Crony Capitalism in Reverse? Trump, Tesla, and the EV Subsidy Shake-Up
In a move that sent chills throughout the automotive industry, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to discontinue subsidies for electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers, framing the decision as part of his broader effort to reduce government interference in free markets. While the action was hailed by some as a step toward fiscal responsibility, a deeper analysis indicates a paradox: the decision disproportionately benefits Tesla, the sole profitable EV manufacturer in the United States, while punishing its struggling competitors. In essence, Trump’s policy shift represents an inverse form of crony capitalism, bolstering Elon Musk’s Tesla empire by pulling support from the competition.
Tesla’s profitability has been a cornerstone of its dominance in the EV market. Unlike legacy automakers who have only recently expanded into the EV space, Tesla has maintained a consistent focus on electric vehicles, achieving economies of scale, brand loyalty, and technological superiority. In 2023, Tesla’s net income exceeded $14 billion, cementing its position as the leader in the EV industry. By contrast, other automakers—including Ford, General Motors, and new entrants—have struggled to make their EV divisions profitable. Ford, for example, reported a $1.3 billion loss in its EV division during the first quarter of 2024, translating to significant per-unit losses on every EV sold.
The federal subsidies for EVs, which included tax credits for consumers and grants for manufacturers, were designed to level the playing field, fostering innovation and encouraging the transition to sustainable energy. It was also designed to make sure that consumers had viable competition in the marketplace to choose from. By eliminating these subsidies, Trump’s policy effectively removes a crucial lifeline for companies still navigating the costly and complex shift to electric mobility. This decision disproportionately impacts manufacturers with thin (or no) profit margins or those reliant on federal support to offset the high costs of battery production and infrastructure development.
Elon Musk’s Tesla, on the other hand, stands to gain immensely from the new landscape. As the only major EV maker in the U.S. that has already achieved profitability, Tesla’s ability to compete without subsidies gives it a decisive edge. Musk himself has been critical of subsidies in the past, claiming that Tesla could thrive without them. Now, his company’s self-sufficiency has become a strategic advantage.
The irony of Trump’s decision lies in its unintended consequences. While positioned as a market-liberalizing measure, the policy reinforces the power in the hands of Tesla, effectively granting Musk a government-sanctioned protection in the EV sector. Competitors struggling to break even may find themselves unable to compete, stifling innovation and narrowing consumer choice. Rather than promoting a free market, some might argue that the decision entrenches Tesla’s dominance, creating an uneven playing field in an industry crucial to America’s energy future.
In the end, Trump’s executive order—purportedly aimed at dismantling government favoritism—might actually achieve the opposite effect. It elevates a single corporate titan while marginalizing the broader EV ecosystem, illustrating the complexities and contradictions of policy decisions in a rapidly evolving market.
In all fairness, Trump has had numerous policies designed to reduce government intervention and has proven to be a very anti-regulation President. The fact that this policy disproportionately hurts Musk’s competition, on the other hand, and considering Musk donated over a quarter of a billion dollars to Donald Trump’s election, it is very easy to be suspicious of this action.
About Author
