Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption



For more than two decades, California’s electric vehicle drivers enjoyed a privilege that millions of traditional commuters envied: the ability to glide into the carpool lane while driving solo.

That perk, created under the state’s Clean Air Vehicle program, was meant to reward early adopters of electric cars and hybrids while encouraging the broader public to embrace cleaner transportation. But after September 30, that advantage comes to an end.

When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed it stopped accepting new applications for Clean Air Vehicle decals on August 29, and existing decals will no longer be valid beginning October 1.

Fuel me once

That means a Tesla, Chevy Bolt, or Toyota Prius Prime with a single driver will be treated the same as a gas-powered sedan in traffic. Use the high-occupancy vehicle lane alone, and you risk a ticket of up to $490.

The reason behind this abrupt shift is not state policy but federal law. The Clean Air Vehicle program was last authorized through the 2015 federal transportation law, which included a sunset clause requiring Congress to extend it. That extension never happened. Without Washington’s approval, California cannot legally continue granting carpool lane access to EV drivers.

This has sparked frustration among both state officials and drivers who had come to view the privilege as a key reason to purchase an electric vehicle. Since the program’s inception in 2001, California has issued more than 1.2 million decals, with about 512,000 still valid this summer. The scale of adoption made California a national model for incentivizing EV use. For many, skipping bumper-to-bumper traffic was just as important as lower fuel costs or environmental benefits.

Grumblin’ Gavin

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sharply criticized the lapse, blaming congressional inaction. His office warned that revoking EV access to HOV lanes will worsen traffic congestion and increase air pollution.

California already struggles with air quality, hosting five of the nation’s 10 smoggiest cities, according to the American Lung Association. State officials argue that taking incentives away from EVs could discourage adoption at a time when they want more drivers behind the wheel of battery-powered cars.

But the politics of EV incentives have shifted dramatically in recent years. Bipartisan support has fractured, and federal priorities have moved away from programs like California’s Clean Air Vehicle initiative. Under President Donald Trump, environmental waivers that California used to set its own strict emissions standards were revoked.

He also signed an executive order halting federal EV incentives, such as the $7,500 tax credit, and moved to eliminate the state’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate. More recently, his administration backed several resolutions overturning California’s regulations, including its 2035 ban on new gas-powered cars.

RELATED: Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?

Kevin Carter/Yana Paskova/Getty Images

EV does it

California, for its part, has doubled down on electrification. Electric vehicles accounted for 25% of new car sales in 2024, the highest in the nation. The state now has more EV chargers than gas stations, and its climate policies require automakers to meet aggressive EV sales quotas if they want to continue selling gasoline-powered models. To bridge the gap, state lawmakers passed legislation in 2024 to extend the Clean Air Vehicle program until 2027. But because federal approval was necessary, that effort has now hit a wall.

The loss of carpool lane access raises serious questions about the balance between incentives and mandates. Many Californians purchased EVs with the expectation of long-term access to HOV lanes, and for commuters in areas like Los Angeles or the Bay Area, the time savings are significant. Taking that away could undermine consumer confidence in state-backed incentives. If benefits can vanish overnight, will drivers think twice before making the leap to an electric car, especially with prices still higher than many gasoline vehicles?

There’s also the issue of traffic itself. With over half a million cars losing carpool access at once, HOV lanes may open up — but the general flow of traffic could get worse. California has long promoted these lanes as a way to reduce congestion and emissions. Yet now, drivers who purchased EVs expecting relief from gridlock will be back in the same stop-and-go conditions as everyone else.

Fair fare

Some critics argue that carpool incentives were always meant to be temporary. When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers. EV sales are now far higher than expected when the program began, and some transportation analysts suggest that the incentives have already served their purpose. In their view, it’s time to reassess whether carpool perks are fair, especially as EVs become mainstream.

Still, the political framing remains contentious. California officials see the lapse as part of a broader pattern of federal resistance to their climate policies. They argue that while EVs have become more popular, the fight against pollution requires every possible tool, including access incentives. Without federal cooperation, the state faces limits on how far it can go.

Tolled off

Drivers, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. A Tesla owner who counted on the decal as part of their daily commute could soon be facing hundreds of dollars in fines. Discounts on toll programs, such as those tied to FasTrak Clean Air Vehicle tags, will also vanish unless drivers meet normal occupancy rules.

