Flanked by Republican lawmakers and representatives of U.S. automakers in the Oval Office yesterday, President Donald Trump made a bold but accurate statement: Joe Biden’s electric-vehicle mandates and emissions standards were nothing short of a “scam.” “They forced automakers to build cars using expensive technologies that drove up costs, drove up prices, and made the car much worse,” Trump said. “People were paying too much for a car that didn’t work as well.”
He is right.
Biden’s crusade against climate change led his administration to impose rules that were both unrealistic and economically destructive. Automakers were compelled to promise that 67 percent of new light-duty vehicles and 46 percent of medium-duty vehicles would be electric by 2032, despite the fact that electric vehicles (EVs) accounted for only 7 percent of U.S. car sales at the time. In addition, new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards required EVs and hybrid vehicles to achieve at least 62 miles per gallon, while gasoline-powered cars would need to hit 50 miles per gallon.
At first glance, these rules may have sounded environmentally ambitious. In reality, they were economically unmoored mandates that forced technology before the market was ready, driving prices up across the board. The average American car buyer was caught in a bind: pay more for a vehicle that, in many cases, didn’t meet practical needs, or risk losing access to vehicles that complied with the government’s green vision.
Even with a $7,500 federal tax credit for EVs, the Biden-era policy was little more than a transfer of wealth from average consumers to the relatively well-off individuals who could afford expensive electric vehicles. This is textbook moral hazard: subsidizing the wealthy to adopt high-end products while the less affluent bear the costs of artificially inflated prices. Economic literacy suggests that when consumers can’t vote with their wallets, the market falters.
The results of these policies were predictable: distorted prices, limited consumer choice, and artificially inflated demand for vehicles that were not yet competitive. Gas-powered cars became harder to justify economically, while EVs were forced into the market with heavy-handed mandates. It is precisely this kind of intervention that slows efficiency in the car market.
By rolling back these unrealistic mandates and emissions standards, the Trump administration is restoring a measure of common sense to the car industry. When carmakers are no longer compelled to meet impossible quotas or unattainable fuel-economy standards, they can allocate resources more efficiently—investing in technology and production where it actually delivers value to consumers. Market competition can once again reward the firms that deliver real quality and innovation, rather than those who are best at navigating government mandates.
Consumers benefit immediately. With fewer artificial constraints, automakers can offer a broader range of vehicles at more affordable prices. People can choose cars based on practical factors like performance, safety, and durability—rather than the government’s arbitrary environmental goals. When consumers keep more of their own money, they spend it on other goods and services, boosting efficiency and growth throughout the economy. That is how a free market works: incentives are aligned with performance, not with political favor.
Of course, not everyone is celebrating. The New York Times, for instance, warned that relaxing emissions standards will encourage the sale of more “gas guzzlers” like SUVs and pickup trucks. According to the Times, this is dangerous because transportation is the largest source of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States. The article also bemoaned that U.S. policy is now “out of sync with the rest of the world,” implying that Europe’s push for lithium-ion vehicles is a model Americans should emulate.
But this criticism misses the point. America’s car market was already distorted under Biden’s rules. Mandates for EVs and hybrid vehicles did not result from consumer demand; they were the product of a social-engineering project that sought to shape behavior through regulation and subsidies. The Times’ argument assumes that consumers should have less freedom to choose because policymakers have decided what vehicles are morally and environmentally correct. That is not a market; it is top-down command economics masquerading as environmental policy.
In reality, the Biden administration’s policies were not about reducing emissions in a meaningful or efficient way—they were about controlling the market and restricting consumer choice. From banning oil and gas leasing on federal lands to restricting pipeline projects, the administration waged a broad campaign against fossil fuels and the industries that support them. Efforts to eliminate spending on fossil-fuel infrastructure, pressure allies like Saudi Arabia to shift energy production, and even attempts to ban natural gas hookups in new homes were all part of the same strategy: raise costs for consumers so they would “choose” green alternatives.
The strategy was always flawed because it ignored basic economics. When prices rise artificially, people do not necessarily adopt the targeted alternative—they adapt, delay purchases, or find workarounds. This is exactly what happened with EVs: the combination of high prices, limited infrastructure, and practical limitations (range anxiety, charging times) kept market penetration low. The administration attempted to force adoption through subsidies and mandates, but the market resisted because the products simply weren’t ready to meet consumer needs.
Moreover, these policies were regressive. By raising the cost of cars across the board, they disproportionately hurt middle-class families who cannot afford luxury EVs. Government incentives only make the wealthiest consumers slightly better off, while ordinary Americans pay the hidden price of mandates: higher prices for both new and used vehicles. Rollbacks of these mandates restore fairness to the market, allowing people to buy vehicles they actually need at prices they can afford.
Trump’s action is thus not only economically sound, but morally reasonable. It recognizes that consumers—not politicians—should decide which technologies succeed. Efficiency in the car market comes from competition and innovation, not from government edicts. When automakers must meet arbitrary quotas for EVs or unattainable fuel standards, resources are wasted producing vehicles that may never find a buyer. Relaxing these rules frees up capital to improve all vehicles—gas-powered, hybrid, or electric—making cars more affordable, more reliable, and better suited to consumer needs.
This is not an anti-environment position; it is a pro-consumer, pro-market position. The environment does benefit from efficient vehicles and technological innovation—but only when those improvements are pursued in response to market demand, not imposed through political fiat. A car buyer who wants a fuel-efficient vehicle can still choose one, and automakers will compete to meet that demand. Mandates that force EV adoption artificially, however, distort incentives and slow overall efficiency.
The rollback also acknowledges a key political and economic reality: Americans prefer SUVs, pickup trucks, and versatile vehicles that suit their lives. These vehicles are profitable for manufacturers precisely because consumers value them. Attempting to force consumers away from their preferences through regulation not only frustrates buyers, it hurts the industry. By letting market forces dictate vehicle production, carmakers can respond to actual demand while innovating where it truly matters.
The Biden administration’s war against consumer choice was never really about “saving the planet.” It was about social engineering, pushing Americans toward preferred behaviors regardless of practicality or cost. By contrast, the Trump administration’s policy restores the principle that government should facilitate a fair and competitive market—not dictate its outcomes. Consumers are the ultimate arbiters of efficiency, and freeing them from unrealistic standards ensures the market can function as intended.
Yesterday’s Oval Office ceremony was more than a photo op; it was a reaffirmation of market principles and consumer sovereignty. It signaled a return to common sense, where automakers can produce vehicles people actually want to buy, and where consumers can buy vehicles they actually need to live, work, and play. Economic efficiency is restored, consumer choice is respected, and the car market can begin operating on the principles that built it in the first place: competition, innovation, and value for the American buyer.
In short, rolling back Biden’s electric-vehicle mandates and unrealistic MPG standards is a win for common sense, for the economy, and for the American people. The market will now reward performance rather than political correctness, affordability over mandates, and consumer choice over bureaucratic diktat. That is the path to efficiency, and it is the path the United States should follow if it truly values innovation, economic growth, and the practical needs of its citizens.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
