Early in 2025, a team of six lobbyists working for General Motors visited congressional offices and government agencies across Washington, D.C. Such work is routine for large companies, but GM’s budget was not: the Detroit-based automaker would eventually spend a total of $20 million on lobbying in that year, more than almost any other U.S. company.
Exactly whom the lobbyists met is not public, but among the subjects listed in the company’s disclosures was the Transportation Freedom Act, a bill designed to take a sledgehammer to the regulatory pillars upholding the transition to electric vehicles. When the bill was introduced a year ago March, GM provided supporting quotes.
On the face of it, this looks odd. GM has set ambitious emissions targets and pledged to shift to an all-EV lineup by 2035. Those commitments were already endangered by flagging EV sales. To stand any chance of hitting its goals, the company needed the pro-EV regulation. Why, then, would GM seek to kill it?
To answer that question, Trellis examined GM’s lobbying disclosures and spoke with sustainability veterans familiar with private-sector attempts to shape government policy. What emerged is a case study on the role of lobbying strategy when immediate business goals conflict with longer-term sustainability commitments, and the options GM had for closing the gap between the two. The story also raises a second question: What happens when company lobbying helps threaten the future of an entire industry?
The lobbying
During the Biden administration, GM backed parts of the suite of regulations crafted to underpin the EV transition, including tailpipe emission limits set by the EPA, federal fuel economy targets for vehicles and a waiver granted to California that allowed the state to set its own, tougher vehicle emission rules.
But that support waned as EV sales plateaued in 2024. When Donald Trump, an avowed opponent of EVs, took office the following year, GM upped its D.C. influence efforts. Lobbyists fanned out to congressional offices and federal agencies to discuss their agenda, as well as tariffs and other issues, according to GM’s lobbying disclosures. The company also involved thousands of its white-collar employees, who in May 2025 received an email urging them to ask their senators to vote in favor of ending California’s waiver.
Other large automakers made similar arguments — Stellantis and Toyota voiced support for the Transportation Freedom Act, for example — and the EV regulations have since been gutted. In the end, the act did not advance — but it did not need to. California’s waiver was revoked in a resolution signed by Trump in June. (“GM sold us out,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom of the company’s part in the process.) Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” defanged fuel economy standards by eliminating fines for noncompliance. And in February the EPA voided its own tailpipe emissions rules.
The business case
GM and sector experts point to several reasons behind the company’s opposition to EV regulations.
Incumbent automakers currently lose money on EVs, while heavy emitters such as pickups generate healthy margins. With the rules gone, GM can pretty much pursue whatever sales strategy it prefers, a situation the markets seem to appreciate: Despite $7 billion in EV-related losses in 2025, the company’s stock rose more than 50 percent during the year.
Companies also tend to prefer regulatory consistency, which state-level exceptions complicate. That’s one reason why GM has for many years opposed California’s standards, some subset of which have been adopted by 17 other states and the District of Columbia. CEO Mary Barra “has been very vocal about one national standard,” said Cassandra Garber, GM’s chief sustainability officer. “We all want that for those of us who live and breathe sustainability. Having one standard is always better.”
In addition, automakers have long said that California’s emissions goals were impossible to hit. “We were weeks away from not being able to sell customers the cars they wanted because the penalties were so strict,” Barra said on the Decoder podcast last October.
The management options
An analysis of the 2025 lobbying by GM’s peers reveals a range of different approaches.
In August, the EPA opened a consultation on its proposal to repeal the “endangerment finding,” a 2009 decision by the agency that greenhouse gases pose a risk to human health. The finding provided the basis for the limits on tailpipe emissions and other environmental safeguards.
Automakers have said the limits were too strict, but in response to the consultation some argued for retaining the overarching rules. Ford, for instance, described the rule as out of step with “market realities,” while noting that eliminating standards altogether would undermine the stability the industry needs to justify long-term investment in new vehicles. Honda made similar comments. GM stayed silent.
Ford also joined other large businesses in March on a visit to Capitol Hill, organized by the nonprofit Ceres, to lobby in support of the clean economy. It was the only legacy automaker to do so.
There were other ways in which the legislation could have been amended without scrapping it altogether, said one leader at an environmental nonprofit, who asked not to be named to protect a relationship with GM. “They could have pushed for slightly longer timelines,” said the leader. “They could have pushed for tying the standards to charging infrastructure.”
It’s not always easy, or even possible, for sustainability teams to persuade company lobbyists to balance immediate revenue pressure with the need for long-term regulatory support for emissions reductions. Indeed, sustainability leaders sometimes complain in private that government relations departments disregard climate concerns. In general, government relations officials have one job: protect the company’s core business.
The broken feedback loop
The disconnect between lobbyists and sustainability teams breaks what’s known as the “ambition loop” between governments and businesses, said the nonprofit leader. The title comes from a 2018 report from the United Nations Global Compact and allies that advocated for companies to flag the need for climate policies by setting ambitious targets and governments to create regulatory landscapes that enable businesses to achieve them.
“Lobbying reveals to governments what companies want,” said Steve Smith, executive director of Oxford Net Zero and professor at the University of Oxford.
Breaking that loop can cause longer-term costs to be far higher than short-term financial benefits — for both consumers and businesses. With EV rules gone, lower car prices in 2030 will lead to higher sales and $15 billion of additional profit for U.S. manufacturers by 2030, according to a model developed by the nonprofit Resources for the Future. But EVs cost less to drive — so much so that higher fuel costs will leave consumers $27 billion worse off by the same date.
“We need to create the right policy environment to accelerate the EV transition,” said Deborah McNamara, executive director of Climate Voice, a nonprofit that works on corporate climate policy. “Instead we’re going in the completely opposite direction.”
U.S. automakers risk falling behind
For American automakers, those $15 billion in extra profits will matter little if they lose out to foreign competitors in the emerging market for EVs. In Europe and elsewhere, manufacturers are fighting to win market share by selling low-cost EVs, not beefy pickups. EVs now make up more than half of new car sales in China and a quarter in the European Union, compared to 8 percent in the U.S.
Chinese automaker BYD and its domestic peers are winning the race to supply those markets, aided by strong government support. By November 2025, Chinese EV exports to the EU had grown 12 percent from the year prior, to more than 600,000 vehicles. Indeed, were it not for high import tariffs, many analysts say, Chinese manufacturers would already be making inroads in the U.S. as well. Pro-EV regulations once encouraged U.S. manufacturers to innovate in order to compete with foreign rivals — but they’re now gone.
“The very real fear is that U.S. industry and government don’t look able to get out of their own way at this important moment,” said Nathan Niese, Boston Consulting Group’s global lead for EVs. “Other nations and companies are stepping in forcefully to win that future, creating distance between themselves and the slower movers with each passing day.”
