Connect with us

World

Trump’s Executive Order to End E.V. Subsidies Draws Pushback

Published

on

Trump’s Executive Order to End E.V. Subsidies Draws Pushback

If President Trump has his way, the auto industry’s transition to electric vehicles will soon slam into reverse. He will erase tax credits for electric-vehicle purchases, federal grants for chargers, and subsidies and loans to help retool assembly lines and build battery factories.

Executive orders issued by Mr. Trump on Inauguration Day amount to a sweeping repudiation of a centerpiece of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s multibillion-dollar program to address climate change, which Republicans cast as a campaign to ban gasoline cars.

The orders also present a challenge to automakers that have invested billions of dollars in electric vehicles, in part because the Biden administration encouraged them to. But some of the orders appear to bypass Congress or federal rule-making procedures, which could make them vulnerable to lawsuits and even resistance from within the Republican Party.

While framed as a way to revive the American auto industry, the orders could cause U.S. carmakers to fall behind if they scale back their electric-vehicle programs while Asian and European automakers continue perfecting the technology, analysts say. Already, 50 percent of car sales in China are electric or plug-in hybrids, and Chinese automakers like BYD are selling more cars around the world, taking customers away from established car companies, including American manufacturers.

An executive order entitled “Unleashing American Energy” and signed by the president on Monday instructs federal agencies to immediately pause disbursement of funds allocated by Congress that were part of the Biden effort to push the auto industry toward vehicles with no tailpipe emissions.

Advertisement

Among other things, the funds helped states to install fast chargers along major highways and provided tax credits of up to $7,500 for buyers of new electric vehicles and $4,000 to buyers of used models. The credits effectively made the cost of buying some electric cars roughly on par with prices for cars with gasoline or diesel engines.

Mr. Trump also rescinded an aspirational Biden executive order that called for 50 percent of new vehicles sold in 2030 to be fully electric, plug-in hybrids or vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells.

And Mr. Trump said the administration would seek to revoke California’s authority to establish air-quality standards that are stricter than federal rules. That would have a broad effect. California is aiming for 100 percent of new-car sales to be electric by 2035, and some of its standards are copied by at least 17 other states.

“The impact of this will be significant,” said Shay Natarajan, a partner at Mobility Impact Partners, a private equity firm that invests in sustainable transportation.

If demand for electric vehicles flags, as it has in other countries like Germany that cut incentives, she noted, carmakers could be left with costly, underused electric-vehicle and battery factories.

Advertisement

“Federal funding for E.V. and battery manufacturing will be harder to access, increasing the risk of stranded capital for manufacturing projects already underway,” Ms. Natarajan said in an email.

Representatives of the fossil-fuel industry celebrated the president’s action, while environmentalists lamented what they said was a serious setback to efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce urban air pollution caused by cars.

“This is a new day for American energy,” Mike Sommers, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement, “and we applaud President Trump for moving swiftly to chart a new path where U.S. oil and natural gas are embraced, not restricted.”

Katherine García, a transportation expert at the Sierra Club, said: “Rolling back vehicle emission safeguards harms our health, our wallets and our climate. We will fight him at every turn of the road.”

But the end effect may not be as broad as the forceful language in Mr. Trump’s executive orders suggests.

Advertisement

Funds to encourage electric-vehicle sales and manufacturing were enshrined in legislation that the president cannot unilaterally repeal. Mr. Trump also cannot revoke rules that the Treasury Department and other government agencies established to determine how the money would be handed out merely with a stroke of the pen. Any attempt to short-circuit the laborious process of proposing new regulations that includes seeking comments from the public will almost surely invite credible legal challenges.

The Department of Energy has agreed to lend billions to carmakers like Rivian, which will receive $6 billion for a factory near Atlanta to produce electric sport utility vehicles. The loan agreements, some finalized in the waning days of the Biden administration, are binding contracts.

Much of the money has flowed to congressional districts in states like Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee where Republicans dominate local politics. Their representatives may hesitate to repeal laws that have brought their districts jobs and investment. That is a challenge for Republican leaders wrangling slim majorities in the House and Senate.

Ultimately, individuals and families will decide what cars they buy. Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are gaining market share not only because of subsidies, but also because they offer rapid acceleration and lower fuel costs. Cars that run on fossil fuels have been losing share, though that could change if financial incentives are removed from battery-powered cars and trucks.

The abrupt shift in political direction presents a quandary for automakers. Some may welcome promises by the president to rescind emissions and air-quality standards that force manufacturers to sell more electric cars than they might like. But elimination of federal subsidies could upset their financial planning when most are struggling to earn or increase profits.

