A bin of THC edible products from Virginia stores is displayed by the state attorney general. While states continue to expand access to legal marijuana, a separate market of hemp-derived intoxicants has blossomed. (Photo by Graham Moomaw/ Virginia Mercury)

A provision significantly limiting the sale of intoxicating hemp products made its way into legislation to reopen the federal government just a day before the Senate approved the bill. Its inclusion follows years of pressure from states and the marijuana industry.

While states continue to expand access to legal marijuana, a separate market of hemp-derived intoxicants has blossomed. The products, from drinks to gummies, are sold in gas stations and smoke shops. Critics say some companies have exploited a legal loophole from 2018 to manufacture products that get people high — without the safety regulations and taxes facing the legal marijuana industry.

That’s led dozens of states to limit or ban certain intoxicating hemp products. Most states also have pushed for federal changes, though some farm states worry the pending federal bill — which the House is expected to vote on as soon as today — goes too far.

A bipartisan group of 39 state attorneys general recently urged Congress to clarify the federal definition of hemp, arguing that the underregulated industry threatens public health and undermines law enforcement.

Texas lawmakers this year approved a strict ban on intoxicating hemp, but that measure was vetoed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The governor raised constitutional concerns because federal law allowed the products, but he then issued an executive order increasing state agency regulations, including age restrictions.

This summer, Florida regulators seized tens of thousands of packages of hemp products that failed to meet new child protection standards, including child-resistant packaging, marketing restrictions and enhanced labeling rules. In Tallahassee, the state Senate approved a ban on hemp-derived THC products, including beverages, but that measure died in the state House. A similar effort last year was vetoed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said it would harm small businesses.

Last month, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation strengthening state enforcement of its ban on intoxicating hemp products. Similarly, Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine declared an emergency last month in an executive order banning intoxicating hemp products for 90 days while lawmakers debate potential legislation.

Missouri hemp businesses fear new federal THC limits will destroy the industry

Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of the cannabis plant. The 39 state attorneys general argue manufacturers are manipulating hemp to produce synthetic THC that can be more intoxicating than marijuana.

“In this way, legal, nonintoxicating hemp is used to make Frankenstein THC products that get adults high and harm and even kill children,” the attorneys general wrote.

Hemp-derived gummies and beverages are sold without consistent age restrictions or labeling regulations and oftentimes resemble candy. During his announcement, DeWine showcased brightly packaged intoxicating hemp products that resembled name-brand candy products.

“Certainly, it’s easy to see how a child will confuse this product with real candy and eat a few gummy bears and ingest enough THC to require hospitalization,” he said, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.

Though it has faced mounting restrictions in the states, the hemp industry says the federal change poses an existential threat.

On Monday, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable said the legislation pending in Congress would wipe out 95% of the nation’s $28.4 billion hemp industry.

“The language will force patients, seniors and veterans who rely on hemp products to break federal criminal law to acquire them,” the trade group posted online.

Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the organization, said the industry has been pushing for regulation rather than outright prohibition. He acknowledged the problem of bad actors, but said those can be addressed with strong regulations like those that exist in Kentucky and Minnesota.

“These are good examples of states that have put together robust regulations. But we need to see that at the federal level, and we’ve been supporting legislation to do that for the last seven years,” he told Stateline.

Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, said he included the hemp measure in the bill to close an unintended legal loophole and that the measure would still allow farmers to grow hemp for fiber, oil and drug trials.

But fellow Kentucky Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said the move would “eradicate the hemp industry” and could override some state laws. Paul offered an amendment to remove the hemp provision but failed.

The hemp loophole

Hemp derives from the same cannabis species as marijuana, but is legally defined by its lower levels of THC, the psychoactive component of the plant.

While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, Congress sanctioned hemp in the 2018 farm bill to allow an agricultural market for hemp-based textiles, animal feeds and human wellness products centered on cannabidiol, or CBD, products. The farm bill allowed cultivation of hemp plants with a THC concentration of 0.3% or lower by dry weight.

But that threshold has become essentially meaningless, said Katharine Neill Harris, a fellow in drug policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

That’s because manufacturers have found ways to convert legal hemp plants into potent forms of synthetic marijuana. Aside from the potential of creating very strong products, she said the process requires the addition of solvents and other ingredients that raise many safety questions.

“With marijuana products, you can get some very potent products,” she said. “But the psychoactive components to THC are naturally occurring. It naturally occurs in that natural amount. You’re not doing a whole bunch of manipulation to increase the potency of the product and adding ingredients.”

Harris has tracked the growing number of states regulating the industry: Six states and the District of Columbia now ban all consumable hemp products with any amount of THC. In 24 states, intoxicating hemp products are permitted, though 15 of those states allow only low-potency products.

But even states with strict regulations still must contend with legal online markets.

“There’s a big part of that activity that you can’t control as a state when something is federally legal, and so that’s one thing that they’re asking for is federal leadership on this issue,” she said. “I think there is a big demand for some sort of industry standards.”

If approved by Congress and signed by the president, as expected, the new hemp legislation will likely have uneven impacts across the states.

For example, the change likely won’t dramatically alter the legal landscape in Alaska, where the regulators have banned all intoxicating hemp products. Marijuana businesses complain those products are still being sold, despite the ban.

But in a state like Nebraska, where lawmakers have been unsuccessful in limiting intoxicating hemp, the change could drastically alter both consumer access and business sales, depending on enforcement.

On Monday, Paul said the federal legislation would wipe away hemp regulations in many states, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine and Utah.

“The bill before us nullifies all these state laws,” he said.

‘Running with knives’

The hemp industry has argued that a lot of the opposition to it stems from marijuana businesses looking to protect their own markets, noting that campaigns for restrictions are often more organized in states that have legalized marijuana.

But producers of intoxicating hemp are looking for market access without the associated safety regulations and tax structures states have created for marijuana, argued Chris Lindsey, the director of state advocacy and public policy at the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, an organization representing the legal marijuana industry.

“They want to have some kind of regulatory framework that’s somehow different than the one that states already have [for marijuana],” he said.

His organization cheered the Senate’s efforts “to address the dangerous proliferation of unregulated synthetic THC products.”

Lindsey said hemp-derived products can contain contaminants, including pesticides. Many hemp products can be sourced cheaply overseas, he said, and with lax oversight, there is no system to recall tainted products here.

“To me, that’s like running with knives,” he told Stateline.

Floridians react to federal legislation that could ‘devastate’ state’s hemp industry

The Missouri Cannabis Trade Association recently purchased hemp products from gas stations and smoke shops from across the state to test them in an effort to show they need more regulation.

In its “Missouri Hemp Hoax Report,” the organization said independent testing found 53 of the 55 products purchased were actually intoxicating marijuana well above the legal limit of THC. Third-party lab results also showed some of the products contained pesticides and heavy metals.

Those results underscore that the products should face the same rules as legal marijuana does, said Andrew Mullins, president and executive director of the cannabis trade association. State law requires marijuana to be grown and manufactured in Missouri, mandates lab testing and allows for sales only at licensed dispensaries.

“In my mind, if it’s marijuana, which most of this is, then it should be regulated like marijuana,” Mullins said.

He said calling the unregulated products “hemp” is akin to someone selling whiskey and calling it corn: “Everybody is using hemp as a cover to basically sell intoxicating drugs.”

Mullins acknowledged the confusion among policymakers and law enforcement. But he said there are already laws — including those against trafficking marijuana without a license — that could help address the issue.

Catherine Hanaway, a Republican who was sworn in as Missouri’s new attorney general in September, has vowed action on unregulated hemp products, particularly THC beverages that are booming in popularity.

“Our focus is on the health and safety of Missourians,” James Lawson, her deputy chief of staff, told the Missouri Independent last month. “This is an unregulated industry that makes untested, unknown substances available to the public without any oversight, including children where we think it’s particularly detrimental.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Jeff Garland, right, gives a tour of Papa G’s Organic Hemp Farm in Crawford County, Indiana, on June 23, 2022. Jeff and his son started the farm in 2020.  At left is Lee Schnell of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  (NRCS photo by Brandon O’Connor)

WASHINGTON — Kentucky’s two U.S. senators sparred this week over the future of the country’s hemp industry — one arguing that a provision attached to the package that will reopen the government will close a problematic loophole and the other contending the language will regulate the industry “to death.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell ultimately prevailed and was able to keep the section in the Agriculture appropriations bill cracking down on hemp that Sen. Rand Paul tried to remove during floor debate. Both are Republicans.

The appropriations bill is riding along with a stopgap spending bill that will end the government shutdown and is expected to be voted on by the House as soon as Wednesday. The hemp measure has raised alarm in farm states benefiting from a robust hemp growing industry.

Hemp plants have 0.3% or less of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, while cannabis or marijuana plants have higher concentrations of that substance, which is what gives users the “high or stoned” feeling. 

A summary of the bill put together by Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins’ staff says the new language would prevent “the unregulated sale of intoxicating hemp-based or hemp-derived products, including Delta-8, from being sold online, in gas stations, and corner stores, while preserving non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp products.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has a warning page on its website cautioning “that delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use in any context.”

Farm Bill origins

McConnell explained he is targeting hemp because its uses have expanded beyond what was intended. 

“I led the effort to legalize industrial hemp through the 2014 pilot program and the 2018 Farm Bill,” McConnell said. “Unfortunately, companies have exploited a loophole in the 2018 legislation by taking legal amounts of THC from hemp and turning it into intoxicating substances, and then marketing it to children in candy-like packaging and selling it in easily accessible places, like gas stations and convenience stores all across our country.”

McConnell said the new provision, which won’t take effect until a year after the bill becomes law, would “keep these dangerous products out of the hands of children while preserving the hemp industry for farmers.”

Paul and Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley urged their colleagues to remove that McConnell provision from the larger spending package, but were unsuccessful. 

“This is the most thoughtless, ignorant proposal to an industry that I’ve seen in a long, long time,” Paul said. 

The new language would change the definition of what makes a hemp plant legal, a move Paul said would mean “every plant in the country will have to be destroyed.” 

“This bill’s per-serving THC content limit would make illegal any hemp product that contains more than point four milligrams,” Paul said. “That would be nearly 100% of the existing market. That amounts to an effective ban, because the limit is so low that the products intended to manage pain or anxiety will lose their effect.”

State laws said to be nullified

The legislation, Paul added, will negatively impact the nearly two dozen states that have set higher limits on hemp production.

“Currently, Maine limits THC to three milligrams per serving. That will be overruled. My home state limits THC to five milligrams in beverages; that will be overruled. Minnesota, Utah, Louisiana also have five milligrams per serving. Alabama and Georgia have 10 milligrams. Tennessee has 15 milligrams,” Paul said. “The bill before us nullifies all these state laws.”

Merkley said the new provision in the larger spending package would eliminate the hemp industry, which Congress took steps to establish more than a decade ago.

“I support my other colleague from Kentucky who doesn’t want intoxicated products produced from hemp,” Merkley said. “But the definition that is in this bill does far more than that, and it has to be fixed. So for now, it needs to be stripped out.”

The Senate voted 76-24 to table, or set aside, Paul’s amendment after McConnell moved to block it from being taken up directly. 

The Agriculture funding bill is one of three full-year government spending bills included in the stopgap spending package that will end the government shutdown once the House approves the measure later this week and President Donald Trump signs the bill. 

Trade group warns of hundreds of thousands of jobs affected

Hemp Industry & Farmers of America Executive Director Brian Swensen wrote in a statement released last week that McConnell’s provision would have a devastating impact on the industry and its workers. 

“Congress legalized hemp, Americans built an industry, and now Washington wants to pull the rug out from under hardworking farmers and small business owners. The industry wants a solid regulatory package that protects kids, but instead, Congress wants to place industry-killing caps on cannabinoids. Congress is not listening to the industry they created — they’re dismantling an industry with over 325,000 jobs and driving consumers to an unregulated, unsafe, and untaxed black market.”

John and Kara Grady, owners of Slappyhappy Hemp Company, said during an interview with the Missouri Independent the new language could hinder their business, possibly forcing them to close down.

“You’re sick to your stomach all day long,” said Kara Grady, “knowing your hard work is for not.”

Zack Kobrin, a Fort Lauderdale attorney with the firm of Saul Ewing who works in the hemp and cannabis industry, told the Florida Phoenix that many in the industry “are surprised it was such a sudden and sweeping measure.”

“I think for those that are cowboys, they will just maximize on making as much as they can until they can’t,” Kobrin said. “I think for those hemp operators that were trying to work with regulators and trying to follow the rules, this will be a real blow.”

For the second time this year, Toyota has delayed its plan to build a new factory dedicated to EV batteries in Japan’s Fukuoka Prefecture. The decision, while not unexpected, highlights the company’s cautious approach amid fluctuating global demand for electric vehicles.

Sales of Toyota’s EVs have slowed, yet the automaker maintains that the plant will still move forward in due course.

Read: Toyota’s Lineup Overhaul Could Include A Surprise Sedan And Electric Highlander

Toyota paid roughly 6 billion yen, about $39 million, for the site located in an industrial zone under development in northeastern Fukuoka Prefecture. As part of the purchase, the company agreed to begin construction within three years.

Earnings Results Shift The Timeline

Despite this, the car manufacturer announced in March that it would postpone work at the site due to fall demand for its EVs. The governor of Fukuoka, as well as Toyota President Koji Sato, have since confirmed work on the site has been postponed for a second time.

Production had initially been slated to start in 2028, though an updated timeline has yet to be provided, according to Nikkei Asia.

Word of the delay coincided with Toyota’s latest earnings report. It cut its global EV sales expectations by 10 percent from a previous forecast of 277,000 units for the fiscal year ending March 2026.

Even so, Toyota hasn’t ruled out adjusting its long-term targets, including its aim to reach 1.5 million global EV sales in 2026, a figure that could yet evolve as market conditions change.

Toyota Is Still Betting On EVs

Notably, Toyota is still investing heavily in new electric vehicles and factories. It continues to work towards opening a new factory in Shanghai, China, around 2027, to produce EVs for Lexus. This facility will likely handle the production of the LF-ZC and LF-ZL that were introduced a couple of years ago as concepts.

Toyota’s EV sales through the first nine months of the year were actually up 20.6 percent to 117,031 units, but even so, that number has still fallen short of expectations.

Until the company is confident that sales will rise significantly, it doesn’t make sense to rush and build new plants only for them to sit idle or operate at partial capacity.

Sources: Nikkei Asia

Tesla CEO Elon Musk made history last week after securing a pay deal that could result in him making a staggering $1 trillion over the next decade. Now the boss of rival Rivian has bagged a similar performance-related package, though the $$$ numbers aren’t anything like as epic.

Also: Elon Musk’s Trillion Dollar Pay Hinges On A Bet That Could Break Tesla

Not that Rivian CEO JR Scaringe won’t be an extremely wealthy man if he hits the targets the company has set for him. His basic salary doubles to $2 million under the terms of the new package, and he stands to make around $4.6 billion if he’s ticked every box a decade from now.

As with Tesla’s offering to Musk, Rivian won’t hand out that thank you in cash, but instead as share options. Scaringe is receiving options to buy up to 36.5 million shares of Class A stock at $15.22 per share, but the award depends on Rivian’s stock price hitting milestones between $40 and $140 over the next 10 years.

What Needs To Happen First?

When you consider that Rivian’s share price is currently hovering around $15, having once been as high as $129 after its 2021 IPO, you can see that this is not going to be a walk in the park for Scaringe. He is also required to smash various operating income and cash flow targets, Reuters reports.

Unlike Tesla’s Musk deal, this one didn’t require shareholder approval and was decided by a Rivian board that wants to keep Scaringe focused on growing the company and ensuring the smooth development and rollout of next year’s Model Y rival, the R2.

More: Rivian Tore Apart A Xiaomi EV And Discovered What America Can’t Match

This isn’t the Rivian CEO’s first performance-related pay deal. A previous package inked in 2021depended on the automaker’s share price reaching $110-295, but this new contract recognizes that Scaringe had little chance of hitting even the lowest of those targets.

Rivian is currently dealing with the loss of federal EV tax credits and recently showed 600 employees the door in a cost-cutting drive.

Feeling smug about that 2 percent pay rise you just squeezed out of your boss? You won’t be when you hear that Tesla shareholders have voted to pay CEO Elon Musk up to $1 trillion over the next decade if the company hits a series of extremely ambitious market-value and performance milestones.

Around 75 percent of investors voted in favor of the award, which ties Musk’s payout to Tesla hitting long-term valuation goals rather than fixed salary or bonuses.

To access the full $1 trillion, Musk will need to boost the automaker’s market value from $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and push it to make 20 million cars, a big jump from the 8.5 million it has produced in its lifetime.

Related: Yale Economists Quantify Exactly How Many Sales Musk’s Politics Cost Tesla

Other stipulations include achieving 10 million FSD subscriptions, putting 1 million Robotaxis on the street and delivering 1 million Optimus robots, CNBC reports.

The payout will happen in stages and won’t come in the form of giant check or pile of bills. Instead Musk will be awarded “hundreds of millions” of additional Tesla shares, which could lift his stake in the firm form 13 percent today – already making him the biggest single shareholder – to as much as 29 percent in a decade’s time.

The vote comes after senior Tesla’s board members publicly warned that without the deal, Musk might shift his focus elsewhere. This is a man, after all, with plenty of other gigs on the go, including SpaceX, Neuralink, and xAI, an OpenAI rival some Tesla shareholders want the automaker to invest in.

A controversial CEO

But the approval arrives at a delicate time for Tesla. Sales have been weaker than expected in key markets, despite the company recently giving the Model Y and Model 3 major updates meant to boost demand.

Prices have been cut repeatedly, margins have thinned, and both legacy Western brands and younger Chinese ones are now producing their own EVs and eating into Tesla’s pie.

And then there’s the Cybertruck. The stainless steel truck generated a ton of media coverage, but demand has failed to live up to the hype.

On top of that Tesla has been hit by multiple lawsuits about crashes allegedly related to its cars’ driver assistance tech, US regulators are also investigating the safety of those same systems and a recent study showed Musk’s right-wing affiliations have cost the company billions of dollars in lost sales.

