Is Ford Bending the Knee to Trump? Communities, Workers, and the Environment Pay the Price
By Abhilasha Bhola
In December, Ford Motor Company announced plans to shutter its battery factories in the Midwest, scrapping plans for an electric F-150 pickup truck and second generation electric transit vans, writing down a $19.5 billion loss. This financial hit follows months of Ford waffling on its electric vehicle (EV) strategy for the U.S. market. Upon the dissolution of the federal EV tax credit, Ford announced a $7,500 lease credit for electric vehicles, only to reverse course less than two weeks later.
Ford blames consumers’ shifting preferences for its pivot to producing more fossil fuel burning vehicles and the resulting job losses, increased environmental destruction, and technological stagnation. However, U.S automakers like Ford appear to be acquiescing to Trump’s destructive industrial and energy policy that prioritizes fossil fuel profits over consumers, workers, communities, and environmental and human rights protections. While Trump implements a disastrous industrial policy, the International Energy Agency reports that domestic electric vehicle sales will double to 20% by the end of 2030. Ford risks losing even more critical market share to its competitors if it continues to stall on its EV commitments.
Trump’s rollback of electric vehicle tax credits and subsidies intentionally slowed the growth of the EV market.
Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill established several roadblocks to electric vehicle deployment and manufacturing. The $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 for used EVs both expired in September 2025. Electric vehicle battery production tax credits will expire in 2028—four years earlier than initially planned—and plans were scrapped for vehicle emissions requirements. Trump also killed EV sales requirements at the federal level and in California earlier last year. Trump’s policies will slow down the electric vehicle market in the short-term, but long-term projections still point to an eventual transition to an electric future.
Half-hearted marketing and dealership markups put the electric F-150 out of reach for many consumers.
The F-150 Lightning was consistently the best-selling electric truck in the United States. Yet its rollout was marred with dealership mark-ups and half-hearted attempts at sales. The truck’s base model was advertised to start at a little over $52,000, but dealer markups and increased prices made this model increasingly out of reach for regular consumers, despite demand for the product. In 2022, the Ford F-150 Lightning Platinum’s MSRP was approximately $92,662, but some dealers had marked up the price by over 50% to $145,308.
Dealership markups may have been driven by EV’s decreased maintenance costs. Dealerships and automotive companies have an incentive to focus on vehicles that generate a profit on aftermarket parts and repairs, because that is where much of their profit is made. And, reports have shown that dealerships are unenthusiastic about selling electric vehicles and oppose improved fuel efficiency standards. The value to dealers of ordinary service, maintenance, and repairs falls 60% with electric vehicles compared to their internal combustion engine counterparts.
Ford’s broken promises put communities, workers, and our climate in danger.
Reversing the electric vehicle transition comes at a cost. Communities across the Midwest and South were depending on investments in the EV battery supply chain which would provide thousands of living wage jobs for communities left behind after deindustrialization. Most recently, Kentucky took some of the biggest losses due to Trump’s policies.
In 2021, Ford announced a new battery manufacturing facility in Glendale, Kentucky, a town located in Pike County which has a poverty rate of 25%, more than double the national average. Ford promised billions of dollars in investment in the region and the creation of over 5,000 jobs. The state of Kentucky, the 5th poorest state in the country, subsidized the plant with beneficial terms on a $250 million loan and millions in land transfers.
This new plant would have had ripple effects across the local economy. A 2021 analysis by a University of Louisville professor shows the 5,000 new jobs created by the facility would have supported 6,300 more supplier, retail, and homebuilding jobs in the region. Each dollar spent paying a Kentucky Blue Oval worker resulted in almost an additional dollar spent on payroll in the supply chain and businesses across the region.
In December, Ford announced the dissolution of its partnership with SK On and its contracts with LG for battery production—further blows to the Kentucky economy. As a result, 1600 workers will be laid off in the state as the company retools its existing factories for battery energy storage system (BESS) production. The lay-offs came after a majority of eligible workers at the Kentucky battery facility voted to join the United Autoworkers Union. And, now Ford risks having to pay back a $250 million loan to the state of Kentucky–that would have been forgiven had the company met its job creation goals.
Trump and the Republican party continue to tout their commitment to creating more manufacturing jobs, yet their attacks on EV subsidies and climate progress are destroying jobs while a third of middle-class families struggle to afford basic necessities and wages lag behind skyrocketing inflation.
Ford’s decision to end its F-150 electric and e-transit lines and introduce more hybrids means more climate-warming and health-harming emissions. The transportation sector is the largest emitter of global warming emissions in the United States, with a majority of these emissions coming from SUVs, pick-up trucks, and cars. Transportation-related emissions annually account for between 20,000-50,000 particulate matter-related deaths and 5,000 ozone-related deaths in the U.S.
