Category: Auto industry
Ford just lost $20 billion on its EV investment
If you want a clear picture of where the American auto market is heading, don’t look at political speeches or glossy concept vehicles. Look at where manufacturers are spending — and writing off — real money.
Case in point: Ford’s $19.5 billion decision to abandon plans for a next-generation all-electric F-150.
Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.
The company’s change of direction for its massive BlueOval City complex in Tennessee is one of the clearest signals yet that the industry’s all-electric future, at least as it was sold to consumers and investors, is being fundamentally rethought.
Instead of building a new electric F-150 Lightning there, Ford will pivot the facility toward producing lower-cost gasoline-powered trucks while shifting electric strategy toward hybrids, extended-range electric vehicles, and smaller EVs.
Demand in the driver’s seat
This move matters because Ford did not quietly slow production or delay a model year refresh. It wrote down billions of dollars in electric vehicle assets, restructured long-term plans, and publicly admitted that customer demand — not forecasts or incentives — is now driving decisions.
Ford expects roughly $19.5 billion in special charges tied to this pivot, most of which will hit in the fourth quarter, with an additional $5.5 billion in cash costs spread through 2027. Of that total, $8.5 billion represents EV asset write-downs. That is corporate language for investments that will not deliver the returns originally promised.
Yet Wall Street’s reaction was telling. Ford stock rose about 2% in after-hours trading following the announcement and remains up nearly 40% this year. Investors appear to see this not as failure, but as realism.
Sticker shock
The electric F-150 Lightning was once positioned as proof that electrification could conquer America’s best-selling vehicle segment. In theory, the idea made sense. In practice, the numbers never fully added up. High prices, heavy battery packs, range limitations under real-world towing conditions, and charging concerns narrowed the pool of potential buyers. Demand softened even as incentives increased.
Ford now plans to transition the Lightning into an extended-range electric vehicle, pairing an electric drivetrain with a gasoline-powered generator. This is not a retreat from electrification. It is an acknowledgment that pure battery-electric power trains do not yet meet the needs of a large portion of truck buyers.
Ford CEO Jim Farley framed the shift plainly. High-end EVs priced between $50,000 and $80,000 were not selling in sufficient volume. That reality is difficult to ignore when inventory sits on dealer lots and profit margins evaporate.
Hybrid vigor
At the same time, Ford is going all-in on hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, and reinvesting in its core strengths: trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. This reflects a broader industry trend. Hybrids offer meaningful fuel economy improvements without requiring buyers to overhaul their driving habits or rely on charging infrastructure that remains inconsistent in many parts of the country.
Ford’s revised outlook projects that by 2030, about half of its global volume will come from hybrids, extended-range EVs, and fully electric vehicles combined. That is a significant increase from today, but it is far more balanced than earlier projections that leaned heavily toward full electrification.
Lightning rod
One of the more curious elements of Ford’s announcement is its plan to build a fully connected midsize electric pickup starting in 2027, based on a new low-cost “Universal EV Platform.” The company suggests this truck could start around $30,000, a figure that raises serious questions.
To put that claim into context, Ford’s Maverick Hybrid, which uses a small 1.1 kilowatt-hour battery, already approaches $30,000 in many configurations. A midsize EV pickup would likely require an 80 kilowatt-hour battery or more. Battery costs have declined, but not nearly enough to make that math easy — especially while maintaining margins.
Consumers will ultimately decide whether such a vehicle makes sense. Price, capability, range, and charging convenience will matter far more than marketing language. Automakers are learning, sometimes the hard way, that affordability cannot be willed into existence by press releases.
Batteries included
Ford’s restructuring also includes repurposing battery plants in Kentucky and Michigan for a new stationary energy storage business. This is a strategic move that acknowledges batteries may find more reliable profitability off the road than on it, particularly in data centers and grid stabilization applications where weight, charging time, and cold-weather performance are less critical concerns.