This moment highlights a broader tension in the transition to electric vehicles: the clash between ambitious state-level initiatives and shifting federal policy. California wants to lead the nation in electrification, but it cannot do so entirely on its own.

As EV adoption accelerates, the question becomes whether incentives should keep pace — or whether it’s time for the market to stand on its own.

For now, the result is clear. Starting in October, California’s EV drivers will no longer be able to rely on their clean-air decals to speed through traffic. Instead, they’ll have to join the same lanes as everyone else, while the larger policy debates play out in Washington and Sacramento.

What happens next will depend on how lawmakers balance environmental goals, commuter realities, and political priorities. But one thing is certain: The end of California’s Clean Air Vehicle program marks a turning point in how America incentivizes electric cars. For drivers, it’s a reminder that government programs can change overnight — and the road ahead may be more complicated than expected.

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.

ROOKE: Trump And Elon’s Greeting Feels Like Way More Than A Handshake

'I've missed you.'

California may defy Trump with new statewide EV credits



California is once again at the center of the nation’s automotive and energy policy debate. With federal electric vehicle tax credits set to expire this September, the state is considering whether to create its own replacement program.

This would not only affect car buyers but could also reshape the national conversation on emissions rules, vehicle affordability, and the balance of power between state and federal regulators.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a report on August 19 recommending that the state consider “backfilling” the federal credits with its own point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other incentives to keep EV sales moving.

The details remain vague, but the intention is clear: California wants to keep its aggressive zero-emission vehicle goals on track, even as Washington scales back related programs.

Emissions mission

But California has been here before. This is not the first time the state has clashed with the federal government over vehicle regulations — and it likely won’t be the last.

California has a unique history when it comes to vehicle emissions. Decades before the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency, California was already regulating air quality in response to its smog problem.

When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, California was granted a waiver that allowed it to set its own stricter emissions standards. Other states were given the option to adopt California’s rules, and some states have done so. Today, 11 states follow California’s lead.

This waiver authority has made California an outsize force in shaping vehicle propulsion. Automakers cannot ignore a market of this size, which means California’s rules often become de facto national standards.

Better red than fed

California’s regulatory independence has not always sat well with Washington. Under different administrations, the federal government has either supported or resisted the state’s authority. During the Obama years, California partnered with the federal government to create a unified fuel economy and emissions program, giving automakers a single set of national rules.

Under the Trump administration, the EPA rolled back certain emissions standards, sparking legal battles with California, which insisted on enforcing its own tougher rules. The state formed alliances with other states and even some automakers to defend its position.

Today, with federal EV tax credits expiring at the end of September and policy focus shifting, California is again stepping into the driver’s seat by proposing its own financial incentives. These ongoing disputes highlight a deeper question: Should environmental and automotive policy be driven by national uniformity or by one state acting as the policy leader?

Forever ZEV?

The discussion over tax credits cannot be separated from California’s ZEV mandate. Under CARB’s plan, automakers must steadily increase the percentage of EVs they sell, with the ultimate goal of phasing out new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035.

This is one of the most ambitious policies in the country, and automakers are scrambling to meet the targets. Some states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have pledged to follow California’s lead, while others remain skeptical. For consumers, this means that vehicle availability will increasingly be shaped by government mandates and not by market demand. Even if gas-powered cars remain popular, automakers will need to balance that demand with regulatory compliance.

Different strokes

The CARB report suggests that any new program would differ from the federal credits in key ways. Instead of tax credits, buyers could receive point-of-sale rebates, allowing them to benefit immediately rather than waiting until tax season.

Incentives may also vary depending on income level, vehicle type, or price, so luxury EVs could receive lower rebates while affordable models get more support.

Additionally, any new program would be tied to yearly funding availability, meaning that if budgets tighten, rebates could shrink or disappear. This approach could make the system more flexible, but it also introduces uncertainty for buyers trying to plan their purchases. In the past, the state of California and other states have run out of money in the EV fund and left buyers with nothing.

RELATED: Little Deuce Prius?! California's shocking plan to ban classic cars

Justin Sullivan/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Electric slide

The promise of continued incentives may be welcome news for some California drivers, but the reality is more complicated. EVs still come with challenges beyond sticker price. Even with rebates, EVs are often thousands of dollars more expensive than comparable gasoline cars.

