Ford Will Keep Battery Factory Even If Republicans Ax Tax Break

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/business/ford-battery-factory-electric-vehicles.html

29•doener•5h ago

Comments

duxup•5h ago

Cutting these tax breaks seems counter productive.

What is supposed to happen? The US and vehicle makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world moves in the other direction?

Sounds like a good way to trash any competitiveness US car makers have....

toomuchtodo•5h ago

These efforts are struggles to maintain the status quo for entrenched interests against unsurmountable momentum as it relates to the clean energy transition [1] and the electrification of transportation. If you're looking for a rational explanation, the human will disappoint. Simply maintain pace and pressure in the appropriate direction. That effort, combined with time, will hopefully equal success. In my personal opinion, the "why" is important to understand from a threat model perspective (ie how do you hack around humans and entities attempting to slow or stop the transition), but not important as a contributor to input to speed the transition (because mental models and identity are rigid, and you're not taking the selfish out of the human, broadly speaking).

[1] Texas Legislature Beats Back Assault on Clean Energy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277367 - June 2025

(China installed 93GW of solar in May 2025, more than every other country combined in 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359105)

Arnt•4h ago

Not sure what's supposed to happen, but I can guess what will happen instead: US states will have to pay upfront for new factories to be built instead of promising tax breaks later, because the companies that decide whether to build will trust the promises less than until now.

dalyons•4h ago

So short sighted and self destructive. The US is actively sabotaging its future in innovation, manufacturing and energy. For what? To make its car industry even less competitive? The world is moving on with or without the US, as you say.

toomuchtodo•4h ago

For profits today. There is no will or care to invest for the future in the US.

foobarian•4h ago

Wonder if it's just that, or whether there is a more sinister mindset in place that would gladly see the country slide in reverse towards a backward theocracy that would be easier to control.

dalyons•1h ago

Honestly I think it’s neither, it’s just stupidity, incompetence and spite.

georgeecollins•4h ago

Do you mean there is no will to make public investments in the future? Because in the private space the US leads the world in investing in the future. Think about how much we invest in AI and self driving! I think a US private company pioneered electric cars.

dylan604•3h ago

no, they mean there's no interest in tomorrow's profits when you can have them today. besides "they" won't be here tomorrow, so get it now. Don't be a simp and leave things for someone else.

RankingMember•3h ago

> I think a US private company pioneered electric cars.

Electric cars have been around since the late 1800s. If you mean modern ones, in the US the California Air Resources Board basically willed them back into existence in the 90s, and a California automaker (Tesla pre-Musk) made great strides in their public esteem by putting a battery pack and electric motor into a Lotus chassis and selling it as the "Roadster" (leaning on the prior art of companies like Ford and especially GM's EV1).

toomuchtodo•3h ago

I argue you are overvaluing AI and self driving and undervaluing the capability to build high-tech products, systems, and infrastructure.

germinalphrase•3h ago

That US private company was significantly enabled by a (apparently temporary) government policy of direct and indirect financial support. That company does not exist without the direct and intentional support by the US government.

mindslight•3h ago

It's not really "for" anything besides letting increasingly-marginalized people feel like they have some agency. Of course, choosing to politically express themselves with spite instead of constructive solutions based on what they want is exactly why they continue to be increasingly marginalized.

OneLeggedCat•4h ago

Counter productive to whom? Certainly not oil companies, nor the politicians that represent their interests?

bluGill•3h ago

Not really productive for oil companies either. They can fight, but they can't bring down oil prices enough to compete and consumers are catching on.

ryoshoe•2h ago

Unfortunately they can lobby to prevent cheaper alternatives from being made available

ajross•4h ago

> What is supposed to happen?

That's an argument from a rationality perspective. This is a decision from ideology. It's not about making the best choice, it's about making sure the right people lose.

specialist•1h ago

Yes and: all these cuts (Medicaid, USAID, BIL/IRA, DOGE, ...) are to fund Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts.

Were IRA the victim of Big Oil's revanchism, we could at least understand.