Banking on AI

So why are shareholders still willing to back a jaw-dropping compensation deal? Two words: Robotaxi and AI. Musk has repeatedly said Tesla is on the brink of full self-driving automation and many investors believe only Elon Musk can lead that transformation.

If Musk can turn that vision into reality, the trillion-dollar pay plan suddenly stops sounding theoretical. But that’s a big if, and here’s another slightly smaller one: if you were a shareholder, would you have voted to approve Musk’s mega-pay package? Leave a comment and let us know.

For years, many traditional carmakers seemed content to ignore the quiet storm gathering in China’s automotive sector. The rise of new Chinese manufacturers barely registered on their radar, as if the disruption that had shaken the tech world could never reach the showroom floor.

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

That illusion has now been thoroughly dispelled. Most major automakers now grasp the scale of disruption these Chinese brands are set to bring to the global car market, and among the most outspoken voices acknowledging it is Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley

Over the past year, Farley has been quite outspoken in his belief that Chinese brands have developed a significant lead in the electrification race.

How Big Is The Threat?

At one point, he was even driving a Xiaomi SU7 every day, not as a stunt but out of genuine admiration. For Farley, the challenge from China eclipses even the Japanese surge of the early 1980s.

“I think it’s exactly the same thing, but it’s on steroids,” Farley told Business Insider. “They have enough capacity in China with existing factories to serve the entire North American market, put us all out of business. Japan never had that. So, this is a completely different level of risk for our industry.”

In 1980, Japan produced over 11 million vehicles, a surge that prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to impose voluntary export limits on Japanese imports. Today, the circumstances are different but the unease feels familiar.

Chinese EVs are currently barred from sale in the United States, insulating local brands for the moment. Yet Ford, operating on a global stage, can’t rely on geography for protection.

The Chinese Tech Advantage

“[The Chinese] have far superior in-vehicle technology. Huawei and Xiaomi are in every car. You get in, you don’t have to pair your phone. Automatically, your whole digital life is mirrored in the car,” Farley added.

“We are in a global competition with China, and it’s not just EVs. If we lose this, we do not have a future Ford. The Chinese are the 700-pound gorilla in the EV industry. It is completely dominating the EV landscape globally and more and more outside of China.”

For now, Trump-era regulations, including the removal of the federal EV tax credit worth up to $7,500, have impacted demand for electric vehicles in the United States.

Still, Farley sees the slowdown as temporary. He expects EVs to hold about 5 percent of the U.S. market in the short term but believes that number will rise as lower-cost models reach production and public perception catches up with the technology.

Around 80 percent of global energy production today comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. Combustion, or the process of converting stored chemical energy into thermal energy through burning, is vital for a variety of common activities including electricity generation, transportation, and domestic uses like heating and cooking — but it also yields a host of environmental consequences, contributing to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Sili Deng, the Doherty Chair in Ocean Utilization and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, is leading research to drive the transition from the heavy dependence on fossil fuels to renewable energy with storage.

“I was first introduced to flame synthesis in my junior year in college,” Deng says. “I realized you can actually burn things to make things, [and] that was really fascinating.”

Deng says she ultimately picked combustion as a focus of her work because she likes the intellectual challenge the concept offers. “In combustion you have chemistry, and you have fluid mechanics. Each subject is very rich in science. This also has very strong engineering implications and applications.”

Deng’s research group targets three areas: building up fundamental knowledge on combustion processes and emissions; developing alternative fuels and metal combustion to replace fossil fuels; and synthesizing flame-based materials for catalysis and energy storage, which can bring down the cost of manufacturing battery materials.

One focus of the team has been on low-cost, low-emission manufacturing of cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries. Lithium-ion batteries play an increasingly critical role in transportation electrification (e.g., batteries for electric vehicles) and grid energy storage for electricity that is generated from renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Deng’s team has developed a technology they call flame-assisted spray pyrolysis, or FASP, which can help reduce the high manufacturing costs associated with cathode materials.

FASP is based on flame synthesis, a technology that dates back nearly 3,000 years. In ancient China, this was the primary way black ink materials were made. “[People burned] vegetables or woods, such that afterwards they can collect the solidified smoke,” Deng explains. “For our battery applications, we can try to fit in the same formula, but of course with new tweaks.”

The team is also interested in developing alternative fuels, including looking at the use of metals like aluminum to power rockets. “We’re interested in utilizing aluminum as a fuel for civil applications,” Deng says, because aluminum is abundant in the earth, cheap, and it’s available globally. “What we are trying to do is to understand [aluminum combustion] and be able to tailor its ignition and propagation properties.”

Among other accolades, Deng is a 2025 recipient of the Hiroshi Tsuji Early Career Researcher Award from the Combustion Institute, an award that recognizes excellence in fundamental or applied combustion science research.

© Photo: John Freidah/MIT MechE

Slate Auto is already treading water after its launch earlier this year. The removal of tax incentives makes its debut offering far less financially appealing than it would’ve otherwise been., and that’s a pretty big deal for a model that is build around it’s affordable pricing.

While it can’t control subsidies, the EV startup, backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, can control how easy it is to own one of its vehicles. To that end, it’s just announced that it’ll give customers access to the Tesla Supercharger network and some 4,000 service locations on day one.

More: This Is Who’s Actually Reserving Slate’s New EV

Like many other EV companies, Slate will sell directly to consumers. Without dealers, the brand would need to build and staff its own service locations. Now, a deal with RepairPal allows it to offer a network of roughly 4,000 independent repair shops across the USA for maintenance and repairs as needed.

According to Slate, these independent shops will handle everything from routine maintenance to accessory installations and even high-voltage repairs. Each one will get Slate-specific training, too.

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

In addition, the company is launching its long-promised Slate University, an online and app-based hub for tutorials, repair videos, and owner education. The platform will cater to both customers and service technicians.

Slate expects it to offer an evolving library of how-to guides and even some certification courses. “We want owners to feel confident before they even arrive at a service appointment,” CEO Chris Barman told Newsweek.

Supercharging the Experience

Charging is another area where Slate doesn’t want to over complicate things. Its product offerings will use the North American Charging Standard (NACS), giving drivers direct access to Tesla’s Supercharger network that consists of over 25,000 fast chargers nationwide and is widely regarded as the most reliable.

Essentially, Slate owners should have no issue going coast to coast so long as they’re okay with frequent stops due to the truck’s modest maximum range of 240 miles.

Also: Slate May Be About To Price Itself Out Of The EV Market

Production is set to begin late next year in Warsaw, Indiana, and Slate says that it already has over 100,000 reservations.

While we wait to see how many of those will actually convert to sales, it’s nice to see a new car company thinking ahead about the ownership experience. 

Sources: Slate, Newsweek

The automotive industry never stays still for long. While electric vehicles are growing in popularity around the globe, they’re facing serious headwinds in the US.

The federal government is no longer subsidizing them, gas cars are no longer facing harsh penalties for missing economy regulations, and their pricing is still higher on average than that of an ICE car. Despite all that, Ford’s former CEO, Mark Fields, believes EV adoption will continue to steadily climb.

Is Growth Still Coming?

Speaking with CNBC on Friday, Fields said he expects “gradual growth” in all-electric vehicle demand after the Trump administration’s September decision to end the $7,500 new and $4,000 used EV tax credits.

The former Ford chief, who led the company from 2014 to 2017, believes long-term adoption remains inevitable as consumers increasingly shift toward renewable energy sources.

Read: Kia’s Coming After The Golf R With Nothing But Electricity

“You’re going to see these grow over time, but it’s not going to be at the pace that the automakers thought,” Fields said. “That’s why you’re seeing these big impairment charges that both Ford and GM and others have taken.”

GM announced that it’s taking a $1.6 billion charge associated with ‘strategic realignment’ of its EV game plan.

Ford’s current CEO, Jim Farley, also said earlier this month that the loss of tax credits could halve US EV sales in the near term. Like Fields, Farley believes adoption rates will continue to climb as more affordable models show up.

The former said that automakers “went full bore” into EVs without fully understanding customer demand. “You’re going to see more [charges] going forward as the industry adjusts to a new demand curve,” he commented.

More: EV Sales Will Collapse 60% In October, J.D. Power Forecasts

That said, not everybody agrees that cutting subsidies will affect adoption as strongly as anticipated.

Former Tesla global sales chief Jon McNeill told CNBC earlier this month that European markets continued to grow despite similar subsidy rollbacks. It’s thus plausible that the US market could pick back up once buyers adjust to the new prices. 

For Rivian’s earliest customers, timing proved to be an expensive lesson. In early 2022, the young EV maker frustrated reservation holders by announcing steep price hikes for the R1T pickup and R1S SUV just before their launch. As it turns out, that decision came with a hefty price tag of its own.

This week, Rivian confirmed it would pay $250 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed shortly after those price increases were made public.

Read: Rivian Rethinks Doors Only After Tesla Traps Put Design Flaws In Spotlight

In March 2022, Rivian revealed that prices for the R1T would climb from $67,500 to $79,500, while the R1S would rise from $70,000 to $84,500. Price adjustments aren’t unusual in the auto industry, but few companies raise figures that sharply, Tesla’s occasional curveballs aside.

The real misstep came when Rivian initially applied the new prices to existing reservations. That move hit early adopters who had placed their deposits months earlier the hardest, and it didn’t sit well with them.

Rivian reversed course within days, sparing existing customers from the higher prices and limiting the increases to new buyers. But the damage was done.

Soon after, a lawsuit accused the company of including misleading statements and cost estimates in filings made before its 2021 IPO about the true expenses involved in producing the R1 lineup.

Now, Rivian has agreed to settle the case. The company will pay $250 million in total, with $67 million covered through its directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and the remaining $183 million drawn from its cash reserves. The agreement still awaits final approval from the court.

Rivian maintains that it denies all allegations and states the settlement “is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing.”

Anyone who acquired Rivian Class A common stock between November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022, qualifies as part of the settlement group.

The settlement comes at the worst possible time for the car manufacturer. While it had $4.8 billion in cash and equivalents at the end of June, it needs all the money it can get to successfully launch the mid-size R2, which could prove to be a make-or-break moment for the automaker.

A slowing EV market has prompted Rivian to slash more than 600 jobs across its workforce, despite the company’s expansion plans and having several new models in the pipeline.

The layoffs, which represent about 4.5 percent of Rivian’s staff, were announced soon after the company lowered its delivery forecast for the year, now expecting to sell fewer vehicles than in both 2023 and 2024.

Read: Rivian Axes Staff As Trump’s Policies Rip A Hole In Its Revenue Plans

Most of the reductions are being made across commercial teams in Rivian’s servicing and sales divisions. Additionally, Chief executive RJ Scaringe told employees in an internal memo that the company is consolidating several departments into a single marketing organization, with Scaringe temporarily taking the helm himself.

“These are not changes that were made lightly,” Scaringe wrote. “With the changing operating backdrop, we had to rethink how we are scaling our go-to-market functions. This news is challenging to hear, and the hard work and contributions of the team members who are leaving are greatly appreciated.”

These job cuts, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, come just a month after Rivian made a separate round of layoffs, cutting approximately 225 jobs, also targeting its sales and service operations in both the United States and Canada.

Sales Crunch

Rivian reported a record 13,201 sales in the third quarter, marking a 32 percent rise over the previous period. That figure, however, was partly inflated by customers rushing to buy before the federal EV tax credit expired.

Deliveries are expected to drop sharply in the final quarter, with Rivian forecasting year-end sales between 41,500 and 43,500 vehicles. By contrast, the company delivered 50,100 units in 2023 and 51,579 in 2024, signaling a noticeable downturn as the broader EV market settles into a slower growth phase.

Next year, the electric car manufacturer plans to start production of the long-awaited R2. The upcoming model will be smaller than the current R1T and R1S and is expected to start at around $45,000. After it hits the market, Rivian will follow it up with the R3, R4, and R5.

Under the Biden administration, carmakers enjoyed four years of predictable policy and a clear push toward electrification. Since 2005, some form of tax credit has existed to reward buyers of low-emission vehicles. Then came January.

Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office promptly threw a wrench into that setup, with his administration scrapping the EV tax credit, lifting penalties for exceeding emissions targets, and generally adopting an anti-EV posture that left automakers recalibrating overnight.

Now, car manufacturers are facing an uphill climb. Following the removal of the federal EV tax credit at the end of September, General Motors says it has already seen a “significant” decline in demand. Even so, the company expects things to settle into a more predictable rhythm soon enough, lbeit at a lower pitch than before.

Read: EV Tax Credit Loss Will Cost GM $1.6 Billion

“EV demand is going to be pretty choppy for the near future, we think, as we come out of the $7,500 and what we’ve already seen in October with some pretty significant pullback in demand,” GM chief financial officer Paul Jacobson said during a recent earnings call. “We do think that the EV market is going to stabilize from a supply standpoint.”

Jacobson added that emissions regulations had turned parts of the EV market into a clearance aisle, with some brands practically giving away electric cars just to rack up environmental credits.

“We had a number of competitors out there that really were selling EVs for whatever they could get for them because they really wanted to get the credits on the environmental side,” he said.

While he didn’t call anyone out by name, Jacobson was referring to the regulatory credits automakers could earn from selling EVs under the previous scheme. If they failed to bring about enough credits or didn’t purchase them from a brand like Tesla, they faced fines.

GM’s EV Future

Moving forward, GM appears confident in the future of EVs. Chief executive Mary Barra refers to them as the company’s “North Star” and said the company won’t “know what true EV demand is” until early next year.

Despite the uncertainty, GM doesn’t plan to discontinue any of its current models and will focus on reducing costs over the coming years. For example, it’s working on reducing complexity and commonizing parts across its dedicated EV platform.

“We’re [also] investing in new battery technologies, LMR (lithium manganese rich), that will allow us to take cost out of the vehicle in a significant fashion,” said Barra.

The auto industry has entered a new phase, one where old hierarchies no longer guarantee dominance. Long gone are the times when legacy automakers could dismiss emerging new rivals from China.

Read: GM Quietly Plots A Family Of Low-Cost EVs After New Bolt

Now, a company like General Motors knows it needs to move faster and think sharper to keep pace with China’s electric vehicle powerhouses. According to its president, that means building new models at a speed that would once have seemed impossible.

On average, a new model from a Chinese EV brand has a typical development cycle of between 22 and 28 months, far quicker than the 32–48-month average for western automakers. GM president Mark Reuss knows the speed of its new competitors is something they need to match.

How Fast Is Fast Enough?

“I would say we can learn a lot from the speed,” he told InsideEVs during a recent podcast. “I don’t think that copying each other and trying to price each other out of the market is necessarily a great thing.”

Reuss noted that Chinese brands often use the same base of suppliers and can quickly adopt innovations, helping to speed up development times. However, he acknowledged that it can be difficult for these carmakers to make money unless they also sell batteries.

“They benchmark the heck out of each other, and then they will copy it and put it into production, so it’s a very rapid cycle because of that,” he said. “There are a lot of companies that come and go, and they come and go often. Unless you’re selling batteries, it’s a pretty tough financial deal to make money over there.”

GM is far from the only car manufacturer that needs to speed up development times. Last month, Audi said it was going “China speed” with the development of the next-generation TT, aiming to launch it just 30 months after the project was approved

Less than two weeks later, BMW raised the stakes, claiming that even Chinese firms can’t match its momentum as it develops the Neue Klasse vehicles. The Bavarian company has pledged to roll out 40 new and updated models within the next two years, signaling again that the global race for speed in electric vehicle development is very much underway

In politics, few things vanish faster than inconvenient promises. Policies that once seemed carved in stone tend to crumble the moment the weather changes. The US may have stepped back from its federal EV tax credits, but in the heart of Europe’s car industry, the story is moving in the opposite direction.

Two years after Germany scrapped its incentives for electric vehicles, a move that triggered a sharp drop in demand as we widely reported, the country is preparing to bring them back. The new purchase program will take effect in January 2026.

Renewed Push For Affordability

The new scheme will be introduced at a pivotal time for the European car industry as it struggles with US-imposed import tariffs and new competition from China.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz revealed earlier this week that €3 billion ($3.5 billion) will be allocated for zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives through 2029, targeting low- and middle-income households.

Read: Germany’s EV Sales Crash 28% In First Full Year Without Subsidies

It’s understood that the program will offer incentives worth up to €4,000 ($4,600) on the purchase of a new EV that’s priced under €45,000 ($52,600). That is a big change from the previous scheme that had a higher price limit of €65,000 ($76,000).

Importantly, plug-in hybrid vehicles will not be included in the program, although used EVs will, for the first time, be eligible, too according to German media, as reported by Autonews.

Who Qualifies

While some finer details about the program are still being ironed out, an income cap of around €45,000 ($52,600) is expected. While speaking about the new incentives, Social Democratic Party secretary-general Tim Kluessendorf said that “everyone must be able to afford the [electric] transition.”

“What is important to me in designing the subsidy program is that it must benefit the German and European automotive industry in particular,” he added. “The Ministry of the Environment will ensure that this is the case. The future is electric, and we want it to be written in Germany.”

The remark suggests the incentives could be limited to vehicles produced by European manufacturers, though no official confirmation has been made. We’ll have to wait and see if this case, but the local car industry could do with all the help it can get at the moment.

Germany’s previous EV subsidy scheme paid out roughly €10 billion ($11.7 billion) to buyers between 2016 and 2023 before being shut down due to budget constraints.

The removal of the federal electric vehicle tax credit at the end of September is set to cost General Motors as much as $1.6 billion in the next quarter, a direct result of the adjustments it must make to its electric vehicle strategy.

This follows Ford’s recent announcement that it will write down up to $400 million in manufacturing assets and reduce $1.5 billion in EV-related spending, scaling back projects including a three-row electric SUV and a full-size electric pickup.

Industry Recalibration

In its third-quarter report, GM confirmed that its board of directors had approved $1.6 billion in charges tied to what it described as the “strategic realignment of our EV capacity and manufacturing footprint to consumer demand.”

Read: GM Pulls Off Its Strongest US Comeback In A Decade But One Brand Is Slipping

The company specified that $1.2 billion of that amount relates to adjustments in its EV capacity, while the remaining $400 million stems “primarily from contract cancellation fees and commercial settlements associated with EV-related investments, which will have a cash impact.”

GM also noted that “it is reasonably possible that we will recognize additional future material cash and non-cash charges that may adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.”

GM emphasized that the measures it’s taking will not affect its existing range of electric models sold under the Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac brands.

Electric vehicle sales in the United States climbed sharply through the third quarter, yet GM cautioned in its filing that it expects “the adoption rate of EVs to slow” due to “the termination of certain consumer tax incentives for EV purchases and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations.”

During the July-September period, GM’s sales of electric vehicles rose 107 percent and have increased 105 percent year-to-date. In Q3, it sold a total of 66,501 EVs, and Chevrolet cemented its position as the second-largest EV brand in the country. In addition, the Equinox EV was the best-selling non-Tesla-branded electric vehicle.

The South Korean government is none too pleased with Hyundai’s massive US investments, particularly as tensions linger with the Trump administration over a new trade deal. Indeed, one lawmaker has even gone so far as to accuse Hyundai of trying to curry favor with President Donald Trump.

Just two weeks after Hyundai’s massive plant in Georgia was raided by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and hundreds of Korean workers were detained, the automaker announced plans to boost its American investments by 32 percent, bringing the total to $11.6 billion.

This move landed awkwardly back home. Many in South Korea had warned that the raid could discourage local companies from expanding into the United States, and Hyundai’s timing only added to the unease.

Read: Turns Out 300 Of The ‘Illegal Aliens’ Detained At Hyundai Plant Are Koreans

While recently speaking with members of the press, South Korea’s industry minister Kim Jung-kwan described the timing of the investments as “deeply regrettable.”

“We told Hyundai that [its] conduct was deeply regrettable, especially considering that our efforts have been made for the sake of Hyundai and Kia’s industry,” Kim said. “I believe that Hyundai now fully understands the Korean public sentiment.”

According to the South China Morning Post, Korean officials have clashed with US counterparts over roughly $350 billion in American investments as Seoul seeks lower tariffs on Korean cars.

Who Benefits Most?

According to independent lawmaker Kim Jong-min, Hyundai’s investments weakened Korea’s leverage during trade talks. “Isn’t the Korea-US tariff negotiation essentially a negotiation concerning Hyundai?” he asked.

“Since Hyundai is the main player in this issue, I believe that the way Hyundai responded was not helpful to the negotiations.”

Hyundai has been particularly active on the investment front this year. In March, it pledged $21 billion to strengthen its automotive, steel, and robotics businesses. By August, that figure had grown to $26 billion, with a promise to create 25,000 direct jobs in the United States by 2028.

Sources: South China Morning Post

China isn’t pleased about the 100 percent tariffs that Canada imposed on its imports, including electric vehicles, in October last year. Seeking to persuade Ottawa to reconsider, Beijing has offered to lift its own retaliatory tariffs on Canadian agricultural goods.

Even so, Canada’s automotive parts industry head has cautioned against easing the restrictions, warning that doing so could open the door for low-cost Chinese EVs to flood the market.

Trade Tensions at Full Charge

When the tariffs were first introduced, Canada described them as measures to safeguard national security and defend domestic manufacturing. Officials also argued that China’s electric vehicle industry benefited from unfair state subsidies.

Beijing’s reaction was swift. The People’s Republic struck back with tariffs on Canadian agriculture, imposing a 100 percent rate on canola oil and meat, along with a 75.8 percent duty on canola seed.

Read: Canada Might Let Chinese EVs In And The Reason Has Nothing To Do With Cars

According to Chinese ambassador Wang Di, Beijing is ready to roll back the tariff measures if Canada does the same.

“If Canada removes the unilateral unjustified tariffs on Chinese products, China will also reciprocate accordingly,” he said, “and if the EV tariffs are removed, then China will also remove the tariffs on the relevant products of Canada.”

The Canadian government says it is conducting an informal review of its tariffs on Chinese EVs, CTV News reports. It adds that since the trade dispute started, exports from Saskatchewan dropped 76 percent in August from the year prior.

Both the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have called for tariffs to be lowered to protect the local canola industries.

A Divided Response

Still, Flavio Volpe, president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, has pushed back against any move to abandon the tariffs on Chinese EVs.

“I am reminding (the premiers) publicly, that if Canada is in a trade war with a country, then the response has to be a Canadian response,” he told CTV.

“These Chinese EVs are not made for profit, they are subsidized. We’re in the middle of a game, and the only thing that changed… was the Chinese ambassador said, ‘If you do this, we’ll give you that.’ And last time I checked, the Chinese ambassador was sent from Beijing, not from Ottawa.”

Sources: CTV News

Moments after Ferrari revealed the first details of its long-awaited EV, currently known as the Elettrica, the company’s shares took a sharp dive on the Italian stock market, marking its worst trading day on record.

However, the sell-off wasn’t triggered by the car’s reveal or by news of fewer electrified models in Ferrari’s future lineup, but by weaker-than-expected financial results and a cautious outlook that rattled investors.

Markets React Sharply

The Italian brand’s shares plunged 16.1 percent after its annual Capital Markets Day and ended the day down 15.4 percent on the Milan stock exchange. They also fell by a considerable 15 percent on the New York Stock Exchange, higher than its previous largest single-day decline of 12.4 percent from February 2016.

Read: Ferrari Found A Way To Make Fake EV Noise Sound Honest

The company said it expects a net revenue of at least €7.1 billion ($8.2 billion) this year, slightly higher than a previous forecast of more than €7 billion.

It also confirmed that its net revenue is expected to increase to roughly €9 billion ($10.4 billion) in 2030 and predicts an EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) of at least €3.6 billion ($4.1 billion) by 2030.

As reported by CNBC, analysts from Citi commented that Ferrari’s updated guidance “falls below our ‘lower growth case’ estimates from our CMD preview and reflects conservatism from management, we think.”

Ferrari Elettrica

Lower EV Ambitions

Perhaps the most noteworthy announcement made by Ferrari is related to its electrification plans. In 2022, Ferrari announced that 40 percent of the vehicles it sold would have battery-electric powertrains by 2030. However, like many other car manufacturers, it has been forced to wind back these ambitions due to a slowdown in EV uptake in key global markets.