California has built more chargers than any other state, yet many regions remain underserved, and home charging is not always an option, particularly for renters.

EVs also tend to depreciate faster than gas vehicles due to rapid advances in technology and concerns about battery life. Insurance rates are higher on electric vehicles as well.

And let’s not forget a major expense: Electricity rates are rising at double the rate of inflation.

One of the key criticisms of EV subsidies is that they often benefit wealthier households. Data from federal programs has shown that a large percentage of credits went to buyers in higher income brackets because these households are more likely to purchase new cars, and EVs remain disproportionately concentrated in the premium market segment.

California may attempt to address this with scaled incentives, but questions remain about whether the system can truly deliver benefits to everyone. Meanwhile, working-class families who rely on affordable used cars may find themselves subsidizing programs that they cannot realistically take advantage of.

Bowing to the bear

For automakers, California’s decisions carry immense weight. The state accounts for nearly 12% of U.S. auto sales, and when you include the other states that follow its rules, the market share becomes impossible to ignore.

Manufacturers that fail to meet California’s requirements face penalties, while those that comply can earn credits to sell or trade. This system has created an uneven playing field, favoring companies with strong EV lineups.

Tesla, for instance, has profited significantly from selling ZEV credits to competitors in the past. If California establishes a robust new rebate system, it could further tilt the market toward EVs, encouraging automakers to prioritize them even more, take greater losses on each vehicle.

Off the market

At its core, this debate is about whether government policy should drive technology adoption or whether the market should dictate the pace.

California argues that aggressive incentives and mandates are necessary to address climate goals and push the auto industry forward. Critics counter that these policies distort the market, forcing automakers and taxpayers to shoulder costs that may not align with consumer demand. They also warn of unintended consequences, such as reduced affordability, lack of charging stations, and strained electrical infrastructure.

California’s proposal to replace expiring federal EV tax credits with state-funded incentives is the latest chapter in a decades-long story of the state asserting its role as the nation’s automotive regulator.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

For some wealthier car buyers, this could mean continued financial support when purchasing an EV, but it also raises questions about long-term effectiveness. For taxpayers, it means another debate about where funds should be directed and increased taxes for residents. For the auto industry, it underscores more losses on vehicles that are designed by one state’s demands.

As history shows, when California moves, the rest of the country often feels the impact. The next few months will reveal whether the state can successfully design a program that keeps EV sales going without overburdening its citizens with more increased taxes. But one thing is certain: California still has significant power over the U.S. auto industry.

Elon Musk Seems To Have Come To His Senses About The ‘America Party’

'It would do nothing to advance the issues that Elon cares about'

Why we still need car dealerships



When you think about buying a car, you probably picture the final step — walking into a dealership, shaking hands, and driving off in something new.

But what you might not think about is the incredibly complex process that got that vehicle into your hands. And even more overlooked? The vital role that middlemen like car dealerships play in making that possible.

Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle?

We live in an era obsessed with “cutting out the middleman.” The phrase gets thrown around like it’s inherently virtuous. Tech companies promise lower costs and better service by eliminating dealers and distributors.

In defense of the middleman

Some automakers, especially those in the electric vehicle space, push hard for direct-to-consumer sales, arguing that it's the modern way to sell cars.

But that narrative skips over something critical. Without middlemen — like your local car dealer and the shipping company that brought the car to your part of the world — the entire automotive experience would be slower, more expensive, and far less accountable.

Let’s admit it: Americans use middlemen every day. Whether it’s Amazon getting packages to your door or your grocery store stocking fresh produce, these companies act as connectors. They’re the ones that bring products from point A to point B — efficiently, reliably, and at scale. Amazon may be seen as a tech giant, but it’s really a supply chain company, built on logistics and distribution.

Adding value

It's the same with the auto industry. Cars don’t go straight from the factory to your driveway, nor do you have to drive to Detroit to buy from the manufacturing plant. They move through a massive network — raw materials, parts suppliers, assembly plants, transportation hubs, and finally, your local dealer. Each step adds expertise, accountability, and value to the customer.

This stands in sharp contrast to direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla, which operate without traditional dealerships. Instead, customers place orders online or in company-owned showrooms, often without ever driving the vehicle first.