Advertisement

The about-face on electric-vehicle policies adds to a climate of uncertainty and peril heightened by the president’s promise to impose 25 percent tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, which are major suppliers of cars and car parts to the United States.

The U.S. auto industry “will be shattered by tariffs on assembled vehicles or parts at this level,” Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, said in a note to clients Tuesday.

Some carmakers seemed to applaud the president’s actions, while others were noncommittal.

“President Trump’s clear focus on policies that support a robust and competitive manufacturing base in the United States is hugely positive,” Stellantis, which owns Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Chrysler and other brands, said in a statement.

Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, congratulated Mr. Trump on Monday on X and said that the company “looks forward to working together on our shared goal of a strong U.S. automotive industry.”

Advertisement

There is no sign that Elon Musk — the chief executive of Tesla and head of what Mr. Trump is calling the Department of Government Efficiency — is using his influence to blunt the attack on electric vehicles. Tesla accounts for slightly less than half the electric cars sold in the United States, and almost all its vehicles qualify for $7,500 tax credits.

Four of the 16 cars and trucks that can be purchased with the help of that tax break are made by Tesla. G.M. is the only automaker that has more eligible models, at five. No other company has more than two qualifying vehicles.

Mr. Musk has previously said that the government should get rid of all subsidies and that Tesla would suffer less than other automakers. But analysts note that Tesla’s sales and profits would be hit hard if Mr. Trump successfully repealed or truncated the electric-vehicle tax credit, California’s clean-air waiver and other such policies.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.

During an appearance before Trump supporters in Washington on Monday, Mr. Musk, who is also the chief executive of SpaceX, exulted that the president had promised to send astronauts to Mars. “Can you imagine how awesome it will be to have astronauts plant the flag on another planet for the first time?” Mr. Musk said. He did not mention cars.

Advertisement

World

US planes, cars, drinks on EU list for potential tariffs

Published

on

US planes, cars, drinks on EU list for potential tariffs
Aircraft, machinery, cars, chemicals and medical devices are the leading big-ticket items on the latest list of U.S. goods the European Commission has proposed to impose tariffs on if talks with Washington do not yield an agreement on trade.
Continue Reading

World

Putin mum on Trump's 50-day ultimatum, Kremlin officials claim Russia 'didn't care'

Published

on

Putin mum on Trump's 50-day ultimatum, Kremlin officials claim Russia 'didn't care'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Russian President Vladimir Putin has yet to publicly respond to the 50-day ultimatum President Donald Trump issued him, though one top official on Tuesday suggested that Moscow “didn’t care.”

Deputy Chair of Russia’s security council and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev took to X to express the Kremlin’s first reaction to the joint announcement by Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Putin has 50 days to end its war in Ukraine or face 100% tariffs. 

President Donald Trump, right, and Mark Rutte, secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, shake hands during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Monday, July 14, 2025. (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

TRUMP, RUTTE ANNOUNCE ‘REALLY BIG’ NATO ARMS PACKAGE AMID NEW 50 DAY DEADLINE TO PUTIN

Advertisement

“Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences,” Medvedev said. “Belligerent Europe was disappointed. 

“Russia didn’t care,” he added. 

Reactions to Trump’s latest frustration with Putin were mixed, as Rutte championed the move as “logical,” though top European Union officials suggested the move lacked teeth this far into the war. 

“On the one hand, it is very positive that President Trump is taking a strong stance on Russia. On the other hand, 50 days is a very long time if we see that they are killing innocent civilians, also every day,” the EU’s chief diplomat Kaja Kallas told reporters from Brussels when asked about the president’s announcement.

Putin, Medvedev

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and then Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev arrive to the Red Square Victory Day Parade on May 9, 2019 in Moscow. (Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)

“It is clear that we all need to put more pressure on Russia so that they would also want peace,” she added. “It is good that the Americans are making the steps, and I hope that they are also giving military aid like Europeans are giving.”

Advertisement

TRUMP REVEALS MELANIA’S KEY ROLE IN DEALING WITH PUTIN ON UKRAINE WAR

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko also questioned the effectiveness of the move and told German news outlet ARD that “I’m happy about the wave of support from the U.S.”

“But on the other hand, I do not understand why Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin is being given 50 days,” he added, according to a translation by Ukrainian media outlets, Kyiv Independent. 

“In 50 days, many more people could be killed in the capital and, throughout Ukraine, many more buildings could be damaged,” he said. “Therefore, why such a delay?”

