The first-mover advantage is something Tesla continues to capitalize on. It’s been over 20 years since the brand first launched, and no other automaker in the U.S. has even come close to challenging Tesla’s dominance in the EV space. Despite the growing competition, Tesla still holds a commanding market share, which hovers around 45%.

More: House Speaker Says EV Tax Credits Are Likely Finished

However, if House Republicans succeed in their push, the company’s position could be further strengthened, but at a cost to legacy automakers like Ford and GM. The reason? A looming change to the Federal Tax Credit that currently helps all EV makers sell vehicles.

The Current EV Tax Credit System

At the moment, those who buy a new or used EV in America might qualify for one of two credits. New car buyers can qualify for up to $7,500, and used car buyers can get up to $4,000. These credits are in addition to various state incentives, such as the $5,000 credit in Colorado and $3,500 in Massachusetts.

To be eligible, the vehicle must meet certain requirements, such as North American assembly and specific sourcing of battery materials. SUVs and pickups are eligible for the credit if priced under $80,000, while regular cars must be under $55,000. Income limits also apply: individuals making under $150,000 and couples under $300,000 qualify. For leased vehicles, the credit goes to the leasing company, which often (but not always) passes on the savings to customers, contributing to a rise in EV leases.

That might not seem like a huge chunk of change considering the price of some EVs, but in reality, it plays a huge role in sales. For instance, in 2022, before the introduction of the tax credit, 96,000 EVs were leased. By 2023, that number skyrocketed to nearly 600,000. But a recent budget bill released on Monday proposes ending both the new and used car credits, along with several other non-automotive tax incentives.

A Slower EV Adoption Could Hurt Major Automakers

According to a report from the New York Times, Cox Automotive’s Stephanie Valdez Streaty believes that almost a third of car sales in 2030 will be EVs if the credit stays as it is. However, should the government get rid of it, that figure could drop to just 20 percent. Slowing the adoption of EVs wouldn’t just be a potential backsliding for environmentalists, it could hit big automakers like GM and Ford in a big way.

Those brands are still trying to get to the point where their EV businesses are profitable. And their far from it with their numbers. On the other hand, Tesla hit that mark long ago, so while other players will need to sort out new strategies, it can continue to reap the benefits of being the first to market in the way it was.

Other legacy automakers, such as Toyota, Hyundai, and Kia, have made significant investments in U.S.-based EV production, but they too could face a major setback if the bill passes. The removal of these credits would undermine the financial viability of the incentives that made their business cases profitable.

EV Startups Face Even Greater Financial Pressure

Although Tesla would also be impacted by the removal of the tax credit, it stands to gain in ways its rivals cannot. While Tesla may be able to withstand lower sales, many of its competitors will not have that luxury and could be forced to shut down. Newcomers like Rivian and Lucid, for example, would face immense financial pressure as their sales figures don’t support a profitable business model.

Even smaller, more recent startups like Slate would likely have to review their entire business plan. What, after all, is the point of a tiny EV trucklet with 150 miles of range, no desirable mainstream features, and a price that is as high as a Ford Maverick?

In the grand scheme, while Tesla will undoubtedly be affected, the long-term payoff could be substantial. It may emerge as the dominant force in the EV market with little to no competition to contend with. In other words, instead of having 45% of the EV market’s 33% of car sales, it could end up with double that of the predicted 20%.

In the grand scheme, Tesla will undoubtedly face challenges, but the long-term payoff could be massive. It might emerge as the dominant force in the EV market with little to no competition to contend with in America. Instead of holding 45% of the EV market’s 33% share of total car sales, Tesla might dominate nearly the entire 20% share that EVs are expected to capture in the 2030s if tax credits vanish, while also further extending its technological lead in the field.

“What this does globally to the U.S. auto industry and its ability to compete – I think it’s going to hurt us,” Ms. Valdez Streaty said. “I think it’s going to slow us down, and we are already behind China.”

Eric Cantona, part soccer god, part walking headline, has never been one to shy away from making a scene. The man who once famously launched a “kung fu kick” into an opposing football fan’s chest after he hurled abuse at him, is now getting a tribute from Ford, in the form of a one-off electric Capri. And if that doesn’t scream “Cantona,” we’re not sure what does.

That said, we can’t help but wonder if it’s really a great idea for a company to celebrate a physical assault, no matter how legendary, even under the guise of a cheeky nod. But hey, who needs restraint when there’s branding to be done, right?

More: Ford’s Capri Has Regenerated Almost As Many Times As Dr Who

Cantona, who teamed up with Ford to relaunch the Capri, is a football legend, widely hailed as one of the best to don Manchester United’s red, with four Premier League titles in five years to back up the claim. Not bad for a guy who could get as much attention for his temper as he did for his talent.

Beyond his undeniable talent on the field, “King Eric” is also remembered for his explosive attitude, which got him into some serious trouble in 1995. During an away match, he launched a kick – and a punch- at a fan from the opposing team. As a result, Cantona faced fines, community service, and a lengthy ban from the sport. But of course, he made his comeback, bagging more titles before retiring early in 1997 at the ripe age of 30.

As a nod to this high-profile incident, the headrests of the one-off Capri feature the outline of Cantona’s figure doing the infamous “kung fu kick”. Another bespoke feature is the polished Plexiglass insert on the center console with a backlit script that reads: “When a goat follows his hero in his car, it’s because the ruler on the racetrack returns. The Legend is back.”

The interior of the EV features the Feeltek Luxury Grain trim, contrasting with stripes, accents, and stitching in Signal Orange. The same color has been applied to the exterior, as a reference to the Mark III Capri from the 70s. The striking color is combined with black racing stripes and the number 7 on the profile, mirroring Cantona’s shirt number at Manchester United.

More: David Beckham Creates Personalized Maserati MC20 Inspired By Miami United FC

Other standout features include a bespoke rear spoiler, 21-inch alloy wheels, a 3D crown badge on the D-pillars, and Cantona’s signature displayed on the front fenders, right next to the Ford Design logo. Underneath, however, it’s business as usual, as the one-off is based on the Capri RWD Extended Range trim, with no other changes to speak of.

The special Capri was crafted by a handpicked team of Ford designers, who no doubt spent a fair amount of time brainstorming with Cantona himself. The final product was then unveiled to the man of the hour in a special ceremony at Ford France’s headquarters

Ford Europe

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, will hear cases related to President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Thursday are set to hear oral arguments in three cases stemming from the Trump administration’s attempt to end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship — though the focus may be on the power of district court judges to issue orders with national effects.

It’s one of the first major legal fights of the Trump administration’s second term to reach the high court, and one of several immigration-related emergency requests to be considered.

The justices have before them three challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, from courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to focus instead on whether lower court judges can issue nationwide injunctions, rather than the constitutionality of the executive order. Such injunctions affect everyone in the country and not just those involved in the case or living in the court’s district.

It is up to the court alone to decide, though, what it wants to consider, and justices could also wade into the birthright citizenship question.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than a quarter of a million children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a new study by the think tank Migration Policy Institute.

It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.

The lawyers who will be making oral arguments in court are New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum and Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

In briefs, they argue that the Trump administration has not shown it will be harmed by the multiple district courts placing the executive order on hold.

On the core issue of birthright citizenship, in their briefs, they argue that the 14th Amendment “guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and cite Supreme Court cases that have upheld birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S.

Nine justices, three cases

The nine justices will hear arguments on whether lower courts erred in granting a nationwide pause on the policy that extended beyond the plaintiffs who initially filed the challenge.

Immigrant rights’ groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens filed the case in Maryland; four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — filed the case in Washington state; and 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who will argue on behalf of the Trump administration, has criticized the nationwide injunctions as impeding the executive branch’s authority. 

The Trump administration has contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, the Trump administration said, the injunctions should be limited to those who brought the challenges.

Wong Kim Ark case

On Trump’s Inauguration Day, he signed an executive order, which was originally planned to go into effect Feb. 19, that children born in the United States would not be automatically guaranteed citizenship if their parents were in the country without legal authorization or if they were on a temporary legal basis such as a work or student visa.

Birthright citizenship was adopted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War, to establish citizenship for newly freed Black people. In 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court initially denied citizenship to Black people, whether they were free or enslaved.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, when the justices ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the U.S. are citizens.

In that case, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had a temporary legal authority to be in the country, such as a visa.

When Ark left the U.S. for a trip to China, on his return his citizenship was not recognized and he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

The high court eventually ruled that children born in the United States to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

In arguments in the lower courts on the current case, attorneys on behalf of the Trump administration argue that the Wong Kim Ark case was misinterpreted and pointed to a phrase in the 14th Amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction.”

The Trump administration contends that phrase means that birthright citizenship only applies to children born to parents who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In their view, people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

Tribal sovereignty

Tribal law scholars have noted that the language pertaining to “jurisdiction of” stems from the idea of political alliance when it comes to tribal sovereignty.

It’s from another Supreme Court case involving the U.S. citizenship of American Indian citizens, which the Trump administration focuses on in its argument, citing Elk v. Wilkins in 1884.

In that case, the Supreme Court denied citizenship to John Elk, a Winnebago man living in Omaha, Nebraska, on the grounds that “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities.”

Torey Dolan, an assistant professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said the Trump administration’s reliance on Elk in its birthright citizenship executive order and the idea the political alliance of a parent would then transfer to a child is a misinterpretation.

“A lot of this reliance on Elk is really a distortion,” Dolan said. “I think the administration’s reliance is a stretch, at best, and a bastardization of the case, at worst.”

Dolan, an enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, said some Native Americans were excluded from citizenship in the 14th Amendment because during that time, Congress would specifically sign treaties with tribes and grant citizenship.

“That is consistent with a long history of Congress creating pathways to Indian citizenship,” she said.

After the justices hear arguments on Thursday, any decision is likely to come before the Supreme Court’s recess in early July. 

Ford’s Bronco family is about to get a whole lot bigger, and it looks like China will be the first to see the new addition. A camouflaged SUV sporting Bronco badges and styling has been spotted in China, giving us an early glimpse of an upcoming high-riding model from Ford. This SUV is clearly a departure from the US-spec Bronco Sport and will join the mid-size five-door Bronco already on sale in China.

More: Chinese Galaxy Battleship Floats Two Hours Straight While Pretending It’s A Defender

This mysterious SUV was included in Ford’s latest product plan for China, which was announced just last month. While the official announcement kept things vague, spy shots from Autohome have given us a few juicy details about what could be the third member of Ford’s ever-expanding Bronco family.

Design Details and Familiar Features

The camouflaged prototype boasts a boxy, rugged design reminiscent of the growing number of SUVs from China. The headlights carry a Bronco Sport influence, though they forgo the signature round LED graphics. From the side, round fender flares, pop-out door handles, and an upright windshield with black pillars add to the vehicle’s bold look.

At the rear, a full-size spare tire and vertically stacked taillights bring to mind the Land Rover Defender, while the clear finish gives it a contemporary touch.

Moving inside, the Bronco identity shines through, highlighted by the emblem on the flat-bottom steering wheel. Though parts of the interior remain concealed, we can still make out a high-mounted center console featuring ample storage and a free-standing infotainment screen seamlessly integrated into the dashboard.

Size and Unibody Architecture

Spy Shots Autohome

While the exact dimensions and positioning of this model remain unclear, it appears to be larger than the US-spec Ford Bronco Sport, which measures 4,387 mm (172.7 inches) long. This could be Ford’s response to the perceived preference of Chinese customers for bigger and roomier vehicles. For context, the five-door Bronco stretches to 4,800-4,825 mm (189-190 inches) in length.

A look underneath suggests that the SUV is based on a unibody architecture. This is probably the biggest point of differentiation from the regular Bronco that rides on a ladder-frame chassis sourced from the Ranger pickup. It remains to be seen whether this Chinese model will share its unibody foundation with the Bronco Sport, Escape/Kuga, and Focus, or if Ford has something entirely different in mind for its new Bronco variant.

More: A New Ford Sedan Has Been Spied In America

Elements such as the covered grille, the aero-friendly alloy wheels, and the dual ports on the rear fenders suggest that the SUV is fitted with an electrified powertrain, which would be a first for a Bronco-badged product. The setup could either be a plug-in hybrid or a range-extender, as both of them require the presence of a fuel port and a charging port.

A few details, like the covered grille, aero-friendly alloy wheels, and dual ports on the rear fenders, hint that this SUV might come with an electrified powertrain, which if true, would be a first for anything wearing the Bronco badge. This could mean a plug-in hybrid or a range-extender setup, as both would require both a fuel port and a charging port.

This new Bronco model is expected to be built in China, likely through one of Ford’s joint ventures with Changan or Jiangling Motors. Expect more details later this year, when the vehicle’s specs and images will likely be revealed through China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, ahead of its official market launch.

It hasn’t even been two years since the Ford Fiesta was unceremoniously retired, and yet, it may already be staging a comeback. This time around, though, the Fiesta could look very different. Instead of a traditional internal combustion comeback, the new version might arrive as part of Ford’s growing collaboration with Volkswagen, a partnership that has already produced models like the Explorer EV and Capri based on VW’s platforms.

VW’s head of sales and marketing, Martin Sander, says that the carmaker’s tie-up with Ford on EVs has already proven to be “very, very, very successful,” and is open to sharing technologies in a similar way in the future. Sander formerly worked at Ford in Europe and, as the Explorer EV and Capri use the same platform as the VW ID.4 and ID.5, Ford could conceivably develop new EVs with the same MEB Entry architecture as the ID.1 and ID.2.

Read: Ford Is Killing The Focus ST But Something Wilder Is Coming

Ford itself has not commented on the possibility of building a new entry-level electric hatchback, but Auto Express speculates that such a project is conceivable. Ford says it’s “confident in its ability to compete in the right segments,” so if it sees potential with an electric hatch, it may be wise to pursue it.

Looking at the numbers, the ID.2 could be a near-ideal blueprint for a new Fiesta. The ID.2all Concept is only 0.7 inches (or 18 mm) longer than the outgoing Fiesta, and it shares the same five-door layout. In terms of size and purpose, it’s almost a one-to-one match.

Of course, Ford would have to convince VW to let it use its underpinnings, even though a new Fiesta would likely snatch sales away from the ID.2, as well as the related Cupra Raval and Skoda Epiq. Unless VW thinks it will get something from the deal, it’s hard to see why it would be open to it. Admittedly, if a new Fiesta were sold in markets where the ID.2 won’t be, that would take away the threat of it stealing sales.

Meanwhile, Ford isn’t sitting still. A skunkworks team inside the company is reportedly working on a new budget-friendly EV aimed squarely at emerging rivals like BYD. This upcoming model could start at around $25,000 and may feature a lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) battery pack, which offers cost advantages and improved durability compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries.

Regardless of the Fiesta’s return, Ford appears to be quietly assembling the pieces for a more affordable EV future, and it may not be long before we see what that actually looks like.

Whether some realize it or not, automotive safety has never been as advanced as it is currently. That safety doesn’t just relate to how cars handle on-road incidents either. It starts at the production facility, and a new recall from Ford is a great example.

The Blue Oval just recalled three, yes three, individual F-150 Lightnings due to one or more potentially missing or loose retention nuts. In a new recall filing with the NHTSA, Ford says that these nuts hold the high-voltage battery junction box bus bars down. If they’re missing or loose, it could lead to electrical arcing or even a fire.