The broader lesson here is not that electric vehicles are disappearing. They are not. It is that the one-size-fits-all electrification narrative has collided with economic and consumer reality. Automakers were pushed, through regulation and incentives, to prioritize battery-electric vehicles at a pace the market could not fully absorb.
When policy environments change, as they recently have, manufacturers regain flexibility. Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.
From a business standpoint, Ford is attempting to stabilize profitability. The company raised its adjusted earnings guidance for 2025 to about $7 billion, even as these restructuring charges weigh on net results. It is aiming for a path to profitability in its Model e EV division by 2029, with incremental improvements beginning in 2026.
That is a long runway, and it reflects how difficult it has been to make EVs profitable at scale. Traditional internal combustion and hybrid vehicles continue to subsidize electric losses across the industry. Ford is now being more transparent about that reality.
RELATED: American muscle-car culture is alive and well … in Dubai
Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Turning radius
This shift also has implications for American manufacturing and jobs. BlueOval City was originally pitched as a cornerstone of the electric future. Its revised mission underscores how quickly industrial strategies can change when assumptions fail. Gasoline and hybrid trucks remain highly profitable, and demand for them remains strong.
Ford insists this is a customer-driven strategy, not a retreat. In many ways, that framing is accurate. Consumers have shown they value choice, reliability, and affordability more than power-train ideology. They want vehicles that fit their lives, not policy targets.
For buyers, this could be good news. A more balanced market tends to produce better products at more reasonable prices. Hybrids, extended-range EVs, and efficient gasoline vehicles all play a role in reducing fuel consumption without forcing trade-offs many drivers are unwilling to accept.
For investors, Ford’s announcement may mark a turning point toward discipline and realism. Writing down nearly $20 billion is painful, but continuing to chase unprofitable volume would be worse.
For the industry, the message is unmistakable. Electrification is evolving, not ending. But it will happen on consumer terms, not political timelines.
Ford’s course correction is not about abandoning the future. It is about surviving the present — and doing so with a clearer understanding of what American drivers are actually willing to buy.
The American car industry would be in a much stronger position today had its CEOs not embarked on the EV joy ride with politicians promising subsidies. Next time maybe the brands will listen to the customer.
Trump TORCHES Biden-Buttigieg EPA rules
Washington rarely admits when policy has failed. But earlier this month, the White House stepped back from more than a decade of regulations that drove car prices to record highs, limited consumer choice, and tried to force an industry to move faster than technology, infrastructure, or American families could manage.
With the unveiling of the Freedom Means Affordable Cars proposal, President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy signaled a dramatic shift in national auto policy — one aimed at making car ownership attainable again for millions priced out of the market.
The Biden-Buttigieg standards were projected to generate $14 billion in compliance fines between 2027 and 2032, costs manufacturers said would be passed directly to buyers.
The timing is critical. New vehicle prices topped $50,000 this fall, while average monthly payments approached $750. Families are keeping cars longer than ever, pushing the average age of the U.S. fleet to record levels. As Washington pushed electric vehicles, consumers pushed back: EV demand stalled, rejection rates soared, and buyers continued to favor affordable gas and hybrid vehicles. That tension has been building for years, and the December 3 announcement marked the most direct challenge yet to the regulatory regime behind it.
Trump’s proposal resets National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fuel-economy rules, reversing Biden-era targets that aimed to push the fleet toward roughly 50 mpg.
Closing the ‘back door’
Under the new plan, Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards return to 34.5 mpg — levels last seen in the late 2000s — with future increases scaled back to what Congress originally envisioned. The administration projects up to $109 billion in savings over five years and roughly $1,000 off the average new car. Whether those figures hold, the philosophical shift is clear: ending what the White House calls a backdoor EV mandate.
