Why Trump seems to favour gas-powered cars over EVs

Trump backs gas cars over EVs

A big part of Trump’s message has always been about backing oil and gas. More petrol cars on the road mean more demand for gasoline, which is good news for drillers, refiners and workers in those sectors. Looser rules on emissions and mileage targets make it easier for carmakers to keep selling profitable petrol SUVs and trucks instead of rushing into expensive EV retooling. In regions where livelihoods depend on fossil-fuel production or conventional auto plants, that stance translates directly into votes.

In manufacturing hubs, a rapid EV shift is often seen as a threat. Electric cars need fewer moving parts, different supply chains and new skills. That raises fears of job losses in engine plants, gearbox factories, fuel logistics and servicing. By talking up gas-powered cars, Trump reassures these communities that he is on the side of existing industries rather than forcing them into a transition they do not control.

Concern about cost, consumer scepticism, and “choice”

Trump also leans heavily on the language of consumer choice. EVs still come with higher upfront prices in many segments, patchy charging networks away from big cities and lingering doubts about range, battery life and resale value. By arguing that people should not be “forced” into EVs, he taps into those anxieties.

Framing pro-EV policies as government overreach fits neatly with his broader small-government pitch. Voters who dislike mandates and subsidies, or who feel lectured at by coastal elites on climate issues, are receptive to the idea that they should simply be left alone to buy the vehicles they want.

Energy independence and national-security framing

For Trump, energy independence remains a central theme. Petrol cars supported by domestic drilling fit a familiar narrative: America produces its own fuel and is not beholden to others. EVs, by contrast, rely on lithium, cobalt and rare earths, much of which is mined or processed abroad. In his telling, that risks swapping dependence on oil states for dependence on battery and mineral suppliers.

Rolling back stricter fuel-economy and emission standards also matches his deregulatory instinct. It reduces compliance costs for industry and reinforces his view that markets, not regulators, should decide the pace of technological change.

Responding to a volatile market and infrastructure gaps

Finally, there is the basic question of infrastructure. Outside metropolitan corridors, fast-charging options are still sparse. Rural drivers or long-distance commuters are understandably wary of being pushed toward EVs before the grid and charging network are ready. By backing petrol cars, Trump is speaking to those voters’ lived reality, not to climate targets or timelines set in Washington or Brussels.

What this shift means for America’s auto and climate landscape

If this tilt back toward gas-powered vehicles continues, EV adoption is likely to slow. Carmakers may delay some investments or hedge their bets by keeping larger fleets of conventional models. That would make it harder for the US to hit long-term emissions goals and would keep the fossil-fuel sector politically powerful.

At the same time, the stance shores up Trump’s support among blue-collar and non-urban voters who feel unsettled by the speed of the green transition. For environmental advocates, it is a reminder that climate policy does not move in a straight line; it has to contend with economic fear, regional identity and the politics of who wins and who loses along the way.