More: Ford’s Recallathon Continues With Three New Campaigns

According to Ford, the nuts in question could’ve been removed in error during a reworking operation. It seems that there was no record of the nuts being re-torqued to appropriate specs after that rework. As such, Ford wants to check to be sure they’re not just there, but that they’re tight too.

While it says it doesn’t know of any accidents or injuries related to the issue, it does say that it knows of one field report and one warranty report related to the same incident. It’s already alerted dealers to the issue and will notify all three owners by May 23 at the latest. Dealers will check the nuts, install them if necessary, and of course, torque them properly. That should solve the issue altogether.

Until then, owners should pay attention to signs like a “loud noise while driving”, a “Stop Safely Now” message, and a check engine or malfunction indicator light on the dashboard. If the problem occurs, the truck will lose motive power, but the 12-volt battery should continue supplying power to steering and braking systems.

Decades ago, it’s unlikely that a problem as isolated as this one would’ve even been found. Even if a worker on the production line had caught it, they might not have had procedures in place to track other similarly affected vehicles.

No doubt, recalls are on the rise across the industry, but cases like this explain why that’s not as bleak a headline as it may seem. Essentially, the safety net that catches defects has a much finer mesh size than ever before, and we’re all safer for it.

Ford is pouring tens of billions of dollars into electric vehicles, betting big on a future that’s already here, but so far, the returns aren’t looking great. While the EV market overall continues to grow, Ford’s own electric sales are moving in the opposite direction. If the Dearborn automaker wants to close the gap with rivals like GM and Hyundai-Kia, let alone take a swing at Tesla’s lead, it needs to figure out how to boost local EV sales, and quickly.

A look at Ford’s most recent sales results does not paint a pretty picture for the automaker. In April, Ford managed to sell 4,859 EVs across the country. This represents a massive 39.4% decline from the 8,014 units it sold in April last year. Ford’s total EV sales for the first four months of 2025 are also down 2.9% from last year, with 27,409 units finding new homes. And that’s with Ford extending its popular Employee Pricing discounts for all.

Read: Ford Chief Says China Leads US By 10 Years In EV Batteries, Needs Their IP

A dramatic drop in demand for the Mustang Mach-E is the main reason why Ford’s sales collapsed last month. In April, 2,927 Mustang Mach-Es were sold, representing a 40.2% decline from the 4,893 sold in April 2024. Interestingly, sales are up by 0.4% year to date with 14,534 sales.

Sales of the F-150 Lightning have also dropped. In April 2024, Ford shifted 2,090 units, but this year, just 1,740. Year-to-date sales are also down 9.2% to 8,927. The E-Transits also had a very bad month with just 192 sales, a plunge of 81.5%.

Unlike its EVs, Ford’s hybrids are actually gaining ground. In April, the company sold 23,331 hybrid models, a 29.6% increase over the previous year. Year-to-date, hybrid sales are up 31.9%, with 74,404 units sold so far in 2025.

Outside of EVs, things are looking good for Ford. In April, the company’s total vehicle sales rose 16.2% compared to the same month in 2024, reaching 208,675 units versus 179,588 last year.

With the exception of EVs, Ford’s overall sales are up through the first four months of the year, despite the turmoil that the whole industry is facing since the introduction of Trump’s tariffs. Year-to-date, Ford has sold 709,966 vehicles in the US, or 3.2% more than the 687,671 it delivered in 2024.

Ford has been working on an advanced next-generation electrical architecture for its future models aimed at streamlining software functions, cutting costs, and allowing it to better compete with EV leaders like Tesla. However, much like VW’s Cariad subsidiary, Ford’s program has encountered many issues and, according to three sources familiar with the matter who spoke to Reuters, it has now been abruptly shut down.

Read: Flip-Flopping Ford Delays Electric Truck And Axes 3-Row EV Plans, Will Build Hybrids Instead

The internal name for this now-defunct system was FNV4. It was spearheaded by Doug Field, a former Apple and Tesla executive who joined Ford with much fanfare and, last year, took home a tidy $15.5 million for his efforts. Despite the impressive pedigree behind it, FNV4 reportedly became a financial burden. Ballooning development costs forced Ford to cancel the project altogether, though some elements will be repurposed in the company’s current software systems.

The Reuters report notes that the FNV4 program contributed to significant losses across Ford’s EV and software divisions at $4.7 billion in 2023, followed by $5 billion in 2024.

Software Isn’t Optional Anymore

In the modern era where electrification seems to be the all-encompassing future and consumers want new vehicles jam-packed with tech, it’s become increasingly important for brands to make their software systems as integrated and advanced as possible. However, since companies like Ford use hundreds of electronic parts from different suppliers, they often have components that cannot communicate with each other. And that makes it more difficult to roll out OTA updates.

Ford has been planning to adopt a ‘zonal’ system for its next-gen system. It consists of software ‘brains’ for certain parts of the vehicle that would communicate with a central ‘brain’, Reuters reports. This would have reduced the need for long and complex wiring harnesses and would have helped speed up over-the-air updates.

A Shift in Strategy, But Not a Full Retreat

In a video shared internally with employees who worked on FNV4, Ford said it would be shifting focus back to its existing electrical architecture, rather than pursuing the more ambitious redesign. That said, this isn’t a full retreat. A small advanced engineering team, essentially a skunkworks group, is still quietly working on what could eventually become a more refined version of the same concept.

In a public statement, Ford reaffirmed its commitment to staying competitive on vehicle tech: “We are committed to delivering fully connected vehicle experiences across our entire lineup, regardless of powertrain, while many others in the industry are bringing the most advanced tech only to electric vehicles.”

While the grand plan may have stumbled, Ford claims that it isn’t giving up on the idea of smarter, more connected vehicles. It’s just learning the hard way that building them isn’t as simple as hiring a few tech world veterans and hoping everything works out.

Update: Ford Responds

Following the Reuters report, Ford reached out to clarify. The company says the project wasn’t “killed,” but rather merged, a detail mentioned in both Reuters’ and our own reporting. Ford also emphasized that the zonal architecture is still very much in play.

“We simply made a decision to merge two of our electrical architectures into a common electrical architecture for use across many more vehicles, across all powertrain types,” a Ford spokesperson told us. “This is to enable the connected digital experiences that have been so well received in products like the F-150, Mustang Mach-E and Lincoln Nautilus and Navigator. Now, future EVs and vehicles like Bronco, Mustang, Super Duty, Ranger and Transit will have those capabilities too.”

“In parallel, our next generation advanced electric vehicle platform (known as Skunkworks project) has given us the freedom to reinvent from the ground up and create a next-gen zonal architecture, with massive hardware simplification and a nimble, in-house software platform suited for our future affordable electric vehicles.“

If we had a buck for each startup that shows up and states it intends to build the Holy Grail of the current automotive market, a truly affordable EV, only to either go the way of the dodo or fail to deliver on their promises, we’d probably be so rich we could afford to, well, launch our own startup. The latest in this long line is Slate, with its “Truck”.

It’s key selling point is that it’s a back-basics single-cab pickup with a super affordable price starting under $28,000, or around $20,000 with EV incentives that President Trump hasn’t axed (yet) despite being openly against them.

More: Would You Really Pay $28K For A Crank Window EV With No Speakers?

Even if Slate’s pickup truck does hit the market exactly as promised, you don’t need to read the fine print to realize that its EV is affordable not because they’ve found a secret sauce, but due to it being laughably basic. So much so that it lacks not just most of the features we’ve come to expect as standard, but also things like electric windows, an audio system, speakers, and an infotainment screen. You can pay extra to add them in, but at that point, aren’t you just defeating the whole “affordable EV” idea?

