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



President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act just sent a jolt through America’s automotive industry — and this time, it’s not about subsidies or mandates. It’s about getting Washington out of the driver’s seat.

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation is packed with major changes that will affect your next car, your fuel bill, and maybe even your job.

Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works.

Whether you’re a mechanic, a car dealer, or someone simply trying to afford a reliable ride, this bill deserves your full attention. It dismantles a decade of EV favoritism, slashes penalties for automakers, and puts gas-powered vehicles squarely back in the spotlight.

Let’s break it down — without the fluff — and explain exactly why this matters to you.

USPS fleet unplugged

This legislation starts by hitting reverse on the U.S. Postal Service’s $9.6 billion push to electrify its fleet, which began in January 2024 with the purchase of 7,200 Ford E-Transit electric vans, developed especially for the USPS.

Now that this entire program has been marked "return to sender," USPS can get back to delivering mail instead of testing environmental policy.

While an earlier version of the bill called for the USPS to sell off the electric vans, that provision was missing from the final document.

Hard reset on EPA overreach

Next up: the Environmental Protection Agency.

This bill takes direct aim at overreaching green energy policy eliminating California’s ability to set its own tougher vehicle emissions standards. California’s EPA waiver had long allowed the state to push automakers into building more EVs and hybrids — regardless of what the rest of the country wanted. That’s over. And with it, the ripple effect on nationwide vehicle standards could collapse.

More importantly, the bill removes the penalties automakers faced for missing fuel economy targets. Companies like Stellantis paid nearly $191 million in fines during just one two-year window (2019–2020) under CAFE standards. Now, those penalties are set to zero.

This gives automakers breathing room — and the ability to focus on building vehicles Americans actually want to buy: SUVs, trucks, and gas-powered cars with real utility or hybrid vehicles. Not battery-powered compliance boxes.

EV tax credits ending sooner

Here’s the part that really flips the EV market upside down: The tax credits are going away — and sooner than expected.

The $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs will vanish after September 30, 2025 — a full three months earlier than the House originally planned. And it gets more aggressive: Leased EVs from non-U.S. automakers lose their credits immediately. The EV charger tax credit also ends in June 2026.

What remains? A manufacturing tax credit for U.S.-built EV batteries, but even that excludes any company with links to China.

This is a major economic pivot. With EVs costing an average of $9,000 more than gas-powered vehicles, losing these incentives could price many buyers out of the market. Analysts are forecasting a 72% drop in projected EV sales over the next decade, along with a possible loss of 80,000 U.S. jobs and $100 billion in expected investment.

Tesla may survive the fallout. But other automakers — like Ford and Hyundai — will likely delay or scale back future EV development. Expect fewer EV ads, slower rollouts, and more conventional models hitting showrooms.

More choice, more questions

So what does all this mean for you, the driver?

Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works. Expect more variety, lower prices, and vehicles designed for the actual demands of American families and businesses.

RELATED: WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off 250th anniversary of the US with patriotic rally

Fuel demand is expected to stay high — and that’s good news for domestic energy production. Oil and gas industries have long warned that EV policy was artificially distorting the market. Now, that distortion is being corrected.

The bill also helps car buyers more directly with a proposed tax deduction for buyers saddled with auto loan interest — a nod to the growing number of Americans financing vehicles in a high-rate environment. It’s a way to offer relief without distorting the product landscape.

And while an annual $250 EV road-use fee didn’t make it into the final bill, don’t be surprised if that resurfaces in the next round of negotiations. Right now, gas drivers pay federal fuel taxes that help fund roads and infrastructure. EVs pay nothing. That imbalance may not last. This fight could be taken up by the EPA or the Department of Transportation.

Winners and losers

This legislation favors automakers willing to build vehicles Americans want — not those chasing regulatory credits. It’s a win for traditional manufacturers, oil and gas workers, and dealers in heartland states where EV demand has always been low.

It’s a loss for global automakers betting big on electric growth in the U.S. market — especially those with heavy investment in Chinese battery supply chains. And it’s a headache for urban planners, utilities, and environmental groups counting on mass EV adoption to hit clean energy targets.

The National Automobile Dealers Association, CarMax, and others were pushing for a longer transition period. They feared a sudden market disruption. Meanwhile, critics of the bill claimed it jeopardizes climate goals, raises future utility bills, and hands the EV lead to countries like China.

Why you should care

This isn’t just a debate about cars or clean air — it’s a fight over how much control government should have over your choices, your money, and your mobility.

Do you want a vehicle that fits your life, your budget, and your needs? Or do you want a central planner in Washington — or Sacramento — dictating your options? That’s the question this bill forces us to ask.

By pulling back mandates, cutting artificial market manipulation, and letting consumers — not bureaucrats — drive the demand, this bill aims to restore sanity to an industry that’s been distorted by politics and ideology for too long.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.

