> The US administration has basically told them to do so.

Any US automaker relying on Trump staying in office is playing with fire. Yes, you may see reduced or zero press releases and budgets for EV research being "reallocated" on paper so the toddler in chief doesn't get a public tantrum - but assuming there will be free and fair elections this year, it is highly, highly likely that Congress will be solid blue and reinstate a lot of what Trump has cut down, only this time as an actual law that is far harder to cancel than executive orders.

And everyone not hedging for this possibility will wreck their company's future.

There is no realistic path to a veto-proof majority for Democrats in the midterm elections. If there was, Trump would be impeached and removed before EVs were addressed.

Don't expect any movement on EV legislation unless and until Democrats take back the White House in 2028

I would prefer that when the dems dive back into EV subsidies, they fly them under the radar instead of using tax credits for buyers. Lots of people actually believe that their fossil fuel is not subsidized, so we need to use the same techniques to actually help manufacturers bring competitive EVs to market.

It would be better to remove all subsidies, so the true cost is revealed to and paid by the consumer. It would be a bit difficult to remove all fossil fuel subsidies though, since that would include a large part of the defence (sorry war) budget that is spent keeping the oil flowing.

It would be better for governments to provide tax credits / subsidies to battery manufacturing facilities than it would be to directly subsidize consumers. The hope being the cheaper battery component cost gets passed onto consumers.

Vehicle sales subsidies frankly just end up rolled into the price as a markup.

The Canadian government here partially has the right idea in only subsidizing vehicles under a 50k CAD ($36k USD) price tier -- unless they're manufactured in Canada. But I don't think that barrier is low enough. Should be $40k or even less. Our subsidy also takes the form of a direct cash subsidy instead of a tax credit -- which is regressive and helps people less in lower income tiers who don't pay much in income taxes.

What did the administration say to them?

Axed EV subsidization, openly called EVs -- and climate change -- a scam, and then made noises about cutting emissions standards, and aggressively pursued fossil fuel expansion?

That and threw tariffs on the auto makers parts and imports such that their businesses are under threat?

GM just axed the Bolt again. The only domestic affordable EV. Stellantis killed all of theirs, from what I hear. And Ford has pulled back as well.

I don't understand your questions, please rephrase them.

Anyway I'm still curious about the mechanism the administration used to direct manufacturers to stop producing EVs, and how they could invoke such a power without covering Telsa or Rivian. Nothing about the administration would surprise me, but I'm surprised there hasn't been more noise made about it.

There is never such thing as "direct action" it is not as if the current president came down and said electric vehicles are banned.

Rather it's a series of policy decisions to try and stunt reemerging technologies

Why isn't there ever such thing as "direct action"? Seems like a bold claim.

Anyway that doesn't answer my question, I was asking the other poster what was targeting EV manufacturers except for Telsa or Rivian. Seems like blatant Musk and Scaringe corruption if that was so.