealer lots. That’s more than a 100-day supply of inventory, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. And while some companies are positioned to adapt, others are dangerously overcommitted.

We break down which brands might survive the coming EV shakeout — Toyota, Ford, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Tesla, and others — and which ones are at risk of collapse once the subsidies disappear. The entire industry is being reshaped by political decisions, not consumer demand. It’s a wake-up call for car buyers and a challenge for automakers.

This isn’t about being for or against EVs — it’s about exposing the truth with no agenda.

Don’t miss this essential conversation — especially if you’re shopping for a new vehicle or wondering what comes next for the automotive world.

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.