So think carefully about what this means, not just for the next car you buy — but for the future of freedom on America’s roads.

For more, check out my video here.

Fudged figures wildly exaggerate EV efficiency



It's quasi consumer fraud on a global scale.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s electric vehicle mileage ratings are misleading millions, inflating EV efficiency and hiding the true energy cost of driving green. And it all comes down to one little number.

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

It’s time to pull back the curtain on the EPA’s Miles Per Gallon equivalent figure, a metric that’s been covering the truth about EVs for years. This flawed foundation overstates efficiency while shortchanging hybrids and traditional cars. This isn’t just a technical glitch; it’s a distortion that could sway your next car purchase and sabotage the resale of your electric car.

Stick with me as we dig into the numbers, uncover the truth, and explore why this scam happened. And make sure to share this with anyone who’s ever wondered if EVs are really as green as they’re made out to be.

MPGe: A flawed metric

The Obama administration EPA introduced MPGe to help consumers compare the efficiency of electric vehicles to traditional gas-powered cars. It’s supposed to represent how far an EV can travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.

On paper, it’s a tidy way to level the playing field. For example, the EPA rated the 2011 Nissan Leaf at 99 MPGe, suggesting it’s nearly three times as efficient as a typical gas car getting 35 MPG. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: The EPA’s calculation assumes a perfect world, where gasoline is converted to electricity with no energy loss.

That’s not just optimistic — it’s physically impossible.

The EPA’s methodology takes the energy content of a gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTUs) and divides it by the energy in a kilowatt-hour of electricity (3,412 BTUs), arriving at a conversion factor of 33.7 kWh per gallon. Using this, it calculates how far an EV travels per kWh and converts it to MPGe.

The problem? This assumes 100% efficiency in turning fossil fuels into electricity at power plants, ignoring the messy reality of energy production. According to the EPA’s own data from October 2024, the average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. is just 36%. That means 64% of the energy is lost as heat, friction, and other forms of energy waste before it ever reaches your EV’s battery.

RELATED: 10 reasons not to buy an electric car

Getty Images/Xinhua News Agency

The Department of Energy’s reality check

Contrast this with the Department of Energy’s approach, which accounts for real-world power plant efficiencies and the fuel mix used to generate electricity. The DOE also factors in the energy required to refine and transport gasoline for traditional cars, creating a fairer comparison.

When you apply the DOE’s methodology, the numbers tell a different story. That 99 MPGe Nissan Leaf? It drops to a much humbler 36 MPGe — still respectable but far less impressive. This is roughly equivalent to a good hybrid like the Toyota Prius or even some efficient gas cars like the Honda CR-V. Suddenly, EVs don’t look like the runaway efficiency champions they’re made out to be.

So why does this discrepancy matter? The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures create a false impression that EVs are seven times more efficient than gas-powered cars, which can mislead consumers and policymakers. It’s not just about bragging rights; these numbers influence fuel economy standards, tax incentives, and even what cars automakers prioritize. If you’re shopping for a car, you deserve the truth about what you’re getting — not a rosy picture that glosses over real-world energy costs.

A violation of physics

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

Power plants, whether coal, natural gas, or oil-fired, lose significant energy as heat during electricity generation. Transmission lines and battery charging add further losses. By ignoring these, the EPA’s MPGe paints an unrealistically efficient picture of EVs.

Meanwhile, gas-powered cars and hybrids are judged strictly on their tailpipe efficiency, with no such generous assumptions. This double standard tilts the playing field, making EVs appear far superior when the reality is different.

The Biden administration’s push for EVs, including stringent emissions standards aiming for 67% of new car sales to be electric by 2032, amplifies the issue. These policies rely on MPGe to justify EV mandates, but the DOE’s more realistic calculations suggest hybrids and efficient gas vehicles could achieve similar reductions in fossil fuel use without forcing a wholesale shift to EVs. The DOE’s method shows that EVs, while efficient in their own right (using 87%-91% of battery energy for propulsion compared to 16%-25% for gas cars) don’t deliver the massive efficiency leaps MPGe suggests when you account for the full energy cycle.

'Lightning' in a bottle?

The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures aren’t just a technical oversight — they have real-world consequences. Federal fuel economy standards, like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, use MPGe to determine compliance. High MPGe ratings allow automakers to offset less efficient gas-powered vehicles with fewer EVs, which sounds good but can mask the true environmental impact.

For instance, the Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup was credited with 237.7 MPGe under old rules, but a more realistic DOE estimate drops it to 67.1 MPGe — still efficient but not a miracle worker. This inflates automakers’ fleet averages without necessarily reducing fossil fuel use as much as claimed.

