There’s been a lot of talk about what a second term in the White House for Donald Trump will mean for the American car industry, especially as it relates to electric vehicles. The federal EV tax credit may be on the chopping block, emissions regulations will likely be loosened, and Trump is already using tariffs as a bargaining chip to renegotiate trade deals. Now, per a Reuters report, we have an idea of where the federal government could redirect funds currently earmarked for funding the EV transition.
According to a Trump transition document obtained by Reuters, whatever funds remain from President Biden’s $7.5 billion plan for building EV charging stations will be shifted toward battery-minerals processing and the “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.” The document says that EV components are “critical to defense production,” but electric vehicles “and charging stations are not.”
The same document has a proposal that ends Department of Defense programs aimed at purchasing or developing military EVs. Notably, GM Defense is working on electrified military vehicles like the Electric Military Concept Vehicle (eMCV), a GMC Hummer EV-based concept. Rare earth minerals used in EV manufacturing, like graphite and lithium, are also used in military aircraft.
When the Trump transition team was reached for comment, spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said, “When he takes office, President Trump will support the auto industry, allowing space for both gas-powered cars and electric vehicles.” This is synonymous with recent rhetoric we’ve heard from Trump and Republican allies about making a level playing field in which ICE, hybrid, and electric vehicles can compete.
The document also makes references to easing federal fuel economy requirements. Previously, we reported on a Bloomberg report that said the upcoming Trump Administration will slash fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks, reducing the need for electrified vehicles to meet standards set by the NHTSA and EPA.
Other proposals in the Trump-transition document include imposing tariffs on “EV supply chain” imports under the guise of national security threats, waiving or expediting environmental reviews to speed up “federally funded EV infrastructure projects,” eliminating requirements for federal agencies to buy EVs, and other proposals around using tariffs and export restrictions against America’s geopolitical rivals.
Comments
Too bad Mary just wants everyone to drive old women’s electric crossovers.
OK Johnny…brain cells have some synapsis missing….LOL I guess others could say those with gun toating gun racks are weaker mind folks and love to smell fumes.
Grow up. When it’s fesable then it makes sense. Not now
Synapsis happens when two homologous chromosomes come together, while synapse is the junction between two neuron cells.
The plural of synapse is synapses – not synapsis.
This makes better sense. Allocate money to securing supply chain and mineral processing before the charging stations first. Anyone can make charging stations. But today or tomorrow a certain country that dominates this field can choke off this chain to coerce anyone they see fit. I feel Elon had a say in this decision by Trump. I think we can all agree its best to secure the supply of these minerals for these batteries away from global aggressors before focusing on growing our own domestic EV industry. Anyways, its not unheard of all the tech we enjoy now has started with roots in the military.
That makes more sense. I never understood why the Federal government needed to be building charging stations. They’ve never built gas stations or oil change places or restaurants or anything similar to an EV charging station.
Kick backs. If the private sector does it, they don’t get money deposited into their shell accounts.
The Federal government (of course with our tax dollars) did build the Interstate Highway system.
Love this man!
The emission standards are on a constant roller coaster. Dems in power, the standards tighten. Repubs in standards are loosened. This must drive Manufacturers nuts because they look at 5 to 10 years out for new products. EV’s will never fully catch on with a piss poor network of charging stations nationwide and inherent range and milage issues in cold weather. I have a Hybrid Lincoln Nautilus and have already notice a 10-15% drop in economy with the onset of cold weather. Develop better battery technology and concentrate on hybrids and gas vehicles and phase out the EV’s all together.
All vehicles even ICE have a considerable reduction in range during the Winter, it’s just harder to notice with ICE.
Also a lot of newer EVs with considerable range bumps have less issues in winter, including those that have Heat Pumps. All of GM’s current range of EVs have them.
Yep. I am humored by the people even who own EVs quickly point out how their range degrades but never think of the same areas when driving ice vehicles as if speeding does not consumem more gas, or warming it up 10 minutes or more does not, or even driving on a wet or snowy pavement…..i guess when the tech shoves it in your face for metrics its more obvious?
Why is it harder to notice ? You have an average mpg RIGHT ON THE DASH.
It’s harder to notice because it’s less than a 10% drop, not 30-50 for EV’s. Unless you have a 2 minute commute, once the engine is warm, there’s only a 3-5% efficiency drop due to winter grade gas. My average this winter has dropped only 2-3% due to I have an almost hour commute. Newsflash, average commute is 45 minutes, so nobody is seeing 30% drops in efficiency on gas. EV’s however…….
My ICE vehicles have a minor reduction in range in cold weather, it’s not significant (less that 10%). How much of that is due to different EPA-mandated gasoline formulations for the winter?
The tailpipe emission standards have been on a decreasing trend since their inception.
The only time the CAFE standards have decreased was back in the 1980’s. Since 1990 they have only gone up.
I have a 24 AWD Terrain. Negligible difference in mileage and range with the cold weather. EV owners are dishonest about cold weather performance and range.
My Impala 3.6 loses about 1 MPG during the Winter months which means I’m seeing an average of 23 instead of 24 MPG. With about 17 gallons of fuel that translates to 408 miles of range with 24 MPG or 391 with 23 a loss of 17 miles. Hardly a big deal!
Define cold…………..Take an EV on a trip in the Great White North with temps near or below 0 degrees F. Oh, and you had best not run your heater when doing so.
Leave it to Carrothead to turn back the clock. Musk must be getting into the defence industry!
Well his USA market share is going lower and lower as more EVs come on board and soon his carbon credits will be worthless that he makes much of his money on starting on and I bet slowly going down in value since the others dont buy any or as muchl. And those tariffs are good on NA vehicle partner countries is good until EM gets his Mexico plant up and running besides trying to ditch the credits since some of his dont qualify being uhum china or otherwise part and material sourced. Its that they haters should be lambasting. Heck some dont even realize the credit is only giving back your taxes IF you paid/owed any.
If you’re going to resort to childish name-calling because your feelings are hurt, at least learn to spell….it would be ‘defense’.
After 22,000 miles in 11 months, my Lyriq has turned out to be an outstanding car. It’s quiet, very comfortable, has Super Cruise, lots of torque and has 500 hp. It is so easy to own and operate. Road trips are easy with EVgo chargers and Tesla Superchargers wherever I’ve needed them. With it I’ve not purchased about 1,000 gallons of gasoline and 3 oil / filter changes. Have rotated tires every 7,500 miles. I’d purchase again even without the $7,500 tax credit. Looking forward to the Dodge Charger Daytona EV.
And burned 3 tons of coal in the process, as even if locally you have solar panels, the states with the biggest “renewable grids” have to import lots of their energy from coal states, which add an additional 10% line losses. Congratulations, you just drove a choo-choo train.
Actually, assuming a modest 2.5mi/kWh and national average energy source distribution, I come up with:
-1,452lbs coal
-27.4k cubic feet natural gas
-The remaining is distributed among renewables, nuclear, and other.
If it were a gasoline Chevrolet Blazer, we’re looking at approximately 1,000 gallons of gas for the same distance.
Neglecting supply chain of each energy source (huge rabbit hole), the above assumptions result in his Lyriq being responsible for about 24% of the CO2 emissions released by a gasoline Chevrolet Blazer traveling the same distance.
I’m not a fanboy either way. I own a deleted diesel truck and a chevy bolt. Both serve their purpose.