Detroit’s biggest carmakers are leaning harder into gasoline and hybrids just as the global regulatory and competitive landscape is tilting toward cleaner vehicles. Their short term profits still depend on trucks and SUVs that burn a lot of fuel, but the policy, trade, and technology signals around them are getting more volatile, not less. The result is a widening gap between what sells in the United States today and what will be required to compete in the rest of the world.
I see that gap as the core of Detroit’s “gas problem”: the more the Detroit Three double down on combustion at home, the more exposed they become to policy whiplash, foreign rivals, and shifting rules in key markets. The latest moves in Washington, Brussels, and Beijing suggest that this tension is not easing, it is accelerating.
The global rules are tightening while Detroit leans on gas
Outside the United States, regulators are still pushing carmakers toward lower emissions, even if the path is getting messier. In Europe, the EU has locked in a 2025 Car CO2 target that analysts describe as both reachable and feasible, a sign that policymakers expect manufacturers to keep cutting fleet emissions rather than pausing the transition. Detailed work on the EU Car CO2 target underscores that compliance will rely on a rising share of efficient and zero emission models, not a resurgence of traditional gasoline engines.
At the same time, European politicians are wrestling with how fast to phase out combustion entirely, which has created its own uncertainty. Reporting that the European Union is preparing to scrap a previously signaled combustion engine ban, based on a wire from Bloomberg reporters John Ainger, Ewa Krukowska and Alberto Nardelli, shows how contested the endgame has become, but it does not change the near term reality that emissions limits are tightening. For Detroit automakers that still earn most of their money from gasoline trucks and SUVs, this means the rest of the world is moving toward stricter standards even as they pivot back to their most carbon intensive products.
Ford’s EV retreat exposes a strategic fork in the road
Ford’s recent decision to slow its electric vehicle rollout crystallizes the strategic dilemma facing Detroit. The company has taken a sizable writedown on its EV investments and is now openly debating whether to prioritize the demands of the U.S. market or align more closely with global rules and consumer trends. Analysis of Ford and its EV retreat frames this as a choice between building for the United States, where EV sales have sagged, and building for the world, where regulators and buyers are still pushing toward electrification.
That same reporting notes that U.S. electric vehicle sales sank to around 5% of the market after policies under President Trump took effect, a stark reminder of how sensitive adoption has been to federal incentives and rules. When a company like Ford sees EV demand stall at home while facing costly investments and political headwinds, the temptation to fall back on profitable gasoline models is obvious. Yet the more Ford or its Detroit peers orient their product plans around a 5% EV share in the United States, the harder it becomes to match the expectations of Europe, China, and other regions that are still tightening emissions standards.
Tariffs and trade fights are squeezing the Detroit Three
Layered on top of the technology shift is a bruising trade environment that hits Detroit’s legacy business model directly. The Detroit Three have reported that tariffs imposed under President Trump are taking a significant bite out of their bottom lines, raising the cost of imported parts and complicating export strategies. Coverage of how the Detroit Three are absorbing tariff blows describes executives and experts warning that these trade measures are eroding margins and adding uncertainty to long term planning.
For companies already wrestling with the capital demands of electrification, those tariff costs make it even more tempting to squeeze every last dollar out of gasoline trucks and SUVs sold in the United States. Yet tariffs also make it harder to build globally competitive EV supply chains, since batteries, critical minerals, and electronics often cross borders multiple times. The more the Detroit Three are boxed into a high cost, tariff laden environment at home, the more vulnerable they become to foreign automakers that can spread their EV investments across larger, less fragmented markets.
Delaying EVs while celebrating the 40 m F-Series
Nowhere is Detroit’s renewed embrace of gasoline clearer than in its production decisions. Reporting on recent product plans shows that Detroit automakers are delaying some electric models and shifting focus back to gasoline and hybrids, particularly in the lucrative truck and SUV segments. One emblematic milestone is that Ford’s 40 millionth F-Series pickup rolled off the assembly line in 2022, a figure that highlights just how central this truck family is to the company’s identity and profits. The celebration of that 40 m F-Series milestone sits alongside decisions to prioritize combustion and hybrid variants over full battery electric versions.
From a short term financial perspective, this pivot makes sense. Trucks like the F-150, Chevrolet Silverado, and Ram are high margin products that can be sold in large volumes with relatively modest incremental investment compared with clean sheet EV platforms. But each delayed electric pickup or SUV pushes Detroit further out of sync with markets that are tightening CO2 rules and nurturing domestic EV champions. The more the Detroit Three celebrate gasoline milestones, the more they risk being remembered as the last great era of combustion rather than the first wave of a competitive electric future.