Consumers feel the pinch, too. EVs are often marketed as the ultimate green choice, but the EPA’s numbers obscure the fact that most U.S. electricity (about 60% in 2024) comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In regions heavy in coal production, like parts of the Midwest, charging an EV can produce as much greenhouse gas as a gas-powered hybrid. The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator, developed with the DOE, lets you check emissions by zip code, revealing how your local grid affects an EV’s true environmental impact. This is critical information the MPGe figure conveniently ignores.

Hybrids, which combine gas and electric power, often get shortchanged in this narrative. A hybrid like the Toyota Prius can achieve 50 MPG or more in real-world driving, rivaling the DOE’s adjusted MPGe for many EVs without relying on a charging infrastructure that’s still spotty in rural areas. Yet, the EPA’s MPGe metric makes hybrids look less impressive, potentially steering buyers away from a practical, cost-effective option.

Policy or politics?

The Biden administration’s aggressive EV agenda, including the 2024 emissions standards aiming for a 50% reduction in light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, leaned heavily on MPGe to justify its goals. These rules projected that EVs could account for 35%-56% of new vehicle sales by 2030, a target that shrunk after pushback from automakers and unions worried about job losses and consumer choice. The administration also adjusted DOE’s EV mileage ratings in 2024, gradually reducing them by 65% through 2030 to better reflect real-world efficiencies, but the EPA’s MPGe figures still dominate public perception.

RELATED: Paul Brian, 1951-2024

Lauren Fix

Critics argue this focus on EVs, propped up by inflated MPGe, prioritizes political goals over practical solutions. The Trump administration’s EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has since moved to reconsider these rules, citing overreach and costs exceeding $700 billion. It argues that mandating EVs limits consumer choice and raises costs for all vehicles, as automakers offset EV losses with higher prices on gas-powered models. Recently, President Trump signed into law the removal of the EV mandate, and this is a win for consumer choice.

Transparency and choice

So is the EPA’s MPGe a deliberate scam? Not exactly, but it’s a misleading metric that overpromises EV benefits while undervaluing alternatives. And it's been tricking almost everyone for years!

The EPA’s methodology needs to be corrected. The honest numbers would let consumers compare EVs, hybrids, and gas cars on equal terms. The Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator is a step in the right direction, showing how local grids affect EV emissions, but it’s underutilized compared to the flashy MPGe sticker on new cars.

You deserve to know the true energy cost of your vehicle — whether it’s plugged in, filled up, or both. The EPA’s MPGe has skewed perceptions, making EVs seem like a silver bullet when hybrids and efficient gas cars often deliver comparable benefits without the infrastructure headaches. With the Trump administration now removing EV mandates and reducing CAFE standards, there’s a chance to reset the conversation. Policies should prioritize innovation and consumer choice, not inflated metrics that favor one technology over another.

This isn’t just about car shopping; it’s about the future of transportation and energy. It's better to tell consumers the truth and not inflate MPGe figures that can mislead you into purchasing a vehicle that doesn’t go the promised distance. Hybrids, efficient gas cars, and EVs all have a role to play, but only if we judge them fairly.

Share this article with friends who are car shopping or curious about the EV hype — it could save them thousands and spark a conversation. The EPA must ditch MPGe and give drivers the unfiltered truth about vehicle efficiency.

Nearly Half Of Electric Vehicle Drivers Regret Their Purchase

Forty-six percent of American electric vehicle owners were 'very' likely to opt for a traditional gas-powered car for their next purchase.

Federal ban on new gas-powered cars? Buttigieg is 'really interested' in California's new regulation



Could the federal government impose a ban on new gas-powered cars?

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said recently he is interested in such a policy after California mandated that only "zero-emission" cars be sold by the mid-2030s.

What did California do?

In late August, the California Air Resources Board approved a new rule banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

The regulation does not ban Californians from driving vehicles with internal combustion engines, but it mandates that any new vehicle sold in the state with a model year of 2035 or later must be free of fossil fuel emissions.

What did Buttigieg say?

The transportation secretary told KTTV-TV last week that he is "really interested" in regulations like those in California. In fact, Buttigieg suggested such a policy may be considered nationally.

"It’s interesting to see how the states are trying to go above and beyond what we’re doing at the federal level," Buttigieg told the news station.

"I’m really interested in these developments, while we continue to set a national policy that’s the baseline for all of this. We need to move in the direction of electric vehicles," he added.

The transition to electric vehicles must happen "quickly," Buttigieg added, in order to "beat climate change."

"We’ve got to make sure that this happens quickly enough to help us beat climate change," he said. "We’ve got to make sure it happens affordably enough that’s it not just wealthy people, but low-income people who are the ones who most need those gas savings if they can afford the EVs in the first place."

