As expected, the transition team for President-elect Donald Trump is now reportedly looking to slash support for electric vehicle (EV) and charging programs set up by the Biden administration, along with lodging global tariffs and pushing to ease regulations on fossil-fuel emissions.
The Trump transition team is now looking at plans to ease regulations on the fossil fuel industry and to cut many EV programs, including the $7,500 EV tax credit, along with lodging tariffs on battery material imports worldwide, according to a document seen by Reuters this week.
As part of efforts to bolster the domestic supply chain for battery materials, many of which are produced in China and are heavily subsidized in the U.S., the transition team has recommended imposing tariffs on all battery materials around the world, before negotiating individual exemptions with allies, as the document shows.
“When he takes office, President Trump will support the auto industry, allowing space for both gas-powered cars and electric vehicles,” said Karoline Leavitt, spokesperson for the Trump transition team, in a statement.
RELATED: U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge on California emission rule waiver
Although Trump campaigned on promises to end the $7,500 federal EV credit and official plans to kill the subsidy were reported last month, the transition team has also called for rolling back the $7.5 billion plan passed under Biden to help aid the buildout of charging stations for EVs.
Instead, the team has said that it would shift this and other funding currently going toward making EVs more affordable toward national defense efforts, including the initiative to secure battery supplies without relying on China. The document notes that these efforts would focus on shifting money toward battery material production, as well as the “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.”
The document suggested that the team utilize Section 232 tariffs, which are intended to limit the import of any items related to potential national security threats. Biden recently increased tariffs on several imports related to charging technology and critical minerals for EV batteries, including graphite, “permanent magnets” used in EV motors and in military applications, and lithium-ion batteries, among others, though the tariffs were issued on economic grounds, rather than on those in national security.
The transition team is also looking to waive environmental reviews to accelerate “federally funded EV infrastructure projects,” such as those in battery production and recycling, charging deployment, and manufacturing of critical minerals. Other proposals detailed in the document include:
- Ditching federal requirements for electrifying government fleets, including Biden’s policy to mandate all federal purchases by zero-emission vehicles by the end of 2027
- Using the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. to provide financial support for U.S. batteries for EVs
- Utilizing tariffs as a “negotiating tool” to encourage other markets to consider U.S. auto exports including both gas cars and EVs
- Ending restrictions on exports of EV battery technology to countries deemed adversaries
- Ending programs for the Department of Defense attempting to buy or develop electric military vehicle options
How will ending the $7,500 EV tax credit affect Tesla? Musk calls it a benefit
While many have said that ditching the $7,500 tax credit and other policies intended to help spur on the adoption of EVs could hurt Tesla, CEO Elon Musk and others have argued that it may only benefit the company by harming other automakers even more. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said last month that the change would only “enable Tesla to further fend off competition from Detroit,” given its already decisive advantage in EV scale.
In his latest statement regarding EV subsidies, made on X last month, Musk called for the U.S. to “end all government subsidies, including those for EVs, oil and gas.”
Musk also campaigned with Donald Trump during the election and created the political action committee (PAC), dubbed America PAC, to support his candidacy financially. He has since gained a position in what the team has called the Department of Government Efficiency, and he’s expected to play a major role in the upcoming administration.
In a report last week, it was said that the Trump transition team is also considering getting rid of a mandatory reporting measure for automated driving systems, as part of a larger effort to remove regulations and push self-driving vehicle development forward more quickly. An additional report from last month also suggests that Trump is already looking to create federal rules surrounding the rollout of autonomous vehicles, expected to accelerate the deployment of commercial robotaxis and other self-driving technologies.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Analysts weigh in on Trump presidency’s effects to U.S. auto sector
Need accessories for your Tesla? Check out the Teslarati Marketplace:
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