Or, You Know, Just Get a Ranger

If all you really want is a cheap single-cab truck with the minimum comfort creatures, here’s a used Ford Ranger for you. Not the current model, which is far from basic and definitely not an EV from a startup, but a classic, third-generation 1999 Ranger XLT, which is set to cross the Mecum auction block on May 15.

Sure, it’s 26 years old, powered by a 2.5-liter combustion engine, and you still have to crank the windows with your hands, but hey, it’s got stuff. Not exactly luxury, but it’s hardly a bare-bones, dollar store special either. It sports an automatic transmission, power steering and brakes, air conditioning, alloy wheels, a soft bed cover, chrome grille and bumpers.

But wait, there’s more! This truck also gets a radio (yes, with speakers), a center console arm rest, cupholders and, brace yourself EV startup defenders, a glovebox! You know, basic human comforts you won’t find in the Slate EV unless you pay extra for the “luxury”.

More: Someone Turned A Ram 1500 TRX Into The Shortest And Most Badass Single-Cab Truck Ever

Moreover, it has a much more useful range than the base Truck’s lame 150 miles that can be increased to 240 miles (if you pay more), a max payload and towing capacity that exceed the Truck’s 1,400 lbs (635 kg) and 1,000 lbs (453 kg), respectively, is built by a legacy automaker, has sold in great numbers so parts are readily available, and despite its age, the odo reads just 51,645 miles.

So, if you’re after a cheap, no-nonsense single-cab truck, don’t worry; you’ve got options. You just won’t find them wrapped in the shiny, buzzword-heavy startup hype that’s always promising to change the world. But hey, if you’re into solid, reliable trucks without the drama, check out the listing over here.

There’s no denying that Slate Auto is turning a lot of heads right now. Their new truck, which can be optioned into a SUV, sounds promising as it strips away the excess in an effort to create an affordable, practical runabout. It even boasts an electric drivetrain to keep running costs low.

All sounds good, right? In theory, it’s an appealing prospect, but here’s the thing: what Slate is selling for the future (plus a whole lot more) is already available today in the form of the Ford Maverick.

Pricing: Promises vs. Reality

Let’s start off with its biggest selling point, the reason why the internet went wild in the first place: the price. The newly announced Slate pickup promises a starting price of “around $28,000,” but that’s far from set in stone. Assuming nothing changes, and that’s a tariff-sized assumption, if you factor in the $7,500 federal tax credit, the base price could theoretically drop to about $20,500.

But again, that’s all hypothetical. Given that the Trump administration has repeatedly suggested eliminating these credits, who knows what will happen in late 2026 when it supposedly hits the market.

More: Slate Shakes Up EVs With $28,000 Pickup That Turns Into An SUV

On the other hand, as you’re reading this, you can walk into any Ford dealership and drive off with a 2024 Maverick XL for $23,920. That’s for the 250-hp 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder-equipped model. Because it’s available and if you click on Ford’s page, that’s the model it directs you to. If you’re looking at the 2025MY, prices start from $26,995 for the 191-hp 2.5-liter hybrid FWD variant, and $27,570 for the 250-hp EcoBoost AWD. And that’s before factoring in any additional deals or potential incentives, plus delivery fees, of course.

Range and Efficiency

Now, let’s talk efficiency and range. Slate’s truck promises 150 miles of range in its base form, powered by a 52.7 kWh battery. No doubt, the optional 84.3 kWh battery, offering up to 240 miles of range, looks more promising, but it’ll cost you extra. According to the Detroit company, charging it will take somewhere between 4 to 8 hours.

For the sake of comparing base models, we’ve focused on the 2024 Maverick XL with the 2.0L turbo, which is the most affordable option you can buy right now. This base trim delivers 26 mpg according to the EPA. Meanwhile, the hybrid variant with a 191-hp engine can achieve up to 42 mpg combined.

And let’s not forget the convenience factor. You can fill up the Maverick at any gas station in America in about 3 minutes. No waiting around for hours as your truck “recharges,” praying that the charging station isn’t busy or, you know, completely broken. If you do the math, the Maverick’s EPA numbers give you nearly 430 miles of range, while Slate’s truck promises to hit just over a third of that, assuming, of course, it’s not freezing outside or anything.

SPECS

Now, Slate’s concept has some cool ideas like swappable body panels and modular bits, but let’s be honest: fun, quirky features don’t always survive the realities of potholes, payloads, and subzero mornings.

Speaking of payloads, let’s break down the specs. The Slate can tow up to 1,000 lbs and haul 1,433 lbs of cargo. Meanwhile, the base Maverick doubles the towing capacity at 2,000 lbs and has a 1,500-lb payload capacity. The Slate boasts a five-foot bed, while the Maverick’s is a bit more compact at 4.5 feet.

Driven: The Ford Maverick Is Proof Big Things Come In Small Packages

That said, the Maverick can seat five people at all times, even with the bed in use, while the Slate takes the cargo volume crown with 35.1 cu.ft and an additional 7 cu.ft in the frunk, compared to the Maverick’s 33.3 cu.ft.

Slate’s EV Is Laughably Bare Bones, Doesn’t Even Have Speakers

We won’t get too deep into the quality and features since we’ve only seen the prototype in pictures, not in person, and things might change when it hits production. But judging by the close up photos from our pals at The Autopian, this thing could make a 1980s Lada Niva look posh. To be fair, their motto is “We built it. You make it.” So, maybe “luxury” is all in the eye of the beholder.

But it’s not that you won’t get an infotainment screen, you won’t get anything. No power windows, no cupholders, no speakers, no radio, no armrest, no glovebox – all of these are “extras.” In fact, customers will have the option to choose from over 100 of these “accessories”, as you can see for yourself in the configurator.

We’re honestly surprised they even bothered with seats and a steering wheel. This thing is laughably bare-bones, even by decades-old standards. In contrast, the base Maverick at least comes with all the modern creature comforts you’ll actually need – and then some.

A Real Truck vs. Wishful Thinking

In the end, the Maverick is a real truck, with a real bed, and a real warranty that’s sold by a brand that has been around for over a century. Contrast that with Slate’s trucklet: an unproven EV with startup dreams and very little track record, though they’ve certainly done an excellent job going viral. We’ll give them that.

Of course, Slate’s vision still deserves some credit. It’s trying to solve a real problem: new vehicles are getting too expensive. But the Ford Maverick proves you don’t have to sacrifice practicality or usability to hit that sweet spot. You can walk into a showroom today and drive out with a functional, fuel-efficient pickup that actually exists.

You don’t have to wait for something that maybe will show up someday, hoping it somehow avoids the massive pitfalls other companies have stumbled into when it comes to service and customer care.

Maybe Slate will pull it off. Maybe it won’t. But until then, the best budget truck-slash-crossover EV isn’t a futuristic trucklet. It’s wearing a Blue Oval and parked at your local dealer.

John Halas contributed to this article.

2024 FORD MAVERICK XL

As the EV market continues to evolve, battery technology is quickly becoming the battleground for major automakers. Most of the electric cars currently available use either lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) or nickel manganese cobalt (NMC or NCM) batteries, with some manufacturers exploring sodium-ion options.

Now, Ford is taking things a step further, announcing a new battery chemistry it plans to incorporate into its EV lineup over the next decade. Enter Lithium Manganese Rich (LMR) batteries, developed at the Blue Oval’s Battery Center of Excellence in Michigan.

Read: Ford’s Experiment In EV Distribution Hubs Is Over

In a LinkedIn post this week, Charles Poon, Ford’s director of electrified propulsion engineering, explained that the LMR batteries offer a higher energy density than traditional high-nickel batteries. This, according to Poon, translates to greater range for Ford’s EVs, which means customers can travel farther on a single charge, reducing that all-too-common “range anxiety” that plagues so many EV drivers.

The LMR battery has been engineered to achieve a safety profile similar to LFP batteries, and they promise to be “significantly” cheaper than current mid-nickel batteries. Poon went on to describe the LMR batteries as the answer to “what next?” with Ford already selling LFP and NCM-powered EVs.

Ford said this new battery will also help it achieve cost parity between EVs and gasoline-powered vehicles. There’s no word on whether Ford collaborated with any of its existing battery partners on the development of the LMR chemistry, such as CATL, LG, or SK On, with Poon simply crediting the more than 135 “world-class chemists, manufacturing engineers and scientists,” at the Ford site.

“This isn’t just a lab experiment. We’re actively working to scale LMR cell chemistry and integrate them into our future vehicle lineup within this decade. The team is already producing our second-gen LMR cells at our pilot line,” he added.

The development of this new battery comes despite Ford slowing many of its EV plans last year, including axing a three-row electric SUV and delaying a new electric version of the F-150. However, it is still working on an electric mid-sized pickup and a new electric van, among other consumer-focused EVs.

Sales and marketing strategies tend to follow similar paths, especially when it comes to products that compete in the same space. Let’s face it, in today’s world, creating a brave ad that grabs attention without annoying someone is practically a lost cause. So, most companies stick to what works by playing it safe with formulas that won’t ruffle too many feathers.

But every so often, one company will mimic another so closely that it’s hard not to notice. That’s exactly what appears to be going on with Tesla , which seems to be quietly rebranding the image of its Cybertruck in a way that’s undeniably familiar.

When the Cybertruck first debuted, it was all about looking like it came from the future. Tesla marketed it as though it were built for Mars. Even the press photos of it showed it off on barren landscapes as if it had survived some apocalypse.

More: Cheapest Cybertruck Ever Offers 350 Miles But Not The $40K Price We Were Promised

Now, though, those futuristic images are no longer the star of the Cybertruck’s sales page. Instead, you’ll find the slab-sided truck in more mundane, everyday scenarios…the same kind of scenes, and even some of the same props, that Ford uses to market the F-150.

Take, for example, the hero image Tesla currently uses for the Cybertruck. It’s towing an Airstream trailer. That looks almost identical, save for the actual scenery in the background, to an image Ford uses with an F-150 towing a camper.

Then, there’s a photo looking down into the bed of the Cybertruck where it holds some fence fabric and other building materials. Don’t be too shocked, but Ford has an F-150 ad with the same type of fence fabric and building materials.

None of this situation, first reported by Business Insider, should be all that shocking or damning. After all, no one bats an eye when sports car companies showcase their models on race tracks, or when crossover ads feature a family cruising through the city.

The nature of automotive advertising requires some similarity across the space. Still, the images are almost too on the nose in this case not to notice. It highlights a change in the way that Tesla approaches Cybertruck sales, too.

The Real Shift

Ultimately, the reality is that to sell anywhere near the number of trucks that Ford does, the Cybertruck will need to appeal to traditional truck buyers. Right now, it’s done a solid job of appealing to Tesla lovers and to those who want something more novel than an everyday pickup. That’s why it was the best-selling EV truck in 2024.

That time could be coming to an end, though. We’ve already covered how Tesla is heavily discounting the truck to increase sales. It’s also reportedly slowing production and moving workers to the Model Y line. Only time will tell if Tesla can capture a bigger piece of the truck market than it currently has. 

FORD VS TESLA MATERIAL

Americans bought more electric vehicles in the first quarter of 2025, but it’s not just enthusiasm for clean energy that’s pushing the numbers. Sales of EVs were up 11.4% year-over-year, with some of that bump likely driven by fears of disappearing federal tax credits and looming tariffs. Gas-powered cars even saw some love, as buyers rushed to lock in purchases before incentives or prices changed. Crisis buying: it’s not just for toilet paper anymore.

More: Americans Are Buying Cars Like It’s Black Friday Before Tariffs Hit

For context, the entire new vehicle market (regardless of powertrain) grew 4.3% in Q1 2024, totaling roughly 3.9 million units, according to Auto News. That puts EVs at 7.6% of the market, a noticeable increase from last year, and a sign that electric adoption, while still uneven, continues to inch forward, at least for now.

Brands: Tesla Still Leads, But It’s Not All Good News

You probably guessed it that Tesla still wears the EV crown. The company moved 128,100 vehicles in Q1, capturing a commanding 43.5% share of the EV market. That’s still dominant, but it’s down 8.6 percentage points from last year. Some of that slip can be chalked up to delays in rolling out the updated Model Y. The rest? Probably a mix of market competition and the ongoing Elon Effect, a combo of social media theatrics and questionable business decisions that make both investors and buyers twitch.

Ford continues to hold a firm grip on second place, selling 22,550 electric vehicles in Q1, an 11.5% increase over last year, giving it a 7.7% share of America’s EV market. But the real drama happened just below that. Rivian, which held the No. 3 spot last year, tumbled all the way down to ninth place after a steep 37.1% drop, totaling just 8,553 sales. Hyundai, previously in fourth, slid to No. 6 despite a modest 5.1% gain to 12,843 units. Its Kia sibling dropped from fifth to eighth, as sales fell 24.1% to 8,665.

Taking their places, Chevrolet surged into the No. 3 spot with 19,186 units sold, recording a 114.2% increase, while BMW climbed to No. 4 with 13,858 deliveries, up 26.4% from a year ago. There were other notable shifts as well: Porsche more than tripled its EV sales in Q1, thanks to the Macan Electric. On the flip side, Mercedes took the hardest hit, with sales plunging 58.3%, despite aggressive lease deals and major incentives, as many of our readers have pointed out. For all the numbers and surprises, check out the full brand breakdown below.

BEST SELLING EV BRANDS

Models: The Y Slips But The 3 Soars

Looking at individual models, the Tesla Model Y still tops the US EV sales chart, but its grip on the lead has loosened. It delivered 64,051 units in Q1, marking a steep 33.8% decline from last year. The delayed launch of the standard facelifted “Juniper” version didn’t help matters, as only the pricier Launch Edition was available early in the quarter. We’ll see how the new Juniper performs once the entire range goes on sale.

On the flip side, the Model 3 is having its moment. It saw a huge 70.3% increase in sales, hitting 52,520 units in Q1. For perspective, that’s nearly as many as the next three brands (Ford, Chevrolet, and BMW) sold combined, at 55,274. Tesla’s aggressive sales strategy likely played a role, with improved lease offers and zero-percent financing, though that conveniently wrapped up in April.

More: Tesla Model 3 Performance Vs. BMW 330i xDrive, Which One Deserves Your $47K?

The Ford Mustang Mach-E maintained third place among EV models with 11,607 units sold, a significant 21% increase, helped along by solid discounts and lease incentives. Rounding out the top five were the Chevy Equinox EV (10,329 units), the Honda Prologue (9,561), and the Hyundai Ioniq 5, which saw 8,611 deliveries, a 26.2% jump.

Trucks: F-150 Still Rules But Cybertruck Catching Up

As for electric trucks, the Ford F-150 Lightning remains the best-seller, even though deliveries dropped 7.2% compared to the same period in 2024. Tesla’s Cybertruck, love it or hate it (and many do), is at least moving the needle upwards, with 6,406 units sold, up 128.5% over last year’s laughably small starting numbers.

GMC doesn’t separate sales by body style, but Rivian does, and its R1T pickup moved just 1,727 units this quarter, a massive 47% drop from Q1 2023. For all the flak the Cybertruck catches online, it’s still outselling the R1T by a wide margin. No, it’s not the million-unit-a-year miracle Elon once promised, but it’s still finding more buyers than the R1T and that should be sounding alarms in Rivian’s executive suite.

BEST SELLING EV MODELS USA

The April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was the most expensive U.S. court race in history, drawing more than $100 million in campaign spending. 

That eye-popping figure has drawn plenty of headlines — as did the millions spent by billionaire Elon Musk to support Republican-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who lost handily to Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, backed by Democrats.

But the race also set another record in Wisconsin for a spring election not featuring a presidential primary contest: in voter turnout. 

More than 2.3 million people cast ballots in the election, according to Associated Press tracking. That amounts to nearly 51% of the voting age population, shattering the previous record for such elections of 39% in 2023.

The high turnout is part of a trend in Wisconsin politics since President Donald Trump’s first election in 2016, Marquette University’s John Johnson wrote in an analysis last week.

“Wisconsin’s electorate is just plain extremely engaged,” he wrote. “Scour American history and you’ll struggle to find an example of (a) state as hyper-engaged with, and narrowly divided by, electoral politics as Wisconsin in the present moment.” 

Last week’s election offered good news for Democrats, aside from the top-line figures in Crawford’s 55%-45% win. (The Supreme Court is officially nonpartisan, but Democrats backed Crawford, while Republicans backed Schimel.) 

When comparing the high-turnout 2024 presidential election to the latest Supreme Court race, voting shifted toward the Democratic-backed candidate in all 72 counties.

The biggest difference in the latest election, according to Johnson: “A majority of the million voters who stayed home are probably Republicans, or at least Trump supporters.” 

More broadly, it’s clear that the high stakes of the Supreme Court race drove most to cast ballots in an election that also included an officially nonpartisan contest for state superintendent of public instruction and a successful ballot measure to enshrine voter ID requirements in the Wisconsin Constitution. 

Nearly 200,000 people who cast ballots did not choose a superintendent candidate. Democratic-backed incumbent Jill Underly prevailed over Republican-backed Brittany Kinser by a 53%-47% margin — closer than the Supreme Court race. 

Additionally, about 76,000 voters did not weigh in on the voter ID amendment.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

DataWatch: Record spending. Record turnout. We crunched some numbers from the Supreme Court contest is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

For years, Icon 4×4 has been quietly setting the gold standard for restomodded Ford Broncos, fusing vintage charm with modern hardware in a way few shops can match. But in an industry increasingly swept up in the electric tide, even Icon couldn’t hold out forever. After logging more than 5,000 hours of development, the California-based builder has officially launched its first electric Bronco program.

Read: Icon 4×4’s Ford Bronco BR Old School Edition Is Pure Vintage Glory

Obviously, there will be many classic Bronco enthusiasts who have absolutely no interest in turning their trucks into EVs, but, for some, the ease of use provided by an electric powertrain may be too hard to ignore. Icon’s electric Bronco uses a 400-volt electrical architecture and a large 105 kWh battery pack.

Power That Moves, Range That… Sort Of Follows

A pair of electric motors send power to all four wheels, delivering a combined output of over 500 horsepower and 440 lb-ft (596 Nm) of torque. That’s more than enough to make this vintage bruiser feel genuinely quick, something early Broncos were never accused of.

In fact, the EV version sprints from 0 to 60 mph (96 km/h) in just 4.5 seconds. That’s sports car territory. What’s less thrilling is the range. Even with a hefty 105 kWh battery, Icon estimates just 175 to 200 miles (282 to 320 km) on a full charge. Not exactly the stuff of cross-country road trips. The irony of a “go-anywhere” truck with a range that makes you think twice about venturing too far isn’t lost on us.

Naturally, the powertrain is just one part of the equation. Like all other Icon projects, the company has reworked the chassis with high-spec gear, including Brembo brakes, adjustable Reiger suspension, and Currie axles with a locking front differential. While exact charging speeds aren’t spelled out, Icon says the Bronco can charge from 20 to 80 percent in under an hour. There’s also a 6.6 kW onboard Level 2 charger for at-home top-ups.

The first electric Bronco, dubbed “Blue Star,” wears a bright blue paint job and a fully refreshed interior. Icon has modernized the cabin materials and layout while managing to preserve the truck’s retro soul, a balance it’s become known for.

As for the price? That’ll stop you faster than the Brembos. The Special Limited Edition version, limited to just 10 units, starts at a hefty $449,000. That makes it one of the most expensive classic Broncos out there—electrified or otherwise. For that kind of money, you could be shopping for a Ford GT, one of the brand’s most iconic performance cars.

Photos Icon

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Spending on the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court race approached $100 million or more – in total – according to reports leading up to Election Day.

The WisPolitics news outlet tally was $107 million, including $2 million contributed by billionaire George Soros to the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

The party, in turn, funneled donations to the liberal candidate, Susan Crawford. 

The Brennan Center for Justice tally was $98.6 million, enough to make the nonpartisan Wisconsin contest the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

According to the center, a program at New York University Law School that tracks campaign spending:

The largest amount spent, $28.3 million, was by Crawford’s campaign.

Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel, whose campaign spent $15 million.

Schimel was backed by billionaire Elon Musk. The Musk-founded America PAC spent $12.3 million. That’s also a national record for outside spending in a judicial race.

Social media posts claimed that Soros spent $100 million supporting Crawford.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• WisPolitics: Crawford beats Schimel in nation's most expensive court race
• Brennan Center for Justice: Buying Time 2025 – Wisconsin
• Axios: Wisconsin's Supreme Court election is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history
• Wisconsin Watch: Has Elon Musk’s PAC in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for outside spending on state court elections?
• X: March 27, 2025, post
• X: April 2, 2025, post
• X: March 28, 2025, post
• X: April 1, 2025, post
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Who is George Soros, and how much did he donate to Susan Crawford's winning campaign?
• Forbes: Elon Musk Blamed Wisconsin Supreme Court Result On Billionaire Democratic Spending—But He And Republicans Outspent Them All

Did billionaire George Soros spend $100 million on the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

As the first news outlets began calling the Wisconsin Supreme Court election for the liberal candidate Susan Crawford, her opponent called her — to concede.

Minutes later Tuesday night, the conservative-backed Brad Schimel took the stage at his watch party to acknowledge the loss. Angry yells broke out. One woman began to chant about his opponent: “Cheater.”

Schimel didn’t hesitate. “No,” he responded. “You’ve got to accept the results.” Later, he returned to the stage with his classic rock cover band to jam on his bass.

In any other American era, Schimel’s concession wouldn’t be considered unusual – except maybe the guitar part. But it stands out at a time when the nation’s politics have opened a fissure between those who trust election results and those who don’t.

“It shouldn’t be super laudable,” said Jeff Mandell, general counsel of the Madison-based liberal law firm Law Forward. “But given where we are and given what we’ve seen over the past few years nationwide and in Wisconsin, it is laudable.”

Accusations of cheating are common now

Over the past several years, numerous Republicans — and some Democrats — have lobbed unfounded accusations of voter fraud, harassed election officials and pointed to “irregularities” to dispute their election losses. President Donald Trump led that movement in 2020, when he filed lawsuits in battleground states, including one thrown out by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, seeking to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Schimel’s concession of that very same court to a liberal majority, though in line with what generations of candidates have done in the past, was not a given in today’s divisive atmosphere.

Onstage, as his supporters yelled, Schimel shook his head and left no uncertainty he’d lost — a result that would become even clearer later in the night as Crawford’s lead grew to around 10 percentage points.

“The numbers aren’t going to — aren’t going to turn around,” he told the crowd. “They’re too bad, and we’re not going to pull this off.”

By acknowledging his loss quickly, Schimel curtailed the kind of explanation-seeking and digital digging that erupted online after Trump, a Republican, lost the 2020 presidential election, with citizen journalists falsely accusing innocent election workers and voters of fraud.

Schimel also avoided the impulses to which many in his party have defaulted in recent elections across the country, as they’ve dragged their feet to avoid accepting defeat.

Last fall, Wisconsin Republican Eric Hovde spent days sowing doubt in the results after he lost a Senate race to Democrat Tammy Baldwin. He conceded nearly two weeks after Election Day, saying he did not want to “add to political strife through a contentious recount” even as he raised debunked election conspiracies.

In a 2024 state Supreme Court race in North Carolina, two recounts have affirmed Democrat Allison Riggs narrowly won the election, but her Republican opponent, Jefferson Griffin, is still seeking to reverse the outcome by having ballots thrown out.

Trump also has continued to falsely claim he won the 2020 presidential election, even though there was no evidence of widespread fraud and the results were confirmed through multiple recounts, reviews and audits. His close adviser, billionaire Elon Musk, has also spread a flurry of unfounded claims about voter fraud involving noncitizens.

Musk and his affiliated groups sank at least $21 million into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and he personally paid three voters $1 million each for signing a petition to boost turnout. He had said the race was central to the “future of America and Western civilization.”

But after the results came in, he said he “expected to lose” and touted the successful passage of a voter ID amendment in Wisconsin’s Constitution. Trump, who had endorsed Schimel, didn’t post about the loss but used his Truth Social platform to celebrate the voter ID win.

An assessment: ‘That’s democracy’

Not all Republicans watching the race were in a magnanimous mood as they processed the results. Peter Bernegger, the head of an election integrity organization who has brought numerous lawsuits against Wisconsin election clerks and offices, raised the specter that an “algorithm” was behind Crawford’s win. InfoWars founder and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones reacted to the results on X, saying, “Election fraud should be investigated.”

But at Schimel’s watch party, several supporters applauded his high road.

“He was all class,” said Russell Jones, a 51-year-old attorney. “That’s how you lose.”

Adam Manka, of the La Crosse County Republican Party, said he worries about how a liberal court could redraw the state’s congressional districts. “But you can’t exactly change it,” Manka said, calling Schimel “very graceful” in his defeat. “This is democracy.”

Crawford, in an interview Wednesday, said Schimel’s phone call was “the way elections should conclude” and said she would have done the same thing if she had lost.

The moment is a good example for future candidates, said Ari Mittleman, executive director of the Wisconsin-based nonprofit Keep Our Republic, which aims to rebuild trust and confidence in elections. He compared elections to a Green Bay Packers football game: “We know who won, we know who lost.” He said he thinks Schimel, a lifelong Wisconsin resident, understands that.

“It’s transparent, and we accept the final score,” Mittleman said. “That’s democracy.”

Schimel and his band, performing for a thinning crowd Tuesday night, took the loss in stride.

“Can you ask them at the bar to get me a Coors Light please?” Schimel said between songs. “Put it on my tab.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Brad Schimel publicly quashes shouts that opponent cheated in Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

For anyone even vaguely familiar with the current landscape, it’s clear that electric vehicles have quietly taken over the sensible side of driving. They’re smooth, quiet, efficient, and for most people, that’s exactly what daily driving should be. But for enthusiasts? Well, the story’s a little different. Most EVs just don’t hit the same nerve as a manual-equipped ICE car screaming through its rev range. Automakers know this too, and they’ve started tinkering. Ford, it seems, is the latest to join the “manual EV” experiment.

Toyota has been working on a simulated manual transmission for future EVs since at least 2022, and Hyundai has famously replicated a dual-clutch transmission in the popular Ioniq 5 N. Now, a recently published patent from Ford shows that it, too is developing a fake stick shift designed for EVs.

Watch: Toyota’s Six-Speed Manual For EVs Feels Just Like The Real Thing, Say Testers

The application, first filed in the US back in September 2023 before being published on March 20, surfaced publicly a couple of weeks ago, catching the attention of Jalopnik. It describes and depicts a shifter that uses several actuators, vertical drive posts, vertical guide posts, and motors to simulate gear shifts. While that all sounds very complex, what it means is that the shifter could be configured to simulate any kind of H-pattern ‘box with different numbers of fake gears. In theory, the setup could also allow for simply sequential up and down shifting.

This isn’t just a novelty, either. Ford also mentions the use of haptic feedback to give drivers a more tactile experience. The patent even acknowledges the elephant in the room: EVs just don’t provide the same kind of physical connection that drivers get from combustion-powered cars. As Ford puts it, electric vehicles “lack operator to vehicle physical feedback that is advantageous in conventional motor vehicles.”

Will It Ever Hit the Road?

Of course, despite Ford making this patent application over 18 months ago, there’s no guarantee it will bring it into production. Adding a fake shifter would only make sense if the EV itself is a sporty model. After all, no one is going to buy an Explorer EV with a stick shift. However, if Ford does decide to eventually launch a true electric Mustang (not like the Mach-E…), or perhaps an electric hot hatch, it could be well-suited to a shifter like this. Until then, it’s likely a clever idea stuck in the theoretical lane.

Remember the outcry from enthusiasts when Ford unveiled the Mach-E in November 2019? They were worried Ford wanted to replace the iconic pony car with an EV but the automaker assured them that wasn’t going to happen. Five and half years later, however, fresh data from Ford shows it’s now the Mach-E that’s the sales winner and the gas-powered car that’s the niche proposition. Are we looking at the end of the road for the ‘real’ Mustang?

Ford’s registration figures reveal Mach-E sales grew 21 percent in Q1 2025 versus Q1 2024, the total number of deliveries jumping from 9,589 to 11,607, no doubt helped by incentives and the threat of federal tax credits going away. Still, that’s a healthy gain. While that was happening sales of the classic Mustang slid by 31.6 percent, dropping from 13,707 to 9,377. That means the Mustang EV is now more popular than the gas car, and by a wide margin.

Related: Ford Mach-E Sales 62% Up This Year, Mustang Keeps Losing To Itself

So modern electric vehicles good, retro-style gas cars bad, right? It’s not quite that simple, because sales of Ford’s F-150 Lightning EV dropped 7.2 percent in Q1 to 7,187 units, and Bronco registrations blew up by 35.4 percent to 32,595 units. The Bronco is now almost as popular as the more affordable Bronco Sport (33,363; up 5.7 percent) and Escape (37,357; up 2.1 percent).

Ford’s (combustion) F-series trucks also increased their sales by a whopping 24.5 percent to 190,389, helping Ford truck deliveries boom by 15 percent. But that wasn’t enough to prevent total sales of Ford-branded vehicles dropping 1.2 percent to 477,560 in the first quarter. Lincoln sales, by the way, dropped 4.7 percent to 23,731.

It’s said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and again and hoping for a different result. And it’s looking like Ford’s new-for-’24 Mustang didn’t really offer anything meaningfully new to help keep interest high. Sure, the $325k GTD is entering new territory, but the regular models didn’t.

Which isn’t to say they’re bad cars. We just drove a Mustang GT and found it great fun. But the sales figures prove buyers are looking elsewhere for their kicks at a time when the Mustang has almost no direct opposition, its Dodge (ICE) and Chevy rivals having both been axed.

What do you think is the answer to Ford’s Mustang sales crisis? Is it more power for the base cars, more frugal engines, a four-door coupe or maybe a lifted crossover body? Or should Ford have retired the Mustang at its 50th birthday and focused exclusively on improving the Mach-E and extending its family?

Ford sales Q1 2024 vs Q1 2025

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers approved a bill to allow unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican voted no.

“I just thought big money was an evil, a curse on our politics,” former state Sen. Robert Cowles said recently of his 2015 decision to buck his party.

As Wisconsin voters head to the polls this week to choose a new state Supreme Court justice, Cowles stands by his assessment. Voters have been hit with a barrage of attack ads from special interest groups, and record-setting sums of money have been spent to sway residents. What’s more, Cowles said, there’s been little discussion of major issues. The candidates debated only once.

“I definitely think that that piece of legislation made things worse,” Cowles said in an interview. “Our public discourse is basically who can inflame things in the most clever way with some terrible TV ad that’s probably not even true.”