However, Buttigieg did not explain how mandating electric vehicles will "beat climate change." After all, the U.S. is only one country and accounts for roughly 10% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.

\u201c"We've got make sure this happens quickly enough to help us beat climate change... that it happens affordably... that this is a Made in America EV revolution..."\n\n@SecretaryPete touts the transition to electric vehicles. \n\n@Elex_Michaelson hosts @TheIssueIsShow\u201d
— The Issue Is (@The Issue Is) 1662772837

Anything else?

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently agreed that California's rule "could be" a "national model."

The irony of California's new rule is that just this month Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) instructed residents to restrict their use of electricity amid a record-breaking heat wave.

Among other measures intended to preserve the electric grid, Newsom asked Californians not to use large appliances between the hours of 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. One wonders if charging electric vehicles fell into that category.

Meanwhile, California was also forced to use gas-powered emergency generators to prevent widespread blackouts.

New study finds EVs still cause massive amounts of climate-harming emissions — from tires



A new study is attracting widespread attention online by highlighting the surprising way in which electric vehicles are still pumping loads of climate-harming pollutants into the environment — and in many cases, at much higher rates than gas-powered cars.

The study, published recently by Emissions Analytics, a U.K.-based emissions testing firm, found that under normal driving conditions, particulate emissions from tires are an eye-popping 1,850 times greater than from a tailpipe of a gas-powered car.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines particulate matter as "solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air" that are "so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems." Some are small enough to enter deep into the lungs and even soak into the bloodstream.

The particulate matter emitted from tires also pollutes the natural environment, as larger particles cover the ground while smaller particles float into the air. In fact, "Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas," the EPA notes.

The revelation raises a particular problem for EVs, which typically weigh significantly more than their gas-powered counterparts thanks to the heavy battery packs that allow for longer-distance driving. The more a car weighs, the greater pressure it puts on its tires, leading to more tire emissions.

"Half a ton of battery weight can result in tire emissions that are almost 400 more times greater than real-world tailpipe emissions, everything else being equal," Emissions Analytics claimed.

And the trend is heading in the wrong direction, so far as tire emissions go. EVs continue to get heavier and heavier as a result of consumer demand for longer travel times in between charges. Conversely, as newer cars have become more efficient, tailpipe emissions in gas-powered vehicles have decreased.

Researchers did note, "An important difference between tire and tailpipe particle emissions is that most of the former is understood to go straight to soil and water, whereas most of the latter is suspended in air for a period, and therefore negatively affects air quality."

However, the study determined that 11% of tire particulate emissions were small enough to go airborne. So, a significant amount of tire emissions still cause pollution in the air, poking a hole in the "zero emissions" claim touted by EV makers and green energy advocates.

Responding to the new study, Green Car Reports acknowledged that "as new cars get more efficient and EVs begin to make up a larger share of the fleet, the environmental impact of tire emissions will have to be addressed."

The EV outlet went on to note that in addition to particulates, another study from last year found that tires were a significant contributor to microplastic pollution, as well.

(H/T: Western Journal)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign executive order banning the sale of all gas-powered cars in the state by 2035



California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced Wednesday that he planned to sign an executive order that would have the effect of banning the sale of all passenger cars that run on internal combustion by 2035, while banning the sale of light and heavy-duty vehicles that run on gasoline by 2045.

According to a statement on the governor's website, Newsom believes that this order will "move the state further away from its reliance on climate change-causing fossil fuels while retaining and creating jobs and spurring economic growth."

Newsom's statement also bullishly predicts, "By the time the new rule goes into effect, zero-emission vehicles will almost certainly be cheaper and better than the traditional fossil fuel powered cars." The statement also calls on the California legislature to cease issuing new fracking permits by the year 2024.

The text of the order itself states that "the climate change crisis is happening now, impacting California in unprecedented ways, and affecting the health and safety of too many Californians." The order further explicitly states that the COVID-19 pandemic should be viewed as an opportunity to reshape the California economy in line with environmentalists' goals, claiming that "the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the entire transportation sector, bringing a sharp decline in demand for fuels and adversely impacting public transportation," and "as our economy recovers, we must accelerate the transition to a carbon neutral future that supports the retention and creation of high-road, high-quality jobs."

The order also makes it clear that, while the goal is to achieve a total end to the sale of combustion-engine automobiles in 2035, the California State Air Resources Board is expected to take incremental steps beginning immediately to gradually reduce the sale of gasoline-powered engines.

The Panglossian predictions about the ease with which Californians will be able to transition completely away from gasoline-powered vehicles should perhaps be viewed through the lens of the success of California's initiative to fuel its power grid entirely with renewable energy sources. California's grid is currently unable to provide reliable power to residents, and only federal intervention (including the use of fossil fuel-burning ship engines) has provided even moderate stability during the crisis.