The company controls everything — from pricing to delivery to service — which might sound efficient, but it removes the local relationship and accountability that dealerships offer. When problems arise, buyers are often left waiting for corporate to respond on its own timeline, without any local recourse or advocacy.

Local connection

And here’s where it matters most to you: the dealership.

Dealers aren’t just there to hand you the keys. They’re your local connection to a global system. When you walk into a showroom, you’re gaining access to a support system. Dealers offer real-time comparisons between different trims and models. You can see the options, test drive them, ask questions, and get answers from someone who knows the product and knows your local driving needs.

You’re not left clicking through an app or talking to a call center on the other side of the country. You're dealing with someone who wants your repeat business — which is why they also help you navigate the often-complicated world of financing and paperwork.

You’re not navigating the labyrinth of paperwork and regulations for loans, titles, warranties, and insurance on your own. From the time you walk in the door to the time you leave the lot, dealers are making sure your investment is protected. And you’re supporting local businesses, which means jobs and improving the economy around you.

Help desk blues

That’s something direct-to-consumer models can’t replicate. Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle? What if you need help when the battery range underperforms in winter driving?

Without a local dealer, you’re often stuck dealing with a corporate help desk, hoping for a response, with no one nearby to step in. Or you're waiting for weeks to get your vehicle serviced if it can’t be repaired remotely.

There’s also a bigger issue here — consumer choice. Dealers create competition. When you can walk into several dealerships in your area, compare prices, and negotiate, that gives you leverage. When everything is sold directly through the manufacturer, there’s no competition — only a fixed price and a one-size-fits-all approach.

RELATED: Looking to save big on a car? Dealerships have never been more desperate to sell

David Goddard/Getty Images

Good jobs

Let’s not forget the economic role dealerships play. They employ over a million Americans, often in communities where good jobs are hard to come by. Many are family-owned, multigenerational businesses that reinvest in their towns through local sponsorships, community events, and charitable giving. When you remove them from the equation, you're not just changing how cars are sold — you're pulling economic activity away from local communities and concentrating it in corporate headquarters and tech platforms.

At a time when so much of life is becoming impersonal and centralized, local dealerships remain one of the last industries where consumers can actually engage face-to-face, get personalized service, and make informed decisions. This contrasts sharply with Tesla, where a car that doesn’t run gets the “we’ll repair it when we can” treatment.

So the next time you hear someone say we should “cut out the middleman,” stop and think about what that really means. Because in the auto industry, the middleman — your local dealer — isn’t just a convenience. He's your advocate, your partner, and your safety net.

Eliminating dealers may streamline the process, but in doing so, it strips away the layers of protection and personal service that American car buyers have come to rely on for over a century.

Let’s not make that mistake.

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.

What do you call 12 Antifa radicals in body armor?



Since the 1990s, federal agencies and the media have fed Americans a steady diet of panic about shadowy “right-wing militias” — usually ex-military guys obsessed with guns and ready to wage war against the government at a moment’s notice.

The panic went into overdrive after January 6, 2021. But now, in a staggering act of projection, the threat they’ve spent decades warning about has arrived — only it’s coming from the radical left. And still, the feds insist on looking the wrong way.

Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.

Despite years of breathless rhetoric, the supposed wave of “right-wing terrorism” never materialized. Jan. 6 was a chaotic security failure, not an insurrection. Most of the defendants were unarmed. Many walked through open rope lines. And yet the regime has used that day to smear millions of Americans and justify years of political prosecutions.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently called Jan. 6 “the culmination of a sustained effort to undermine our democracy.” But what sustained effort? Four years later, no mass violence, no uprisings. Nothing at all.

Now, compare that to what we’re seeing from the radical left.

Ambush in Alvarado

After months of threatening Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Antifa terrorists launched a coordinated attack on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. This wasn’t a protest gone wrong. This was a planned ambush.

At least 11 people, dressed in black tactical gear, carried out the assault. First, they fired fireworks at the building, vandalized security cameras, and sprayed graffiti, including “ICE pig,” “traitor,” and other profanities on vehicles. The goal was to draw agents outside.

When two unarmed officers responded, one assailant opened fire from nearby woods, shooting a police officer in the neck. Another attacker, wearing a green mask, sprayed 20 to 30 rounds at the agents.

Authorities arrested 11 suspects. Ten were charged with attempted murder of a federal officer and firearms charges. One was charged with obstruction of justice. Police recovered AR-style rifles (one jammed), body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, radios, and Faraday bags to block phone signals.