Damage in Kyiv due to shelling

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko holds people away from a five-story residential building that partially collapsed after a shelling in Kyiv, Ukraine, on March 18, 2022. (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump told reporters on Monday that he was frustrated by Putin’s lack of action when it came to stopping his war in Ukraine despite four separate occasions when the president thought a deal had been reached with the Kremlin chief.

“I speak to him a lot about getting this thing done, and I always hang up saying, ‘Well, that was a nice phone call,’ and then missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city, and I’d say ‘strange,’” Trump said, recounting his conversations with Putin.

“And after that happens three or four times, you say, the talk doesn’t mean anything.”

Continue Reading

World

Slovakia demands exemption to drop veto on EU Russia sanctions

Published

on

Slovakia demands exemption to drop veto on EU Russia sanctions
ADVERTISEMENT

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico threw down the gauntlet on Tuesday when he openly demanded a legal exemption to continue buying Russian gas until 2034 in exchange for lifting his veto on the new package of European Union sanctions against Russia, which the bloc is eager to approve to tighten the screws on the Kremlin.

The take-it-or-leave-it request raises serious questions on whether the political deadlock can be broken this week, as diplomats had hoped.

“The best solution to the situation would be to grant Slovakia an exemption allowing it to fulfill its contract with Russian Gazprom until it expires in 2034 – something the European Commission currently rejects on principle, arguing that approving such a proposal would undermine the essence of the anti-Russian sanctions,” Fico wrote on social media.

Slovakia’s opposition does not relate to the sanctions themselves but to the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels by the end of 2027. Energy imports are considered a fundamental source of revenue to finance the war of aggression against Ukraine.

The European Commission unveiled the roadmap in May and presented the draft legislation in June, based on gradual bans on short-term and long-term gas contracts.

Advertisement

As a landlocked country, Slovakia has vociferously protested the plan, warning it would raise prices for consumers, weaken competitiveness and endanger energy security.

Since the phase-out is subject to a qualified majority, Fico has resorted to sanctions, which require unanimity, to extract concessions from Brussels.

Tensions began rising last month during an EU summit, when Fico made a series of demands for financial compensation that were not met.

The prime minister says his country risks facing a lawsuit from Gazprom, Russia’s gas monopoly, worth between €16 and €20 billion due to the termination of its long-term contract. The Commission contests this thinking by arguing that the legal bans will act as “force majeure” in court and protect governments and companies against damages.

The impasse intensified technical dialogue between Bratislava and Brussels, with a focus on solutions to diversify Slovakia’s energy mix away from Russia, strengthen connections to neighbouring countries and mitigate price volatility.

Advertisement

Fico welcomed the outreach as “constructive” but held his ground, causing German Chancellor Friderich Merz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to intervene.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, also became involved.

On Tuesday, von der Leyen sent Fico a three-page letter with reassurances about the implementation of the phase-out, including the possible deployment of state aid and EU funds to “compensate the negative impacts for households and industry”.

Von der Leyen also promised to clarify the criteria to trigger the “emergency break” and temporarily suspend the application of the gas bans in case of “extreme price spikes”.

The letter does not speak of a tailor-made exemption or financial envelope for Slovakia.

Advertisement

“We have been working closely wth member states most directly concerned, notably Slovakia, to ensure that the EU-wide phase-out of Russian energy imports will be gradual and well-coordinated across the Union,” von der Leyen wrote.

According to Fico, who posted the entire confidential letter on his social media, von der Leyen’s offer was flat-out rejected by his coalition partners.

“Their response is that the Commission’s guarantees to Slovakia are insufficient – some even described them as NOTHING,” he said.

“The representative of the Slovak Republic has been instructed to request a postponement of the vote on the 18th sanctions package.”

In Brussels, High Representative Kaja Kallas expressed her disappointment at the veto and wondered if domestic politics factored in Fico’s decision-making.

Advertisement

“These negotiations have been going for quite some time,” she said at the end of a meeting of foreign affairs ministers. “If your sensitivities are addressed, I think it’s important that you don’t present anything on top of it.”

Kallas said technical discussions would continue on Wednesday with the hope of achieving a deal before the end of the week.

“I’m optimistic and still hopeful that we will reach a decision tomorrow,” she said.

“We have 27 different democracies with 27 different public opinions and oppositions as well, so we need to navigate that process.”

Fico’s stated desire to continue buying Russian gas might soon clash with the White House’s foreign agenda. Donald Trump has threatened to impose “severe tariffs” on Russia and its trading partners if no progress towards peace is made in 50 days.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending