The slow deployment of the $7B federal EV charging program wasn't a failure but a deliberate choice. Buttigieg's team prioritized state-level program design and mandating US-made chargers, accepting a longer timeline to foster local innovation and a domestic supply chain.

Related Insights

While outright fraud in government spending is low (under 1%), Buttigieg argues the real financial drain is waste from inefficiency. He points to project cost escalations and procedural roadblocks as far more significant sources of wasted taxpayer money than criminal fraud.

Buttigieg argues that while AVs can save thousands of lives, a conservative regulatory approach is paradoxically the fastest path to adoption. A handful of highly-publicized accidents can destroy public acceptance, so ensuring safety upfront is critical for long-term success, even if it slows initial deployment.

Unlike the U.S. government's recent strategy of backing single "champions" like Intel, China's successful industrial policy in sectors like EVs involves funding numerous competing companies. This state-fostered domestic competition is a key driver of their rapid innovation and market dominance.

Buttigieg argues the government's essential function is investing in foundational, high-risk ideas like the internet or basic research. These ventures have massive potential but don't offer the short-term returns or clear monetization paths required by the private sector due to market failures.

Contrary to political narratives, US red states have been leaders in renewable energy deployment. The motivation is not climate ideology but practical, local benefits: landowner income, energy independence, and reducing local air pollution. This suggests a powerful, non-partisan path for the energy transition.

The administration killed a tax credit that directly spurred billions in investment for new EV and battery factories, primarily in Republican-led states. This move is described as "the most anti-manufacturing thing that you possibly could do."

The credit's requirements for North American manufacturing and sourcing from trade partners were designed to counter China's dominance in the EV supply chain. Its elimination undermines this strategic goal, leaving tariffs as the primary, less effective tool.

Unlike competitors creating isolated 'skunkworks' teams for EV development, GM pursues a steady, integrated approach. The company believes this avoids the 'ingestion risk' of bringing a radical project back into the main organization, allowing innovations in battery tech and architecture to scale more quickly and efficiently across its massive global portfolio.

Anticipating that independence from China will be a long-term, bipartisan US policy goal, Rivian intentionally designed its new R2 supply chain to be U.S.-centric. This strategic planning aims to align the business with persistent geopolitical trends, rather than just reacting to current tariffs.

Without government incentives to offset high costs, American carmakers like Ford are now forced to pursue radical manufacturing innovations and smaller vehicle platforms, directly citing Chinese competitors like BYD as the model for profitable, affordable EVs.