This is just theft.

dylan604•3h ago

That sounds exactly like the MAGA plan. bigOil is too ingrained into the party to allow the demand for their product to reduce by eliminating ICE powered anything. To expect MAGA to dump bigOil would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard and expect to write the code for anything.

geoffeg•3h ago

> would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard and expect to write the code for anything.

There's gotta be a joke about AI vibe coding there...

dylan604•2h ago

I thought AI vibe coding was the joke

megaman821•3h ago

I am huge believer in the eventual dominance of battery-electric vehicles, but these tax incentives are very inefficient. The money would be better spent on R&D into batteries and motors. The time would be better spent making it easier to build.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF•3h ago

It would be better spent on UBI and walkable cities but you know, sometimes the only progress we get is what voters will support

specialist•1h ago

Yes, Build Back Better would have been better. And we would've needed IRA 2, 3, and probably 4 to have any hope of achieving netzero by 2050.

That the Biden Admin even got IRA passed was an amazing feat.

SV_BubbleTime•3h ago

> makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world moves in the other direction?

Automotive EE here…

As respectfully as I can; you have no idea what you are talking about and neither do the people cheering you on.

These vehicles are not ready for the markets they are (were) being pushed to.

Current electrics do not make sense in specifically hot or cold climates. They do not make sense for hard use. They do not make sense for long trips. They do not make sense for repair.

They make sense in California for people that will keep them only a couple of years until the next status symbol is available.

I own an electric, I work on some. I like the pluses, and am keenly aware of the negatives. I see people storing them outside in snow and it makes me sad for their owners that think they bought an alternative to an ICE vehicle.

EVs today are not alternatives to ICE vehicles, the are compliments.

Fun fact… right now with the systems today, most EVs that will need a new battery, will be totaled by that cost. I have the tools, I’ve been inside the 600V packs that can easily kill you. Mechanics aren’t trained, prepared for, or will accept the risk. These are not 20 year vehicles. They’re basically 8 year vehicles currently.

Disagree with your feelings all you like, I live it.

LargeWu•3h ago

The country with the highest adoption of EV's in the world is Norway. If they can deal with the cold, so can the US.

I have an EV in Minnesota and it's great. Battery life does take a pretty big hit in winter but that's fine based on how I use it. The real problem is lack of charging infrastructure, not the range.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF•3h ago

Hybrids once again totally undervalued. I don't know why the industry and the consumers are going so hard on pure EVs

blacksmith_tb•2h ago

Hmm, I drive a PHEV, but full EVs are extremely simple vehicles, as long as you work out charging, they'll need tires eventually, and brake pads (slowly, since they mostly have regen), and that's about it. No fluids (and leaks), no belts, no going to gas stations - pretty compelling for the motorist (and scary for dealerships and repair shops).

WorldMaker•30m ago

Among other reasons, a lot of it is simply because everyone wants raw battery range and PHEVs are a huge compromise on battery range. Internal combustion engines and gas tanks eat a lot into the weight and volume budgets of a car. You can fit a lot of battery in that weight and volume. We've got to the point where battery density is getting strong enough that a hybrid can't make a combined range as good as a pure EV either in the same weight class.

Another reason is that if you design for the strengths of pure EVs, you can shift all of that weight lower and out of cabin and storage space, including offering new perks such as "frunks" ("front trunks").

A hybrid can't compete on cabin/storage space with a pure EV designed to be a pure EV, and can't quite compete on battery range.

kingstnap•2h ago

EVs are better suited to most commute patterns. The ICE would be the compliment, and the EV, the daily driver.

With better charging infrastructure, that most turns into virtually all.

bryanlarsen•2h ago

> They’re basically 8 year vehicles currently.

The major EV makers provide an 8 year warranty on their batteries. If EV batteries only lasted 8 years on average, it means they'd be replacing half of them under warranty, which would cost them a fortune and show up on their balance sheet. Tesla & Hyundai aren't bankrupt; batteries last significantly longer than 8 years.

rstuart4133•2h ago

Assuming the announcements from CATL and BYD pan out and battery prices continue on their current trajectory:

By 2030 EV's will cost less than an ICE powered vehicle up front, travel further on a single charge than an ICE with a full tank, cost less to maintain, take about the same amount of time to "refuel" (if you need to do that at all because you can recharge for free at a solar powered home) ... and won't be built in the USA if Ford doesn't do something like this. It probably won't be in the USA even with Ford's efforts.