Andy Ngo linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in Dallas-Fort Worth. It’s a miracle they failed. But what should alarm us is their level of funding, coordination, and willingness to kill.

Just the beginning

On Thursday, during a raid in Camarillo, California, ICE agents again came under fire. There's a pattern forming, and it isn’t isolated.

The same ideology — radical leftism, anti-Americanism, Marxism, anti-Zionism — is fueling a wave of political violence that dwarfs anything seen on the right. Consider the past eight months:

  • Assassination of United Healthcare CEO (Dec. 4): Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down Brian Thompson in midtown Manhattan. His manifesto raged against the health care industry. Left-wing voices lionized him. Some disturbing polling shows young Democrats were more likely to condone the killing.
  • Double murder of Israeli embassy staff (May 21): Elias Rodriguez allegedly killed two staffers in D.C., shouting “Free Palestine.” He left a manifesto called “Escalate for Gaza: Bring the War Home.” He had ties to the China-linked Party for Socialism and Liberation.
  • Molotov attack at a pro-Israel rally in Colorado (June 1): Mohamed Soliman, an Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally, allegedly attacked demonstrators with a homemade flamethrower and Molotov cocktails. One victim later died. Soliman had reportedly planned the assault for a year.
  • Firebombing of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home (D-Pa.) (April 13): Cody Balmer allegedly launched a Molotov cocktail into the Pennsylvania governor’s house during Passover. Shapiro, a rare pro-Israel Democrat, was targeted for his stance on Israel. His family was inside.
  • Attack on Atlanta police facility (March 6): A left-wing mob assaulted the Public Safety Training Center with rocks, bricks, and firebombs. Some were charged with domestic terrorism.
  • ICE facility attack in Portland (June 18): Rioters used fireworks and pushed dumpsters toward the facility. ICE responded with nonlethal force. Over 20 were arrested. Many were tied to the same Chinese-linked PSL network.
  • Shooting at No Kings protest in Salt Lake City (June 14): In a murky incident of left-on-left violence, Antifa-style “safety volunteers” shot and killed a bystander after reportedly misidentifying an armed protester.
  • Bomb-maker arrested in West Chester, Pennsylvania (June 14): Kevin Krebs was allegedly found with 13 pipe bombs, 3D-printed gun parts, 21 handguns, tactical gear, and an AR-15. He was arrested at a No Kings protest. He remains held without bail.
  • Attacks on Tesla and GOP offices (January-April, 2025): As Musk joined the Trump administration, Tesla sites nationwide were firebombed and vandalized. One self-described “queer” activist torched both a dealership and a Republican Party office in Albuquerque.

What we’re really dealing with

Not all these incidents were organized by the same groups. But together, they show a dangerous trend: increasing sophistication, coordination, and lethality among left-wing militants.

This isn’t just protest culture gone too far. It’s a movement gearing up for war. They’re training. They’re arming. They’re radicalizing online and in activist spaces. And while conservatives have long viewed themselves as the only side armed, that’s no longer true.

RELATED: ‘White, well-educated’ Democrats are demanding lawmakers 'get shot' to prove they're anti-Trump as deadly violence rises

Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

Groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the John Brown Gun Club are producing radicals like Benjamin Song, a former Marine and the suspected ringleader of the July 4 ICE ambush.

Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.

What needs to happen now

Step one: Designate Antifa and its associated groups as domestic terrorist organizations. Trace their funding. Investigate every affiliated cell, especially those connected to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Step two: Ramp up law enforcement. Federal agents need to respond to ICE attacks with overwhelming force. Nonlethal crowd control won’t cut it.

Step three: Empower states. Legislatures should pass laws imposing serious penalties on those who interfere with immigration enforcement. If the feds won’t punish them, the states must.

Step four: Citizens must get serious. Stay armed. Stay trained. Sheriffs should follow the lead of Pinal County’s Mark Lamb and form citizen posses. It’s past time for more robust local defense.

The projection is over

For years, the corporate media and activist left warned you about “armed insurrectionists.” They told you the militia movement was coming. They said America would face domestic political terror.

Well, they were right.

But it wasn’t coming from where they said. It was coming from them.