For years, automakers warned privately that the prior rules forced them to build vehicles customers didn’t want simply to avoid massive penalties. The Biden-Buttigieg standards were projected to generate $14 billion in compliance fines between 2027 and 2032, costs manufacturers said would be passed directly to buyers. Aligning federal rules with California’s stricter standards further nudged companies toward EVs even as demand weakened. CAFE was never meant to reshape the marketplace — but that is how it was being used.
The consequences were stark. Billions were poured into EV-charging initiatives with little to show for it; $5 trillion was allocated, yet only 11 stations were built nationwide. California faced rolling blackouts with EVs still just 2.3% of vehicles on the road. Experts warned that even 10% EV adoption would strain the grid under current infrastructure. Meanwhile buyers who didn’t want EVs — still the majority — faced fewer choices and higher prices.
Attracting investment
The Trump reset aims to reverse course. Automakers quickly announced new domestic investments. Stellantis committed $13 billion to expand U.S. manufacturing, including Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler. Ford pledged $5 billion for American facilities, noting that 80% of its vehicles are already made domestically. General Motors announced $4 billion to bring production back from Mexico while retooling plants for broader consumer demand. Even the United Auto Workers offered support, citing increased U.S. jobs and domestic production.
The plan also includes a tax change backed by the National Auto Dealers Association, allowing buyers to deduct interest on American-built vehicles. At a time when many families are locked out of the new-car market, the measure offers practical relief while encouraging domestic manufacturing.
Less noticed — but equally important — was the Congressional Review Act action that eliminated California’s special emissions waivers. Signed in June 2025, those resolutions dismantled the structure that allowed California to dictate national vehicle policy, ending the EV mandate embedded in federal regulations and clearing the way for this shift.
RELATED: Duffy threatens funding freeze for 3 states flouting English requirements for truck drivers
Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Not far enough?
Some analysts argue the rollback doesn’t go far enough. As long as CAFE exists — at any target — it remains vulnerable to political swings. They contend emissions should be regulated directly through the EPA, leaving the market to determine the mix of gas, hybrid, and electric vehicles. This view is gaining traction among critics who say CAFE no longer reflects consumer demand or technological reality.
Even Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio weighed in, calling the forced EV pivot “irrational policy” that benefits China. China controls roughly 80% of EV battery minerals and most related mining, while the U.S. holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Moreno’s argument is blunt: America weakened its own manufacturing base by adopting policies that played to China’s strengths.
Sales data reinforces the point. EVs made up about 6% of new vehicle sales in November 2025, with rejection rates near 70% due to cost, charging gaps, range limits, insurance, and cold-weather performance. EVs still account for just 2.3% of vehicles on U.S. roads. The demand Washington expected never materialized.
The new policy reflects those realities. It restores balance to an industry pushed into transformation without consumer support or infrastructure readiness. Automakers will still build EVs and hybrids and pursue new technologies — but consumers will decide the pace, not regulators.
For the first time in years, drivers may again see affordability, variety, and genuine choice. Fuel-economy rules will remain contested, but the Freedom Means Affordable Cars plan marks the most significant shift in auto policy in over a decade.
For millions of Americans priced out of the market, that change alone is long overdue.
Trump’s autopen reversal could mean more choice, lower prices for car buyers
A quiet, technical ruling about presidential signatures has suddenly become one of the most consequential automotive turning points in decades.
What looked like an obscure constitutional question has reshaped the nation’s energy strategy, reversed federal transportation policy, and put the electric-vehicle transition on a very different path.
Whether seen as restoring constitutional accountability or disrupting environmental planning, the result is unmistakable: America’s automotive trajectory has been rewritten.
The issue is straightforward: If a president did not personally sign an executive action, can it legally stand? President Donald Trump has answered no — and the effects will be felt in dealerships, factories, and garages nationwide.
Sign-off
In late November 2025, President Trump declared that any executive order, regulation, or directive signed with an autopen after mid-2022 is invalid. Oversight reviews suggest this affects up to 92% of actions taken in the final two and a half years of the Biden administration. Trump argues that executive authority cannot be delegated to a machine; the Constitution vests power in the president himself, not staff operating an autopen while the president is traveling or unavailable.
This interpretation has upended large portions of recent federal policymaking.
Nowhere is the impact more dramatic than in automotive and energy policy. The Biden administration’s EV strategy relied heavily on Executive Order 14037, issued in 2021, which set aggressive emissions and fuel-economy goals. While signed early in Biden’s term, nearly all enforcement actions after 2022 — including the rules that gave the order teeth — bear autopen signatures. Those signatures now sit at the center of a sweeping rollback.
Executive Order 14037 formed the backbone of Biden’s push toward zero-emission vehicles. It directed agencies to impose strict emissions rules, raise fuel-efficiency standards, steer manufacturers toward electric powertrains, and work toward a goal of 50% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2030. Automakers spent tens of billions preparing — building battery plants, restructuring supply chains, and cutting production of profitable internal-combustion models.
According to forensic reviews cited by the Trump administration, many of the directives enforcing those standards after mid-2022 were never personally signed by President Biden. Trump maintains this breaks the constitutional chain of authority.
High energy
On the first day of his second term, Trump issued Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy. It revoked Biden’s EV mandates, halted remaining EV-related funds under the Inflation Reduction Act and infrastructure law, and ordered agencies to withdraw aggressive tailpipe regulations. Fuel-economy targets revert to earlier levels. Federal fleet electrification requirements are gone. The 2030 zero-emission sales target no longer exists. The $7,500 EV tax credit will be phased out by the end of 2026.
The industry impact is immediate. Automakers that bet heavily on federal EV mandates are reassessing long-term strategies. Companies focused on trucks, SUVs, and hybrids are now better positioned. EV-only startups face mounting financial strain. Market uncertainty has hit stock prices, delayed launches, and raised doubts about the future of several pure-electric brands.
RELATED: ‘Won’t be the last’: Felon freed by Biden autopen arrested after Omaha shooting
Image composite: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images, Omaha Police Department
Sweeping consequences
Consumers will notice the shift on showroom floors. Vehicles slated for retirement will remain in production. EVs — still pricier than gas or hybrid counterparts — will face new price pressure as incentives disappear. Charging access and range remain barriers, especially outside urban centers. Without mandates driving adoption, consumer preference — not regulation — will dictate the pace of change.
Legal fights are already underway. Agencies must follow formal rule-making procedures, and environmental groups and states like California are challenging the reversals. California plans to retain its own strict standards, setting up years of litigation over federal pre-emption and Clean Air Act waivers.
Even so, the federal direction is clear. The United States is no longer pursuing a national strategy centered on rapid vehicle electrification. The emphasis has shifted to diversification, consumer choice, and competition among internal-combustion, hybrid, and electric technologies.
The autopen dispute may sound bureaucratic, but its consequences are sweeping. A major climate and transportation agenda is being reconsidered because of how it was signed. Whether seen as restoring constitutional accountability or disrupting environmental planning, the result is unmistakable: America’s automotive trajectory has been rewritten.
The internal-combustion engine, long declared on borrowed time, has a renewed future. Hybrids are likely to gain ground. Electric vehicles will remain — but their growth will depend on price, practicality, and performance, not mandates. The timeline for full electrification has shifted, and the debate over how America powers mobility has entered a new phase.
There’s more to come, and I’ll keep you posted.
Flock Safety: Is any driver safe from its AI-powered surveillance?
Buckle up, America — because if you’re driving anywhere in this country, you’re already under surveillance.
I’m not talking about speed traps or red-light cameras. I’m talking about Flock Safety cameras, those sleek, solar-powered, AI-driven spies perched on poles in your neighborhood, outside your kid’s school, at the grocery store, and along every major road.
The Institute for Justice has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Flock effectively builds detailed, warrantless movement profiles of ordinary people.
These cameras are not just reading your license plate. They’re building a digital DNA profile of your vehicle — make, model, color, dents, bumper stickers, roof racks, even temporary tags — and logging where you’ve been, when, and with whom you’ve traveled.
And guess who has 24/7 access? Your local police, HOAs, apartment complexes, and private businesses — all without a warrant, without your consent, and often without you even knowing they exist.
Worse than you think
I’ve been warning drivers for decades about government overreach, from cashless tolls to black-box data recorders. But Flock Safety? This is next-level.
Founded in 2017 in Atlanta, Flock has exploded into a $3.5 billion surveillance empire with over 900 employees and a single goal: blanket every city in America with cameras. As of 2024, it has already deployed 40,000 to 60,000 units across 42 states in more than 5,000 communities. That’s not a pilot program. That’s a national tracking grid.
Here’s how it works — and why it should terrify every freedom-loving American.
Pure surveillance tools
Flock’s Falcon and Sparrow cameras don’t enforce speed or traffic laws. They’re pure surveillance tools.
Mounted on utility poles, traffic signals, or private property, they use automated license plate recognition (ALPR) and Vehicle Fingerprint™ technology to capture high-resolution images of your vehicle’s rear, including the license plate with state, number, and expiration, plus the make, model, year, color, and unique identifiers like dents, decals, roof racks, spare tires, even paper plates. They record the time, date, and GPS location, using infrared imaging for 24/7 operation, even at 100 mph from 75 feet away.
The data is uploaded instantly via cellular networks to Flock’s cloud servers, stored for 30 days, and accessible through a web portal by any approved user. That includes police departments across state lines through Flock’s TALON investigative platform. Drive from Georgia to New York, and every Flock camera you pass logs your journey. No warrant needed in most states.
RELATED: Why states are quietly moving to restrict how much you drive
F8 Imaging/Getty Images
Staggering scale
The scale is staggering. Milwaukee has 219 cameras with 100 more planned. Riverside County, California, uses 309 cameras to scan 27.5 million vehicles monthly. Norfolk, Virginia, has over 170 units. Raleigh, North Carolina, has 25 and counting.
Nationwide, Flock claims it logs over one billion vehicle scans per month. These cameras cost $2,500 per year per unit, are solar-powered with no wiring required, and can be installed in hours. HOAs love them, schools want them, police can’t get enough, and new units go up daily, often without public notice or approval.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley loves to brag about Flock’s crime-stopping potential. But what he doesn’t mention is that you’re tracked whether you’re a criminal or not.
No opting out
There’s no true opt-out for the public — every passing car is still scanned and logged — but some neighborhoods and agencies use Flock’s SafeList feature to avoid nuisance alerts. SafeList doesn’t exempt anyone from being recorded. It simply tells the system not to flag certain familiar plates (residents, staff, permitted vehicles) as suspicious. The camera still captures the vehicle, stores the image, and makes it searchable; it just won’t trigger an alert for those approved plates.
Flock cameras can photograph more than a license plate — sometimes the interior of a car, passengers, or bumper stickers — but this varies by angle and lighting, and the system is not designed to gather facial images.
Privacy nightmare
This is a privacy nightmare. The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation call it mass surveillance. A small-town cop in Ohio can search your plate and see everywhere you’ve driven in Florida. Rogue officers have abused ALPR before, stalking exes, journalists, activists. Data breaches? Flock says its cloud is secure, but we’ve heard that before.
A 2024 Norfolk, Virginia, ruling initially held that Flock’s system amounted to a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. But that decision was later reversed on appeal. Meanwhile, the Institute for Justice has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Flock effectively builds detailed, warrantless movement profiles of ordinary people. If that case succeeds, it would be a true game-changer.
Yes, finding a kidnapped child or stolen car is good. But at what cost? This creates a chilling effect: Will you avoid a protest, a church, a gun shop, a clinic, knowing you’re being logged? This isn’t safety. This is control.
Fighting back
So what can you do right now? Start by finding the cameras — contact your police, city council, or HOA and ask where the Flock cameras are and who has access.
