Connect with us

Business

With an executive order, Trump casts doubt on the future of EVs in California

Published

on

With an executive order, Trump casts doubt on the future of EVs in California

Shel Singh has gone all-in on electric vehicles in recent years. The 36-year-old business owner currently drives an electric Porsche. Before that, it was a Tesla.

But with President Trump working aggressively to reverse policies enacted by former President Biden intended to bolster the EV market and phase out gas-powered vehicles, he’s starting to question the wisdom of his choices.

Faced with what he expects to be declining demand for EVs and fewer resources to build a network of charging stations under Trump, Singh, who lives near Sylmar in northern Los Angeles County, said he’s not optimistic about his chances for re-selling his Porsche in the future.

He is not alone. Electric vehicle owners, sellers and manufacturers are awash in uncertainty after Trump signed an executive order Monday that took aim at several EV-friendly initiatives. With the stroke of a pen, the President froze funding allocated for charging infrastructure and abandoned Biden’s ambitious goal that EVs make up half of new cars sold in the U.S. by 2030.

Trump also signaled in the order that he would eliminate a popular $7,500 tax credit available to eligible buyers of electric vehicles and revoke California’s authority to set its own regulations on gas-powered cars. Both of those moves come with legal hurdles, said Bryant Walker Smith, an associate law professor at the University of South Carolina.

Advertisement

“The executive order is clearly evidence of a change in tone from the last administration,” Smith said. “But there are legal constraints that in theory should limit some of the short-term implications.”

Although Trump has said he wants to do away with what he calls Biden’s “EV mandate,” there is no federal rule requiring the purchase of EVs. Last December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed off on a California clean air rule that would ban the sale of new gasoline vehicles in the state by 2035. If it survives Trump’s challenges, the Advanced Clean Cars II rule would require 35% of new vehicles sold in the state to be all-electric by 2026, a goal that dealerships have said is unrealistic.

More than a dozen states have followed California’s lead in adopting clean air standards that are stricter than federal law. Trump is seeking to eliminate these standards and the EV incentive programs that come with them.

If Trump is successful in killing the tax credit, EV sales will take a hit, experts agreed. The credit goes a long way in making a new or used EV more affordable and desirable, said Karl Brauer, an executive analyst at iSeeCars.com.

“We’re going to see an undeniable drop in electric vehicle sales when the $7,500 credit goes away,” he said. “It’s not as easy to pin down how drastic that drop will be.”

Advertisement

When he bought his Tesla 3, Singh, who owns an online electronics company, said he was told by the salesperson that he would receive the credit, but later discovered his income was too high for him to be eligible. His frustration led to him trading out his Tesla for the Porsche.

Preparing for a drop in interest driven by the new administration, some manufacturers have already begun shifting away from sales strategies dominated by electric vehicles, including Porsche, which hinted last October that it would stray from its electric-only strategy.

Major manufacturers that produce electric and gasoline-powered vehicles have a better chance of adapting if EV sales fall significantly, Brauer said, including Volkswagen, Ford and General Motors. Companies like Rivian and Lucid, which make only EVs and sell directly to consumers, are in a more precarious position.

Days before Trump took office, Rivian finalized a $6.6-billion loan agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to fund a manufacturing facility in Georgia. Rivian’s stock has dropped more than 9% over the past month.

Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities industry analyst, said his company predicts demand for EVs will fall between 15% and 20% over the next three to four years if the tax credit is revoked. As a result, he said, the EV market will shrink.

Advertisement

“There’s going to be consolidation,” Ives said. “There’s less incentives for car manufacturers to head down that road when the government is going the opposite way.”

While the elimination of the tax credit would hurt most sellers of EVs, Tesla is a likely exception, Ives said. Because of the company’s size and market dominance, Tesla could actually benefit from decreased competition from manufacturers who relied on the credit to increase sales.

Across California, dealerships vary in their reliance on EV sales. Robb Hernandez, president of Camino Real Chevrolet in Monterey Park, said roughly 50 to 60 of the 150 to 200 new cars they sell per month are electric.

“EV sales have been strong for us the last four to six months with new launches,” Hernandez said, which include the Blazer EV and Silverado EV. “Because of the incentives and lease programs and everything else out there, we’ve been able to do pretty well moving them.”

With Trump targeting those incentives, Hernandez said he’s not sure how things will play out.

Advertisement

“We’re in a holding pattern,” he said. “We don’t really know what kind of short- or long-term effects this is going to have on the market.”

Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn., said an average of 13% of sales across the 1,400 dealerships his organization represents are electric, but that number can vary significantly based on location and manufacturer.

Jessie Dosanjh, who owns 18 dealerships in the Bay Area, said electric vehicles make up around 15% of sales in aggregate. That’s a far cry from the 35% the state wants to see by 2026, he said.

Orange County resident Tina Thurm received the $7,500 tax credit when she purchased her Tesla Model S in 2020, but said she likely would have bought the car anyway. “That wasn’t instrumental in my decision to purchase,” she said of the credit. “It was the test drive that pushed me over.”

Thurm, who owns two gas-powered vehicles along with her Tesla, said Trump is protecting Americans’ right to choose what kind of car they drive.

Advertisement

“Nothing should be mandated,” said Thurm, who owns a jewelry business and is now semi-retired at 70 years old. “I certainly don’t want the government to tell me what I must purchase.”

Other SoCal residents are discouraged by Trump’s actions and what they signify for the EV market.

“Not getting another EV after my Tesla lease ends,” one Californian wrote on social media this week. “This country is moving backwards and isn’t ready for full EV adoption. It’s a shame because I really love my Tesla.”

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending