美國總統川普在重新掌權後迅速對汽車產業祭出重大政策轉向，他宣布將全面「鬆綁」汽車燃油經濟性標準（CAFE規範），放寬車廠在燃油效率、排放與油耗方面的要求。這被視為對傳統油車的一份巨大禮物，因為這項調整預計將讓每輛新車的平均成本降低約 1000 美元，直接改變美國汽車市場的結構，甚至可能對全球汽車產業帶來劇烈震盪。這一政策行動隨即引發外界關注：美國難道不想走電動車路線了？川普為何要如此大幅度逆轉能源與交通政策？

此次政策的核心，是川普政府認為拜登政府制定的燃油經濟性標準過於嚴苛，迫使車廠不得不投入龐大成本改善引擎效率、減輕車身重量，或被迫推動電動車比例，以達到法規要求。這些額外成本最終都轉嫁到消費者身上，使美國新車的售價大幅攀升，尤其在中低收入家庭中引發購車壓力。川普團隊指出，美國汽車的平均售價在近年飆升至超過 4 萬美元，部分原因就是過度嚴格的節能法規所造成。放寬標準能讓車廠有更大彈性，也能用降低成本的方式「實質刺激汽車市場」，讓美國人不用為環保政策「付出高昂代價」。

由於美國汽車市場龐大，政策立即引發國際關注。拜登政府曾以電動車為核心政策，全力推動EV普及，包括補貼購車、強制提高電動車市占率、並要求車廠在2032年前將油耗效率提升至史無前例的高標準。然而川普認為這些政策「犧牲美國消費者利益」，並指責電動車成本過高、充電基礎設施不足、電池供應鏈受中國掌控。他強調，美國應該讓市場自由選擇，而不是用法規強迫消費者購買電動車。

此舉立即造成市場震盪。車廠普遍對政策鬆綁表示歡迎，因為合規成本的顯著降低代表利潤率得以提升，且能更靈活調整油車與電車的生產比例。然而，與拜登時代不同，電動車業者與充電基礎建設公司則面臨不小壓力。若政策全面改變，美國電動車銷量增速可能放緩甚至出現明顯衰退，全球車企的電動化策略也可能被迫調整，尤其是特斯拉、比亞迪以及德國車廠，都可能重新評估對美國市場的投資節奏。

另外，環保團體對川普政策表示強烈不滿，認為放寬標準將使美國每年的石油消耗增加，導致更多碳排放，也讓美國在全球能源轉型潮流中「做逆向操作」。但川普政府的官員則反駁，稱嚴格的節能標準無法有效推動能源轉型，只會抬高車價並削弱美國工業競爭力。

至於川普為何要這麼做，除了經濟面之外，也包含政治與戰略考量。降低車價能在短期內贏得中產階級與藍領家庭的支持，而這些群體正是美國汽車消費的主力。此外，川普意圖重振美國製造業，降低法規壓力能鼓勵車廠在美國本土擴大生產。再者，川普對中國電動車產業強烈戒心，他多次表示不希望美國高度依賴中國電池與關鍵零組件，因此放緩電動車政策能避免美國在短期內被迫依賴中國供應鏈。

整體而言，川普大幅鬆綁燃油經濟性標準，是一項牽動美國消費、製造、能源甚至地緣競爭的重大政策轉彎。這可能讓美國汽車市場重新偏向燃油車，減緩電動車普及速度，也可能在全球引發「油車與電車之戰」的新一輪布局。在環保、經濟與政治交錯的背景下，川普的決定勢必在全球汽車產業掀起持續性的震盪。

U.S. President Donald Trump, after returning to power, swiftly introduced a major policy shift for the automobile industry. He announced a comprehensive rollback of the nation’s fuel-economy standards (CAFE regulations), easing requirements on fuel efficiency, emissions, and gasoline consumption. This move is widely seen as a substantial gift to traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, as the relaxation of standards is expected to lower the average production cost of each new car by roughly USD 1,000. The impact of this policy change could reshape the U.S. auto market and trigger significant disruptions across the global automotive landscape. The shift has therefore raised an immediate question: has the United States stopped favoring electric vehicles, and why is Trump choosing to move in this direction?

At the heart of this policy lies the belief within Trump’s administration that the stricter standards built under the Biden administration were overly burdensome. Automakers were required to invest large sums to improve engine efficiency, reduce vehicle weight, and increase their electric-vehicle output in order to comply with the regulations. These costs were ultimately passed on to consumers, driving U.S. car prices sharply higher. The average price of a new vehicle in the country has surged above USD 40,000 in recent years, and the Trump team argues that excessively stringent fuel-economy rules played a significant role. By loosening these standards, the administration aims to give automakers more flexibility while reducing costs for consumers, effectively stimulating the automobile market and ensuring that Americans are not forced to “pay for environmental policies” through higher prices.

Because the U.S. car market is enormous, the policy shift attracted global attention immediately. The Biden administration had previously placed electric vehicles at the center of its climate and industrial strategy, offering subsidies, mandating higher EV adoption rates, and requiring carmakers to meet historically high fuel-efficiency targets by 2032. Trump, in contrast, insists these policies “hurt American consumers,” arguing that EVs are too expensive, charging infrastructure is insufficient, and the battery supply chain remains overly dependent on China. He stresses that the market—not federal regulation—should decide what cars Americans drive.

The market response has been significant. Traditional automakers generally welcomed the deregulation, since lighter compliance burdens translate into reduced costs and greater profitability. It also gives them more room to adjust the balance between gasoline cars and electric vehicles in their production lines. On the other hand, EV manufacturers and charging-infrastructure companies are facing pressure. With policy momentum shifting, the growth of U.S. EV sales could slow sharply or even decline, forcing global carmakers—including Tesla, BYD, and major German automakers—to reassess investments and product strategies for the American market.

Environmental groups fiercely criticized Trump’s move, arguing that weakening standards will increase national gasoline consumption, raise carbon emissions, and place the United States out of step with the global energy-transition trend. The Trump administration counters that overly aggressive environmental regulations do not meaningfully accelerate decarbonization and instead inflate car prices while undermining the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing.

As for why Trump is taking this approach, the motivations extend beyond economics. Lower car prices appeal strongly to middle-class and working-class households, key voter bases in America’s heartland and industrial regions. Trump also seeks to bolster U.S. manufacturing by reducing regulatory pressure on carmakers, encouraging more production within the United States. Additionally, Trump has repeatedly expressed deep concerns about China’s dominance in the EV supply chain. By slowing down electric-vehicle mandates, he hopes to prevent the U.S. from becoming heavily dependent on Chinese batteries and critical components in the short term.

Overall, Trump’s decision to loosen fuel-economy standards represents a major policy reversal that touches on consumer interests, manufacturing strategy, energy security, and geopolitical competition. It may tilt the U.S. auto market back toward gasoline vehicles, slow the adoption of electric cars, and set off a new round of strategic recalibration across the global automotive industry. In the tension between environmental goals, economic realities, and political considerations, Trump’s dramatic shift is certain to send long-lasting ripples throughout the world’s automotive landscape.