Demand transparency: Push for public hearings, warrant requirements, data deletion after 24 hours, and no sharing outside your jurisdiction. Support the fighters like the ACLU, EFF, and Institute for Justice. Spot the cameras yourself — look for black poles with tilted solar panels and a small camera box.
It’s time to post your opinions on X, call your reps, show up at meetings — let’s stop the surveillance.
Flock’s CEO dreams of a camera in every U.S. city. But liberty isn’t free, and it shouldn’t come with a tracking device.
Drop your thoughts below — I read every comment. Share this information with every driver you know. Because if we don’t fight now, soon there’ll be nowhere left to hide.
Elon Musk to reveal flying car next year
Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.
Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.
As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.
Rogan reveal
On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”
Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”
He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”
Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”
That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.
The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.
Good timing
Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.
Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.
Hovering hype
So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.
There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.
The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.
Sky’s the limit
Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.
In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.
Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.
The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.
Got a permit for that?
Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.
Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.
RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car
Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson
Free parachute with purchase
Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.
NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.
In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.
Sticking the landing
So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.
But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.
Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.
Farewell to fake fuel efficiency stats, hello to tough future for EVs
Fake fuel economy has got to go.
That’s the message of a recent decision by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sent to the scrap heap: a Biden-era Department of Energy rule that critics say wildly inflated the fuel economy ratings of EVs — giving them an unfair regulatory advantage over gasoline and hybrid vehicles.
The court’s ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.
This is a major correction to how the U.S. government measures vehicle efficiency, with consequences for automakers, consumers, and the future of the EV market.
Efficiency inflation
The case was brought by 13 Republican attorneys general, who argued that the DOE’s formula for calculating EV efficiency was misleading and legally indefensible. The court agreed, ruling that the Biden administration overstepped its authority by continuing to use an outdated, artificial formula that inflated electric vehicle performance under federal fuel economy standards.
At stake is the credibility of how America measures vehicle efficiency — a key driver in regulatory decisions that shape everything from automaker product lines to what cars consumers can buy.
For years, the DOE’s so-called petroleum equivalency factor has been used to translate electric power into miles-per-gallon equivalents. But the formula wasn’t based on realistic energy comparisons. Instead, it massively overstated how far an EV could travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline — often rating electric cars above 100 MPGE, regardless of actual energy costs or grid efficiency.
Credits as currency
Rather than immediately fixing this issue, the Biden administration’s DOE planned a slow phase-out of the inflated metric between model years 2027 and 2030. That delay allowed automakers to continue claiming exaggerated efficiency numbers — and collecting fuel economy credits that made it easier to comply with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
Why does that matter? Because those credits act as a form of regulatory currency. A company that racks up credits through high-efficiency vehicles can use them to offset the sale of less efficient models or even sell them to other automakers.
In other words, the inflated EV math didn’t just look better on paper — it saved automakers millions of dollars in potential penalties while giving policymakers a talking point about “historic progress” in fuel efficiency that wasn’t based on real-world performance.
A direct rebuke
In its 3-0 decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the DOE had gone beyond its legal bounds. Agencies can’t rewrite laws through policy tweaks, the judges said, even under the guise of “phasing out” old rules. The DOE was required by statute to eliminate the flawed formula entirely — not stretch it over several more years of inflated numbers.
The court’s ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.
That’s a significant rebuke not just to the DOE, but to a broader pattern of regulatory overreach that has characterized much of Washington’s EV push.
For the states that brought the lawsuit, the decision represents a major win for transparency, accountability, and consumer protection.
Pivoting on EVs
The implications for automakers are enormous. For years, inflated EV efficiency numbers helped carmakers meet federal fuel economy targets and avoid costly fines. Without that regulatory buffer, the industry will need to adapt quickly.