More than $80 million has been funneled into the race as of March 25, according to two groups that have been tracking spending in the contest — the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy group that follows judicial races, and the news outlet WisPolitics. That surpasses the previous costliest judicial race in the country’s history, approximately $56 million spent two years ago on the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.

Money is pouring into this swing state election so fast and so many ads have been reserved that political observers now believe the current race is likely to reach $100 million by Tuesday, which is Election Day.

“People are thoroughly disgusted, I think, across the political spectrum with just the sheer amount of money being spent on a spring Supreme Court election in Wisconsin,” said Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, which has long advocated for campaign finance reform.

But the elected officials who could revamp the campaign finance system on both sides of the aisle or create pressure for change have been largely silent. No bills introduced this session. No press conferences from legislators. The Senate no longer even has a designated elections committee.

The current election pits former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, now a circuit court judge in conservative-leaning Waukesha County, against Susan Crawford, a judge in Dane County, the state’s liberal bastion.

Though the race technically is nonpartisan, the Democratic Party, including former President Barack Obama, has endorsed Crawford; the party has received financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros. On the other side, President Donald Trump posted a message on his social media platform on March 21 urging his supporters to vote for Schimel, and much of Schimel’s money comes from political organizations tied to Elon Musk.

The stakes are high. Whoever wins will determine the ideological bent of the seven-member court just two years after Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on the court and swung it to the liberals. With Protasiewicz on the court, the majority struck down state legislative maps, which had been drawn to favor Republicans, and reinstated the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots.

A Schimel victory could resurrect those and other voting issues, as well as determine whether women in the state will continue to be able to access abortion.

Two pro-Schimel groups linked to Musk — America PAC and Building America’s Future — had disclosed spending about $17 million, as of March 25. Musk himself donated $3 million this year to the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In the final stretch of the campaign, news reports revealed that Musk’s America PAC plans to give Wisconsin voters $100 to sign petitions rejecting the actions of “activist judges.”

That has raised concerns among some election watchdog groups, which have been exploring whether the offer from Musk amounts to an illegal inducement to get people to vote.

On Wednesday night, Musk went further, announcing on X a $1 million award to a Green Bay voter he identified only as “Scott A” for “supporting our petition against activist judges in Wisconsin!” Musk promised to hand out other million-dollar prizes before the election.

Musk has a personal interest in the direction of the Wisconsin courts. His electric car company, Tesla Inc., is suing the state over a law requiring manufacturers to sell automobiles through independent dealerships. Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment about his involvement in the race.

Also on Schimel’s side: billionaires Diane Hendricks and Richard Uihlein and Americans for Prosperity, a dark-money group founded by billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother David. Americans for Prosperity has reported spending about $3 million, primarily for digital ads, canvassing, mailers and door hangers.

A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund, a union-supported electioneering group, has ponied up over $6 million to advance Crawford. In other big outlays, Soros has given $2 million to the state Democratic Party, while Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another billionaire, gave $1.5 million. And California venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, donated $250,000.

In Wisconsin, political parties can steer unlimited amounts to candidates.

State Sen. Jeff Smith, a Democrat and a minority leader, called the spending frenzy “obscene.”

“There’s no reason why campaigns should cost as much as they do,” he said.

Asked for comment about the vast amount of money in the race, Crawford told ProPublica: “I’m grateful for the historic outpouring of grassroots support across Wisconsin from folks who don’t want Elon Musk controlling our Supreme Court.”

Schimel’s campaign called Crawford a “hypocrite,” saying she “is playing the victim while receiving more money than any judicial candidate in American history thanks to George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and JB Pritzker funneling money to her campaign.”

Quizzed Monday by a TV reporter on whether he would recuse himself if the Tesla case got to the state’s high court, Schimel did not commit, saying: “I’ll do the same thing I do in every case. I will examine whether I can truly hear that case objectively.”

A decade after Wisconsin opened the floodgates to unlimited money in campaigns in 2015, some good government activists are wondering if the state has reached a tipping point. Is there any amount, they ask, at which the state’s political leaders can be persuaded to impose controls?

“I honestly believe that folks have their eyes open around the money in a way that they have not previously,” Nick Ramos, executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks campaign spending, told reporters during a briefing on spending in the race.

A loosely organized group of campaign reformers is beginning to lay the groundwork for change. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently called a Zoom meeting that included representatives of public interest groups inside and outside of Wisconsin, dark-money researchers and an election security expert.

They were looking for ways to champion reform during the current legislative session. In particular, they are studying and considering what models make sense and may be achievable, including greater disclosure requirements, public financing and restricting candidates from coordinating with dark-money groups on issue ads.

But Republicans say that the spending is a natural byproduct of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which equated campaign spending with free speech and opened the spigots for big-money races.

“For the most part, we don’t really, as Republicans, want to see the brakes on free speech,” said Ken Brown, past chair of the GOP Party of Racine, a city south of Milwaukee. Noting he was not speaking for the party, Brown said he does not favor spending limits. “I believe in the First Amendment. It is what it is. I believe the Citizens United decision was correct.”

Asked to comment on the current system of unlimited money, Anika Rickard, a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, did not answer the question but instead criticized Crawford and her funders.

Post-reform bill opened floodgates

At one point, Wisconsin was seen as providing a roadmap for reform. In 2009, the state passed the Impartial Justice Act. The legislation, enacted with bipartisan support, provided for public financing of state Supreme Court races, so candidates could run without turning to special interests for money.

The push for the measure came after increased spending by outside special interests and the candidates in two state Supreme Court races: the 2007 election that cost an estimated $5.8 million and the 2008 contest that neared $6 million, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Candidates who agreed in 2009 to public financing and spending limits received grants of up to $400,000 for the race. The money came from the Democracy Trust Fund, which was supported by a $2 income tax check-off.

“​​Reformers win a fight to clean up court races,” the headline on an editorial in The Capital Times read at the time.

But the law was in place for only one election, in April 2011. Both candidates in the court’s general election that year agreed to take public funding, and incumbent Justice David Prosser, a conservative, narrowly won reelection. Then Republicans eliminated funding for the measure that summer. Instead, the money was earmarked to implement a stringent voter ID law.

By 2015, GOP leaders had completely overhauled the state’s campaign finance law, with Democrats in the Assembly refusing to even vote on the measure in protest.

“This Republican bill opens the floodgates to unlimited spending by billionaires, by big corporations and by monied, special interests to influence our elections,” Rep. Lisa Subeck, a Democrat, said in the floor debate.

Wisconsin is no longer cited as a model. Activists point to other states, including Arizona, Oregon and Rhode Island. Arizona and Oregon established disclosure measures to trace the flow of dark money, requiring campaign spenders to reveal the original source of donations. Rhode Island required ads to name not only the sponsor but the organization’s top donors so voters can better access the message and its credibility.

Amid skepticism that Wisconsin will rein in campaign spending, there may be some reason for optimism.

A year ago, a proposed joint resolution in Wisconsin’s Legislature bemoaned Citizens United and the spending it had unleashed. The resolution noted that “this spending has the potential to drown out speech rights for all citizens, narrow debate, weaken federalism and self-governance in the states, and increase the risk of systemic corruption.”

The resolution called for a constitutional amendment clarifying that “states may regulate the spending of money to influence federal elections.”

And though it never came to a vote, 17 members of the Legislature signed on to it, a dozen of them Republicans. Eight of them are still in the Legislature, including Sen. Van Wanggaard, who voted for the 2015 bill weakening Wisconsin’s campaign finance rules.

Wanggaard did not respond to a request for comment. But an aide expressed surprise — and disbelief — seeing the lawmaker’s name on the resolution.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

How Elon Musk, George Soros and other billionaires are shaping the most expensive court race in US history is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.