Ford’s own research corroborates the climate benefits of electrifying large vehicles. Larger, heavier internal combustion engine vehicles, such as the F-150 and transit vans, tend to have higher lifecycle emissions than their smaller counterparts. According to a study by researchers at the University of Michigan and Ford Motors, switching from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles “results in greater absolute emissions reductions as vehicle size increases, due to the greater fuel consumption of larger vehicles.” Offering electric versions of larger, heavier vehicles results in greater reductions of lifetime vehicle emissions and can result in improvements in air quality and public health.
Ford’s decision to repurpose its EV battery plant for data centers and grid storage could be a risky strategy.
As Ford has reduced its planned electric vehicle line-up, it now has a glut of battery production capacity. The company announced a $2 billion investment to retool the Kentucky battery plant to produce battery energy storage systems (BESS) for grid, commercial, and data center use. But battery energy storage market dynamics—alongside growing global demand for EVs—risk the profitability of this strategy.
Battery energy storage systems are projected to hit installation records until 2035. This industry is highly competitive—the price of battery cells decreased to a record low in 2025, primarily due to oversupply in battery production. This indicates tighter margins and increasing pressure on manufacturers to produce low-cost batteries. Ford will not begin shipping energy storage batteries until 2027 and is facing steep competition from other automakers like Tesla and GM who have already begun BESS production.
The explosion of data center construction is a major driver of BESS demand, but some investors and analysts are concerned that the AI boom may lead to an AI bust. They believe the AI industry is overvalued and has not demonstrated sufficient gains in worker productivity to be profitable in the future. And, many communities are standing up in opposition to data centers which drive up the cost of electricity, consume massive amounts of fresh water, and provide few benefits to local economies.
Ford is betting on a strategy to retool its existing facilities to enter a fiercely competitive battery storage industry that could suddenly contract. Retooling the facility for BESS could allow the company to build and maintain expertise in battery production in hopes that there is a change in federal policy. But as Ford invests in new battery industries, their competitors will continue to innovate and make the EVs of the future.
Ford risks becoming a laggard if it continues to invest in outdated internal combustion engine technology, particularly in the European market.
Despite slowing electric vehicle sales in the United States, global sales were up 21% in 2025, driven primarily by the Chinese and European markets. In 2025, Chinese electric auto manufacturer BYD surpassed Tesla in global EV sales. Chinese automakers now account for half of all EVs sold globally. In defiance of global tailwinds for the EV transition, Ford is doubling down on the combustion engine in the European market and lobbying lawmakers to loosen vehicle emission rules. And while Ford invests in outdated fossil fuel technology, BYD announced that it sold 400% more cars in 2025 compared to 2024 and hopes to double its European points of sale in 2026.
By Ford CEO Jim Farley’s own admission, the company risks ceding ground to Chinese automakers unless it continues to innovate. Most of Ford’s sales occur outside of the United States, and Chinese automakers are already capturing these markets. Upon returning from a trip to China, Jim Farley described the Chinese automotive industry as “the most humbling thing I’ve ever seen.” He went on to say, “[w]e are in a global competition with China, and it’s not just EVs. And if we lose this we do not have a future at Ford.”
Ford’s new European strategy contradicts its stated intention to remain competitive with China. International markets are important for Ford to remain a global competitor in the automotive industry, and strategies that continue to cede ground to other electric vehicle manufacturers could create medium- to long-term risk for the company.
With Ford killing most of its electric vehicle offerings, its EV hopes now hinge on the Universal EV platform which the company alleges will deliver low-cost vehicles. The Universal EV platform is a manufacturing process currently under development that streamlines production and lowers costs. But, none of these vehicles have hit the market, and we will not see the results of these innovations for another two years. By that time, other car companies will have innovated, produced, and sold many more electric vehicles.
Ford’s decision to end critical electric vehicle lines puts workers, communities, our environment, and the company itself at risk. Ford must stop acquiescing to the Trump administration and start making the right decisions for consumers, workers, and its own future.
Ford’s decision to scale back its electric vehicle aspirations in service to the Trump administration risks the economic future of many of the workers at battery manufacturing facilities, the surrounding communities, and the air we breathe. This short-sighted pivot to battery energy storage systems primarily for data center build out may not help Ford recoup its losses, and risks putting the company even further behind competitors. Ford must recommit meeting its vehicle electrification goals while supporting family-sustaining, good union jobs in the United States and stop acquiescing to the destructive Trump Agenda.