Automakers may now lose the valuable fuel economy credits they’ve relied on to remain compliant with CAFE standards, forcing them to find new ways to meet efficiency goals. That shift will require genuine engineering improvements — advances in aerodynamics, weight reduction, and hybrid technology — rather than relying on inflated paper-based advantages.
This change could also prompt a broader reassessment of electric vehicle strategy. If the regulatory math no longer tilts in favor of EVs, many manufacturers may slow their rollout plans or diversify their portfolios to include more hybrids and high-efficiency gasoline models.
The timing is significant: EV demand has cooled, dealer inventories are building up, and consumer interest has leveled off. Automakers such as Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen have already scaled back or delayed certain EV programs in response to slower-than-expected sales and ongoing infrastructure limitations.
RELATED: Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Consumer transparency
For everyday drivers, this ruling doesn’t ban EVs — but it brings more honesty to the system.
Consumers deserve accurate information about vehicle efficiency, cost of ownership, and environmental impact. Inflated fuel economy ratings distort that picture, making EVs appear more efficient than they are when accounting for charging losses, battery manufacturing, and electric grid emissions.
Now, car buyers can make more informed choices — whether that’s a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or traditional gasoline vehicle.
In the long term, this ruling could encourage a broader mix of technology rather than a forced, one-size-fits-all transition to battery electrics.
The fight to come
This case isn’t just about EVs. It’s about how much power federal agencies should have to rewrite laws without Congressional oversight.
For decades, Washington has leaned on regulatory agencies to shape environmental and energy policy — often through complex formulas that most Americans never see. But as the Eighth Circuit emphasized, the ends don’t justify the means.
Even if the goal is cleaner transportation, the process has to respect legal boundaries. When agencies overreach, courts must intervene to restore balance.
This decision reinforces an important principle: Policy must be grounded in law, not ideology. And in a country that values free markets and consumer choice, regulations should enhance transparency, not distort it.
The ruling leaves several key questions unanswered, but it is likely just the beginning of a much larger policy fight. Congress could attempt to step in by rewriting the laws that govern fuel economy standards, giving the DOE clearer authority to define how electric vehicle efficiency is calculated. However, such legislative efforts would almost certainly face significant political gridlock in an already divided Congress.
Much-needed realism
Automakers, meanwhile, are expected to take a hard look at how they allocate their research and development budgets and how they plan future vehicle lineups.
Companies heavily invested in electric vehicles have shifted strategies, focusing more on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and improved gasoline technologies — especially in markets where EV sales have already shown signs of slowing or flattening.
Finally, the court’s reasoning may open the door to further challenges that could include renewed scrutiny of EPA emissions standards and federal tax credits, both of which critics argue have tilted the market in favor of electric vehicles rather than allowing consumer demand and market forces to guide the transition naturally.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision is a defining moment for the future of American automotive policy. It doesn’t kill the EV market — but it forces it to stand on its own merits.
Electric vehicles have their place in the market, but consumers deserve truthful efficiency data and honest cost comparisons. Inflated numbers and creative accounting don’t serve innovation — they undermine it.
This ruling restores some much-needed realism to the national conversation about the future of mobility. It’s a win for transparency, for accountability, and most importantly, for consumers who want to make decisions based on facts rather than politics.
Trump’s SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?
President Donald Trump’s dropping another tariff on the auto industry.
Starting November 1, the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on all imported medium- and heavy-duty trucks, a dramatic escalation in the administration’s ongoing effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign-built vehicles.
The short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.
This announcement sent shockwaves through global trade circles and Wall Street. According to Trump, the decision is rooted in national security and economic strength, not politics. But as with any sweeping trade action, there’s more under the hood than meets the eye.
Priced to move
While celebrating the immediate bump in automaker stock prices following the tariff announcement, Trump’s message was direct. “Mary Barra of General Motors and Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company just called to thank me. … Without tariffs, it would be a hard, long slog for truck and car manufacturers in the United States.”
The president framed the move as a matter of economic sovereignty, arguing that domestic production capacity in critical industries, like heavy vehicles used in logistics, defense, and infrastructure, is essential to national security.
