In 2021, former US President Joe Biden made a bold move. He signed legislation to encourage automakers to produce more electric vehicles. After all, he had an ambitious goal that half of all cars sold in the US should be “zero-emission vehicles” by 2030. This was part of his administration’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and combat climate change.

A few years later, he enacted the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It was a sweeping bill to reduce greenhouse gases and save Americans about $1,000 a year on their energy bills. It even gave people financial benefits, such as rebates and tax incentives, such as a $7,500 tax credit for buying an electric vehicle.

But recently, new President Donald Trump rolled back all of these rules. This means his administration could enact laws that could eliminate environmentally friendly policies designed to push US manufacturers and consumers toward cleaner, less polluting technologies.

So what’s going on?

You might think this is just politics. The new administration may want to do things its own way. But there’s another side to the story. Removing EV mandates and incentives may be what automakers have always wanted.

Why, you may ask?

Because it’s not easy to make and sell electric vehicles.

Take charging infrastructure, for example. There are more than 3 million electric vehicles in the U.S. today, but there are just over 64,000 public charging stations, and most of them don’t even work properly. On average, they’re 20% less reliable than regular gas stations. Add to that the longer charging times, fewer locations, and the fear of running out of power, and it’s no wonder people are hesitant to buy an electric vehicle.

Charging an electric vehicle isn’t cheap, either. The cost varies greatly depending on the charging station, the type of charger, and the battery of the electric vehicle. You can spend as much money filling up an electric vehicle as you would filling it up, and you can get fewer miles.

So people may naturally want to switch back to fuel-powered cars.

Of course, there’s no doubt that electric vehicle sales are on the rise. In 2024, the US sold 1.3 million vehicles, a 7% increase from 2023. But they still account for only 8% of the market, which is only 0.3% more than the previous year. This small growth doesn’t make things any easier for automakers, who must sell more EVs every year because half of all US car sales are required to be electric by 2030, even if buyers aren’t ready or willing to adopt at that pace. Worse, fewer options could force consumers to buy what’s available, which could reduce their motivation to make EVs better or more affordable.

Here’s where things get tricky. The cost of going electric by 2030 is steep. When you dig deeper, the supposed cost savings don’t add up.

According to a rule in the IRA, by 2027, 80% of EV battery minerals must come from the US or countries with free trade agreements (FTCs). This helps buyers save money by making electric vehicles eligible for tax credits.

Sounds simple, right?

Not really.

EV batteries rely on critical minerals like cobalt, nickel, and lithium. But most of these minerals come from outside the U.S. and its FTCs. Of course, Canada and Australia, both FTCs, are rich in these resources. But they don’t trade exclusively with the U.S., so they won’t necessarily supply all of their minerals to the country. This means the U.S. will continue to rely on countries like Congo for cobalt and Argentina for lithium. The fact that these countries are not FTCs also increases costs.

To make matters even more complicated, the IRA has a loophole. It says that even if the raw materials come from non-FTC countries, the minerals qualify for tax credits if they are processed in the U.S. or a country approved by the FTC. This workaround keeps the U.S. dependent on non-FTC countries that may have weaker mining standards, which increases both costs and environmental risks.

As a result, EVs continue to cost consumers more, the auto market is disrupted, and the climate benefits of EVs are not delivering as promised.

And this may explain why the Trump administration believes it’s time to abandon unrealistic EV mandates and subsidies.

Instead, give automakers breathing room to innovate and create the best technology without forcing EVs on consumers.

So what happened? This could actually help companies like Ford and General Motors, which have spent billions of dollars on EVs but haven’t yet made a profit. By slowing EV adoption, they could boost sales of their more profitable fuel-powered cars. And with a balanced mix of gasoline-powered cars for long commutes, electrics for city commutes, and hybrids for everything in between, they could even buck the growing tide of Chinese car imports.

But doesn’t rolling back these rules contradict climate change goals?

It certainly does.

It could make it harder for the U.S. to meet its long-term emissions reduction goals.

U.S. cars and trucks alone account for more than half of the greenhouse gases from transportation, making them one of the largest contributors to the country’s overall emissions.

The solution?

Maybe temporarily remove subsidies and let the auto market develop naturally. But also improve charging infrastructure and lower the cost of EV minerals.

But President Trump disagrees.

In his book, climate change is just a myth.

In fact, Trump’s legislation also froze billions in funding for expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure, such as $5 billion from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program. This will slow the growth of a proper charging network.

His administration appears to be more focused on boosting the U.S. economy by returning to fuel-powered vehicles, as the U.S. has domestic dominance in fuel-powered vehicle technology and manufacturing. This would give the U.S. auto industry a fighting chance against China, which dominates the electric vehicle space, including supply chains. China has also solidified its place as the second largest owner of global lithium reserves.

Let’s not forget that the U.S. is also walking away from the Paris Agreement, a global pact to reduce emissions and stop global warming.

So yes, it seems that the U.S. will criticize electric vehicle subsidies, continue to pollute, and do nothing about it. Unfortunately, we will all just have to stand by and watch.