On June 1, 2017, a few months into then-President Donald J. Trump’s first term, a landmark speech in the Rose Garden at the White House solidified his stance on and attitude towards the environment, environmentalists, climate change, and the efforts meant to reverse its effects.
There, he announced that he was withdrawing all U.S. participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement, a landmark international treaty signed by 195 countries the year prior. He contends that such an agreement was “unfair,” would “undermine” the U.S. economy, and was the last straw in what he saw as the American people—in his eyes—being humiliated for the world to watch.
“The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy to win praise from the foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense,” Trump said. “They don’t put America first. I do, and I always will.”
💰💸Don’t miss the move: SIGN UP for TheStreet’s FREE Daily newsletter💰💸
“[…] It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France.”
Shortly after his inauguration, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the agreement after formally leaving it for 107 days. This move, along with other major moves like the Inflation Reduction Act, solidified his viewpoint as opposed to his predecessor’s.
However, with Trump returning to the Oval Office, a key Biden environmental policy appears to be on the chopping block.
Electric cars recharge their batteries at a curbside Charge Point electric vehicle charging station on December 1, 2024, in Jersey City, New Jersey.
Gary Hershorn/Getty Images
Trump’s ‘electric boogaloo’ is meant to hamper EV growth
According to a new document seen by Reuters, President-Elect Trump’s transition team is recommending a new set of policies that are a stark departure from Biden administration policy. The team seeks to effectively slow the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and loosen the restrictions affecting gasoline-powered cars.
The document seen by Reuters shows that the team is planning a series of changes that would not only reverse Biden’s so-called “EV mandate” but also reverse federal funding for EV chargers and the $7,500 tax credit meant for subsidizing EV purchases.
But while eliminating the IRA EV tax credit may hurt U.S. EV sales and production for various automakers, including Honda (HMC) , Hyundai (HYMTF) , and General Motors (GM) , the Trump team justifies reversing President Biden’s $7.5 billion plan to build charging stations by saying the (unspent) money will be better spent on battery-minerals processing and the “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.”
Trump’s transition team said that while batteries, minerals, and other EV components are “critical to defense production,” building EVs and charging stations for civilians is not. They point to a 2021 U.S. government report that says the military faces “escalating power requirements” for weapons and communication equipment and that securing “assured sources of critical minerals and materials” is “critical” to our national security.
More Business of EVs:
The Kia EV9 is crushing the competitionTesla’s biggest rival has a huge problem no one is talking aboutMove over Ford, this EV might be the new popular police car
Fewer EVs, more exhaust fumes, Trump team says
In a statement to Reuters, Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the administration intends to deliver on campaign promises, including pushing back against “government attacks on gas-powered cars.”
“When he takes office, President Trump will support the auto industry, allowing space for both gas-powered cars and electric vehicles,” Leavitt said.
As for what the transition team actually recommends, the space the incoming President is leaving for automakers and their gas-guzzlers would be as big as Montana.
The document seen by Reuters shows that the transition team’s recommendations would make it much easier for automakers to make more gas guzzlers as it seeks to roll back Biden-era emissions and fuel-economy standards, shifting such rules back to 2019 levels that would allow cars to burn 15% more gas and allow 25% more tailpipe emissions per vehicle mile.
Additionally, Trump’s transition team recommends reversing another Biden-era policy that allowed the State of California and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set their own stricter vehicle emissions standards—a policy that Trump blocked during his term.
However, the EPA under the Biden Administration has not approved CARB’s waiver to implement an even stronger set of requirements that would start taking effect in 2026.
Related: GM exec reveals shocking plan if US EPA regulations change
Under such a policy, California and states incorporating CARB rules would require all vehicles to be electric, plug-in hybrid, or hydrogen-powered by 2035, a move that Toyota North America chief operating officer Jack Hollis slammed as “impossible” for automakers to meet.
A golden opportunity for GM [to make more gas-guzzlers]
In response to the consumer and regulatory environment that Detroit automaker General Motors faces, its CEO Mary Barra told analysts in January 2024 that the automaker plans to introduce plug-in hybrids to the U.S. market.
At the time, it noted that it was “timing the launches to help us comply with the more stringent fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards” set by the Biden Administration. In a May interview with The Detroit News, it confirmed a 2027 release date.
However, with these new developments at play, GM’s plans to bring hybrids to American shores may be null and void.
During remarks at the UBS Global Industrials and Transportation Conference in Manalapan, Florida, earlier this month, General Motors CFO Paul Jacobson revealed that the company still wants to keep its plans for EVs but noted that if regulations are eased with Trump back in the White House, plug-in hybrids for 2027 may be on the chopping block.
“In a world where compliance is eased, you could see where you don’t necessarily need as much plug-in, you might not need as much (battery electric vehicles) as well,” Jacobson said. “But we’ll cross that bridge.”
Without such rules, GM could focus on the kind of vehicles that make it profitable: V8-powered big SUVs, pickup trucks, and sports cars. Though GM’s axing of plug-in hybrids is a bad look, Jacobson noted that current diesel-powered versions of its most oversized gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks get better fuel economy numbers than their competitors.
“We’ve always said that the plug-in hybrids were really … an option for compliance with regulatory standards,” Jacobson said. “So in the event that those change and you don’t need that or they’re lessened, then maybe that could be something we could look at: Getting down some of those models.”
Related: Veteran fund manager sees world of pain coming for stocks