That message resonates with many Americans frustrated by decades of outsourcing and the hollowing out of domestic manufacturing. But it’s also raising concerns among global partners and major U.S. companies with deep supply chain ties abroad.
Winners and losers
The new tariffs target a wide range of vehicles: delivery trucks, garbage trucks, utility vehicles, buses, semis, and vocational heavy trucks.
Manufacturers expected to benefit include Paccar, the parent company of Peterbilt and Kenworth, and Daimler Truck North America, which produces Freightliner vehicles in the U.S. These companies have much to gain from reduced import competition and potentially stronger domestic demand.
However, for companies like Stellantis, which manufactures Ram heavy-duty pickups and commercial vans in Mexico, the impact could be costly.
Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, trucks assembled in North America can move tariff-free if at least 64% of their content originates within the region. But many manufacturers rely on imported parts and materials, putting them at risk of higher costs and tighter margins.
Mexico, the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the U.S., will be hit hardest. Imports from Mexico have tripled since 2019, climbing from about 110,000 to 340,000 units annually. Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland also face new barriers under the 25% tariff.
Industry pushback
Not everyone is excited about the tariffs — especially considering that the import sources for these trucks (Mexico, Canada, and Japan) are long-standing American allies and trading partners.
Industry analysts warn of supply-chain disruptions, potential price increases, and reduced model availability for both commercial fleets and consumers. Tariffs could also pressure U.S. companies to adjust production strategies, increase domestic sourcing, or even pass higher costs on to customers.
RELATED: Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate
Chicago Tribune/Getty Images
The politics of protectionism
This is not the first time a Trump administration has leaned on tariffs as an economic lever. During his previous term, tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods aimed to bring manufacturing back to U.S. soil. Supporters argue those policies helped revitalize key industries and encourage job growth. Critics countered that they raised costs for American companies and consumers alike.
Still, there’s no denying that tariffs remain one of Trump’s most powerful economic tools and one of his most politically effective messages. By positioning tariffs as a way to protect American jobs, the policy appeals to workers and manufacturers across the Rust Belt, a region that will play a pivotal role in the upcoming election.
Short-term pain
For the U.S. trucking and logistics sectors, the short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.
Truck leasing and rental companies that rely on imported chassis and components may see their operating costs rise. Meanwhile, domestic truck makers could ramp up production, potentially benefiting U.S. suppliers and job growth in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Texas.
The challenge will be whether domestic manufacturers can meet demand quickly enough without triggering inflationary pressures in the commercial transportation market.
Long-term gain?
Trump’s framing of the tariffs as a “national security matter” echoes earlier policies aimed at reducing foreign dependence in critical sectors, from semiconductors to electric vehicles. Advocates say this approach ensures that America can produce what it needs in times of crisis.
But opponents warn that labeling economic measures as “security” issues can backfire, alienating allies and inviting retaliation. European officials and trade negotiators in Canada and Japan are already signaling possible countermeasures if talks with Washington fail to yield exemptions.
Mind the gap
The real question now is how manufacturers will adapt. Companies may accelerate plans to localize assembly and parts production inside the U.S., while foreign brands could seek joint ventures or partnerships with American firms to skirt tariffs.
Consumers and fleets will likely see higher sticker prices for imported trucks and commercial vehicles as tariffs ripple through supply chains. That may also shift more buyers toward U.S.-built models, at least in the short term.
Ultimately, Trump’s move puts America’s industrial policy back in the driver’s seat. Whether it strengthens the economy or creates new trade turbulence will depend on how quickly domestic production can fill the gap left by imports.
President Trump’s 25% truck tariff is a high-stakes bet on American manufacturing dominance. It could fuel a resurgence in U.S. production or ignite new rounds of trade retaliation.
Either way, one thing is certain: The decision has already reshaped the conversation about what it means to build, and buy, American.