China and other rivals are not slowing down
While Detroit recalibrates, foreign competitors are racing ahead, especially in China. The EV market there has become intensely competitive, with domestic manufacturers gaining tremendous momentum and exporting their vehicles and technology abroad. Analysis of how the Detroit 3 are pulling back on EV production notes that this retreat is happening just as Chinese brands are strengthening their position in global electric vehicle markets.
That divergence matters because the technologies and scale advantages built in China will not stay confined to one country. As Chinese automakers refine low cost batteries, software, and manufacturing techniques, they are likely to bring those capabilities into Europe and other regions where Detroit still hopes to sell vehicles. If the Detroit Three spend the next several years milking gasoline profits while Chinese and other foreign rivals keep compounding their EV lead, the gap in cost, performance, and brand perception could become very hard to close.
Trump’s fuel economy rollback gives Detroit more room to burn
Domestic policy is reinforcing Detroit’s instinct to stick with gasoline. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and abbreviated as NHTSA, has advanced a proposal under President Trump that would significantly reduce future fuel economy and emissions requirements. Reporting on how Detroit automakers reacted to the NHTSA rollback describes the plan as a major loosening of standards that would allow more leeway for larger, less efficient vehicles.
President Trump has gone further by publicly unveiling eased fuel economy rules and touting them as a way to lower car prices and boost domestic production. Those changes allow automakers like the Detroit Three, at least while Trump is in office, to sell as many of their higher emission trucks and SUVs as the market will bear, since those vehicles are major profit drivers for the companies. Coverage of the event where Trump hosted the Detroit Three makes clear that the administration sees deregulation as a way to extend the life of gasoline heavy lineups. For Detroit executives, that is an invitation to double down on their most profitable combustion products, even if it deepens their exposure to future policy reversals.
Automakers helped create their own policy whiplash
One irony in the current moment is that automakers themselves have contributed to the regulatory uncertainty they now decry. Industry leaders have at times called for ambitious national climate and fuel economy policies, only to lobby against specific rules when they threaten near term profits. A recent column on regulatory uncertainty notes that They, meaning the major automakers, previously urged “bold action from our partners in the federal government,” including “a strong nationwide greenhouse gas emissions program,” before later warning about the costs of rapid change. That tension is captured in an analysis of how They helped create policy whiplash around NHTSA and fuel economy rules.
From my perspective, this pattern has left Detroit with the worst of both worlds. By pushing for flexibility and rollbacks when it suited them, the Detroit Three weakened the predictability that long term investments in EVs and cleaner technologies require. At the same time, their public commitments to climate goals and cleaner fleets have raised expectations among regulators, investors, and consumers that they will eventually deliver. The result is a credibility gap: Detroit argues that it needs stable rules to plan, but its own shifting positions have made those rules less stable.
European warnings highlight the stakes for Detroit
European automakers are sounding their own alarms about the risks of a chaotic transition, and those warnings should resonate in Detroit. Stellantis, which has deep roots in both Europe and North America, has warned that a particular issue could destroy the European auto industry, underscoring how fragile the sector feels as it juggles emissions rules, trade tensions, and the EV shift. Reporting that Stellantis fears a threat to the European industry shows that even large, diversified players are worried about being squeezed between policy demands and global competition.
For the Detroit Three, those European anxieties are a preview of what can happen when governments, companies, and markets move out of sync. If Stellantis, with its European footprint and access to multiple brands, sees existential risk in the current environment, then Detroit’s heavy reliance on U.S. truck and SUV profits looks even more precarious. The lesson is not that regulators should back off entirely, but that automakers who delay investment in cleaner technologies while leaning on political favors can find themselves exposed when the policy winds shift again.
Detroit’s gas dependence is a shrinking moat
Put together, these threads show why Detroit’s reliance on gasoline is becoming a liability rather than a moat. The EU is tightening near term CO2 targets even as it rethinks long term bans, China is nurturing aggressive EV champions, and European firms like Stellantis are warning about existential threats to their industry. In the United States, President Trump and NHTSA have given the Detroit Three more room to sell high emission trucks and SUVs, and Ford’s retreat from EVs reflects a market where electric sales have slipped to around 5% after federal policy shifts.
I see a narrow window in which Detroit can use its gasoline profits to fund a credible, globally competitive transition, but that window is closing as foreign rivals scale up and policy uncertainty deepens. The more the Detroit Three celebrate milestones like the 40 m F-Series and lean on deregulation to extend the life of combustion, the more they risk waking up to a world where their core products are out of step with regulations, consumer expectations, and the technologies that define the next era of the auto industry.
More from MorningOverview