'TRAIN WRECK': Trump blasts Elon Musk over anti-MAGA campaign, new 'moderate' party



President Donald Trump and billionaire inventor Elon Musk had a major falling out last month after the tech magnate publicly campaigned against Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination."

The world's most powerful man and the world's richest man subsequently traded barbs online — Trump threatening to terminate Musk's governmental subsidies and contracts and Musk both threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft and suggesting that "the real reason" the Epstein files had not been made public was because Trump was somehow implicated in them.

There were, however, some signs of a possible reconciliation.

Trump, for instance, said of Musk during a June 9 press conference, "We had a great relationship and I wish him well — very well, actually." Musk, expressed regret over some of his more incendiary posts aimed at the president, deleted them, and stated, "They went too far."

Musk has since crossed the Rubicon, kicking off an anti-MAGA campaign and announcing the formation of a new political party he says "is needed to fight the Republican/Democrat Uniparty."

'The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS.'

The announcement was poorly received by many inside the MAGA coalition. Trump was especially critical of Musk's announcement, noting Sunday evening on Truth Social, "I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks."

RELATED: The political future of Elon Musk

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States — The System seems not designed for them," continued Trump. "The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds!"

As Trump indicated, third parties — such as the Libertarian or Green parties, failed Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang's Forward Party, and even President Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party — have long proven unable to make a meaningful splash. It certainly does not help Musk that 57% of voters already have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll released last month.

In addition to suggesting that Musk's animus was fueled by the BBB's elimination of "the ridiculous Electric Vehicle Mandate, which would have forced everyone to buy an Electric Car in a short period of time," Trump indicated that Musk was angry that he pulled his nomination for Jared Isaacman to run NASA.

"I was surprised to learn that he was a blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before," wrote Trump. "Elon probably was, also. I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon's corporate life."

It appears that Musk, who spent more than $270 million last year in hopes of getting Trump elected and lost key tax credits for Tesla as a result of the BBB, has long entertained the idea of forming another party.

While recognizing that it was "not realistic," he suggested in May 2022 that "a party more moderate on all issues than either Reps or Dems would be ideal."

It's clear the billionaire began taking the idea more seriously in recent weeks.

On June 5, he asked his global audience on X, "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Of the over 5.6 million people worldwide who responded, 80.4% said, "Yes."

On Independence Day, Musk ran a similar poll, this time asking his followers in and outside of America whether he should create the America Party and promising to do so the day after Trump signed his administration's signature legislative achievement. Over 1.24 million users cast votes, with 65.4% saying, "Yes."

Musk's plan for 2026, he said, is to "laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts. Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people."

RELATED: 'There's nowhere to go': Will Elon Musk stop the AI Antichrist — or become it?

Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Tesla investors appear unsettled by Musk's grand strategy. Shares in the company fell nearly 8% in pre-market trading.

"Musk diving deeper into politics and now trying to take on the Beltway establishment is exactly the opposite direction that most Tesla investors want him to take during this crucial period for Tesla," Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush Securities, wrote. The moves, he added, are "just causing exhaustion from many investors."

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

Tesla soft-launches Cybercab in Austin, Texas



The unfolding fallout between Elon Musk and the Trump administration over the past month hasn't stopped Musk's companies from breaking new ground in their industries. Tesla's newly launched service may change transportation as we know it.

Following years of delays and hype from Elon Musk, Tesla launched the long-awaited, fully autonomous Cybercab in Austin, Texas, on Sunday. The service uses brand-new Tesla Model Y cars with no add-ons, meaning that all Model Y Teslas are capable of fully autonomous driving.

RELATED: Jeff Bezos jolts Tesla with $20,000 Cybertruck killer

Photo by Stanislav Kogiku/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Musk shared his excitement about the announcement on X, calling this achievement a "culmination of a decade of hard work."

On top of being fully autonomous, Robotaxi also "automatically syncs your media & streaming settings before picking you up."

Tesla invited a small group of users to test out the new service in the capital city for a flat fee of $4.20, Business Insider reported.

Tesla's X page reposted several users' first experiences with the fully autonomous ride service. Many of them reported that the ride was smooth and enjoyable. One user posted a screen recording of his attempt to leave a tip, which was met with a humorous error message.

While this service is currently only available in Austin, Texas, following the soft launch, Tesla has created a new portal for users to receive updates about Cybercab coming to their area in the future.