If you are an automotive EE and live and work in the USA, you've got very little time left to get your finger out. Even if you do and are insanely clever, you've got 3.5 more years of Trump and the GOP playing to the denial crowd, putting up barriers like this to any attempt to change from the status quo. You're also up against a highly industrialised country with four times the number of EE's the USA, some of which are also insanely clever, all being forced to innovate in a highly competitive market fueled by government subsidies.

Personally, if I were you, I'd be assuming the car manufacturing industry in the USA is fucked, and looking for another industry to transition my EE skills into.

garyfirestorm•2h ago

isn't it well known that the avg commute is only 35 miles for a consumer? and how many road trips does an avg consumer take in a month? in a year? they can always rent an ICE for specific long journeys. not being able to take your car on a road trip speaks more about infrastructure issues and not the car itself.

raisedbyninjas•1h ago

EV range drops to around 90% after 10 years, but so has my 12 year old Mazda. I don't consider it totaled.

kevin_thibedeau•3h ago

Hybrids will be viable for a long time for regions of the world that don't have ready access to a charging station and for users that need to make long trips without delays from 30+ minute charge times.

bluGill•3h ago

Hybrids only are viable so long as they exist in large numbers thus ensuring that there is enough money to be made in having infrastructure. Since getting a PHEV I've massively cut down my gas purchases. Car buyers who care about money are catching on to just how much cheaper it is to fuel and EV, and the PHEV looks like the best of both worlds (lets not get into that debate). I'm predicting that in about 5 years EVs will be common enough that gas stations stop going up as fast - not that they will go out of business, but they companies building them will be more careful about there they put them in because demand just isn't there in many locations. Starting in 10 years there will be an increase in the number of going out of business because the demand just isn't there to support several of them on less busy corners. (both of these will be hard to see at first - there are other business cycles in play that make the trends hard to be sure of so it will be another decade before you can be sure) In 20 years gas will be hard to find - not impossible (collectors will still buy it, and long distance travel will be the last place is goes away so freeways will keep it much longer)

WorldMaker•40m ago

Gas stations in the US are already built today to be low margin "loss leaders" (or nearly so) for convenience stores and supermarkets. Low margin can imply a high price sensitivity (as prices rise, they don't stay in business). There are possible snow ball effect scenarios where gas pumps could start to disappear much more rapidly once some tipping point occurs.

Back to the other topic, having owned a PHEV for more than a decade now, it's such an obvious compromise that doesn't make a lot of sense long term. It made great sense when I bought the car more than a decade ago, but today the weight carrying around a gas engine and gas tank would be so much better put to use on extra battery range rather than a gas engine you need a lot less often than you think you do. The only person I'd recommend a PHEV to is whoever I sell my current car to when there's a full BEV I want to buy. But I've also had years where I've gotten the "use it before stale" warnings where my only use of gas that year was because I had no other use for gas and my car suggests keeping the age of gas below a year old, and I recognize there are still a lot of anecdotal use cases of extreme daily/weekly/monthly mileage in the US that I cannot speak to.

LorenDB•5h ago

https://archive.ph/rHrr8

GenerWork•4h ago

Good, that's the way it should be. If EVs are the future of personal vehicles (and I think they will be), then there's all the reasons to trade short term pain for long term gain.

contagiousflow•4h ago

What is the short term pain exactly?

enticeing•4h ago

Presumably short term pain for Ford from missing out on federal incentives they would've gotten otherwise

bastawhiz•1h ago

That's assuming the market is homogeneous and resources are fungible. If interest in EVs in the US is low, nobody builds battery factories in the US. But we know China and others are. If it takes EVs another two decades to really catch on in the US, all the parts and materials will be foreign. Costs will be higher for domestic consumers, even if interest does pick up eventually. Catching up at that point may not even be possible.

Consider that if Asia and Europe manage to replace a majority of ICE vehicles in a decade or two with EVs, oil production will necessarily decrease in the end. We'll have a glut of cheap oil for a while as other countries buy less, which will artificially prop up ICE vehicles until production slows and costs go up. When gasoline inevitably becomes prohibitively expensive (assuming EVs are indeed the future), the US could be left with pricey fuel and no real ability to dig itself out of the hole it's created. It's not just the battery factories, it's the knowledge, talent, supply chains, trade deals, infrastructure, sales pipelines, patents, etc.

The "long term gain" turns out to just be us killing off our entire auto industry slowly. The "free market" in this case is actually "the free market here in our bubble". Globalization isn't going to sell cheap Chinese EVs in Montana, and people buying an $8000 BYD aren't going to look at a Chevy Malibu. If/when that market eventually collapses because we got left behind by the rest of the world, we'll be regretful that we didn't put subsidies into batteries and the grid. After all, we did subsidize oil and the auto industry for decades and decades for this reason. How many politicians stumped on the promise of keeping Detroit going?

WorldMaker•24m ago

Not to mention the market is bad at capturing externalities. Tax incentives are one way to offset externalities that the market doesn't price in. If tax incentive carrots are the "wrong way" to do it because they favor some companies more than others, then carbon/emissions taxes sticks are the "right way" to do it that provide a level "playing field" based on usage/consumption. (Arguably the most correct answer is "both" to get the "free-est market" with the most "information" about what society values priced into market supply and demand. Because "free" implies liquidity to follow the most "information" in the OG Adam Smith et al definitions, not free from incentives and disincentives.)

throwaway48476•4h ago

This also hurts innovation into more efficient gas engines for hybrids. Without needing the engine to power the wheels new engine types become viable.

laidoffamazon•3h ago

It’s unclear if they will or won’t - but given the current presidents tendency to attack any entity that crosses him with “lawfare” it doesn’t seem safe to accurately project their intentions

Dig1t•1h ago

Lefties hated that Trump lowered the corporate tax rate in his first term. Then they hated that he wants to raise taxes on companies in his second term (tariffs). Now they are upset that he wants to raise taxes on big auto makers by removing tax breaks.

Can we at least be logically consistent? Do we dislike taxes on corporations or do we like them? Kinda seems like either way the coverage will be bad.

Also, if Ford intends to keep the battery factory despite losing the tax break, did they really need a tax break in the first place?

bryanlarsen•23m ago

Ford is the exception, not the rule. So far this year $14 billion in clean energy projects have been cancelled. That's tens of thousands of jobs down the drain. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/14-billion-in-clean-...

Vera C. Rubin Observatory first images

Backyard Coffee and Jazz in Kyoto

2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

A Deep Dive into Solid Queue for Ruby on Rails

Resurrecting flip phone typing as a Linux driver

How I use my terminal

Fairphone 6 is switching to a new design that's even more sustainable

I ported pigz from Unix to Windows

Ocarina of Time Randomizer

First methane-powered sea spiders found crawling on the ocean floor

The Last of Us Part II – Seattle Locations Tour

Minimal Boolean Formulas

Launch HN: Reducto Studio (YC W24) – Build accurate document pipelines, fast

Making TRAMP go Brrrr

uv: An extremely fast Python package and project manager, written in Rust

New Linux udisks flaw lets attackers get root on major Linux distros

Rocknix is an immutable Linux distribution for handheld gaming devices

BYOK – Bring Your Own Keyboard

FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

Scientists use bacteria to turn plastic waste into paracetamol

How many PhDs does world need? Doctoral graduates outnumber academia jobs

Judge denies creating “mass surveillance program” harming all ChatGPT users

GitHub CEO: manual coding remains key despite AI boom

Transparent Ambition

Show HN: Pickaxe – A TypeScript library for building AI agents

NASA's Voyager Found a 30k-50k Kelvin "Wall" at the Edge of Solar System

Python can run Mojo now

WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

The FPGA turns 40

Cataphract: Medieval-fantasy roleplaying wargame, in the Black-Sea C. 1300