Now, Ferrari believes that pure-ICE models will account for approximately 40 percent of its sales, hybrid-powered ones for another 40 percent, and EVs for the remaining 20 percent in 2030. This means that Ferrari now expects to sell half as many EVs in 2030 as it had initially anticipated.

The company attributed the change to its “client centricity approach, the current environment and its expected evolution.”

The reception to the Elettrica may force Ferrari to adjust EV sales targets in the near future. The upcoming model’s underpinnings were shown during the event, alongside confirmation that it will deliver over 986 hp and have more than 329 miles (530 km) of driving range. Ferrari says it’ll hit 62 mph (100 km/h) in 2.5 seconds and reach a 193 mph (310 km/h) top speed.

Found beneath the skin of the new model will be a sizeable 122 kWh battery pack with an energy density of 195 Wh/kg at pack level and 305Wh/kg at cell level. It will also feature an 800-volt electrical architecture that supports 350 kW DC fast charging.

Jerome Dillard, executive director of Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) (left) holds book discussion with author and activist Bianca Tylek (right). (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“We’re talking about a major, major industry in our society today,” activist and writer Bianca Tylek told a group of about 20 people who packed a room at Madison’s Lake City Books Monday night. At the Q&A and book signing event, hosted by Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), Tylek — described as a leading expert in the prison industry — discussed her new book The Prison Industry: How It Works and Who Profits, offering her insights into what she called a $80-90 billion industry in America. 

“This is just a massive industry of folks who are using the correctional system to essentially extract either wealth or resources either from public coffers, or from low-income … communities that are directly impacted by incarceration,” said Tylek, who also founded and leads the non-profit organization Worth Rises, which works to confront and reform the prison industry. Tylek’s book delves into multiple aspects of the prison industry from food distribution to telecommunications and examines privatization, who profits and the lives of the people who are directly affected. 

The discussion was moderated by Jerome Dillard, EXPO’s executive director, who sat beside Tylek asking  questions. Dillard called Tylek “my daughter in the movement,” and spoke of his admiration for her work and her spirit in fighting for change within the prison system. 

Dillard described attending an event in Appleton last week with Tylek where he was invited to receive an award, “not knowing what we were going into,” and realizing it was a Wisconsin Correctional Association conference. 

“I just couldn’t believe all the industries that were there with tables, and tabling the event with new devices and all this,” said Dillard. “I left there really broken and heavy. These conferences opened my eyes to how big this industry is … that individuals are capitalizing on human misery.” Conference tables displayed new kinds of spit masks and shock gloves to prospective correctional customers, some of whom made joking comments about using the devices on the job. “It just blew me away, you know, that she’s bragging about punishing and torturing people in their care,” said Dillard, recalling a woman who made such remarks. 

Tylek said that there are over 1,400 manufacturers of correctional and policing equipment nationwide. “Every single state has a correctional conference,” said Tylek. “Every single state has a sheriff’s association,” as well as conferences and associations dedicated to jails, parole and other aspects of the correctional system. Tylek recalled attending the American Correctional Association conference, one of the largest in the nation, where she saw an exhibit hall “with hundreds of corporations” with their own exhibit tables. 

“And not just tables,” Tylek told the crowd. “Probably the wildest thing I saw was one company drive a full bus into the convention center, where staff from correctional institutions could step onto the bus and play with all the equipment and trinkets that they were selling. And they gave out free raffle tickets and all these things, and probably the grossest thing that I experienced was all the tickets to private events. And I made my way up to a private event for Securus.” Tylek said that the company is one of the nation’s two largest prison telecommunication companies, and was one of the largest sponsors of the conference that year. “And they had a happy hour that involved a full open bar,” said Tylek, “a full swing dance performance, everyone just having the most joyous time of all. All while on the walls there were the kiosks, the tablets, the phone devices that you could go and speak to a Securus representative while you have your cocktail. And all of this built on about 2 million people who are sitting in a cage somewhere who will never see this, who don’t get to enjoy these luxuries in any of this. It’s heartbreaking, and it’s repulsive, I think, more than anything.”

Later, Tylek elaborated more on how companies use things like gifts and luxury vacations to grow their relationships with correctional and law enforcement leaders. “At conferences, you would get these private event tickets,” she said. At one such event, she recalled, attendees were given hand-rolled cigars. “That’s just the legal stuff that looks gross,” said Tylek. There are also “questionably legal” practices, such as offering “training cruises” in the Caribbean for prison and sheriff staff in brochures distributed during contract bidding processes. 

On the dark end of the spectrum is bribery, such as the case of a Mississippi prison commissioner who was involved in a bribery and kickback scheme with private prison companies. Tylek highlighted how in Mississippi, a prison commissioner went on to work for a private prison company as a lobbyist. Similar revolving doors exist between the prison industry, especially private prisons, Homeland Security and immigration agencies, said Tylek.

Tylek described the rise of  the prison industry as a relatively new phenomenon in America. Prior to the abolition of slavery, she said, the prison population was predominantly white, and only shifted to being predominantly Black in the decades after abolition — a move  to “re-confine and re-enslave” Black people. Prison populations continued to grow into the 1970s and 80s, leading into the War on Drugs. “Really around the 1980s is when you start to see industry recognize a potential opportunity,” said Tylek. 

That’s the  era during which most of the private prison companies featured in her book began to emerge. Private prison industry representatives helped craft some of the nation’s most punitive laws such as three-strikes laws, truth in sentencing and mandatory minimums, which helped grow the prison population. “Those three pieces of model legislation were drafted by the prison industry, and specifically by private prison executives,” said Tylek. 

The consequences have been devastating for individuals and families, and also ripple out into society. “The impact of the prison industry bleeds far beyond prison walls,” Tylek said. Among those ripple effects are the cost borne by families that put money on the books for incarcerated loved ones to have food and hygiene supplies or simply to communicate, incarcerated people who work long hours for 14 cents an hour on average, missed child support payments from incarcerated parents and victims who don’t receive restitution. In addition, many small towns which once saw prisons as economic saviors now see them as burdens. 

“In the end, all of us are impacted,” said Tylek. “When we exploit people who are incarcerated, or we have a system that wants to put more people behind bars and for longer because a few stand to benefit, then socially we are all harmed by that.” 

Yet a space ripe with so many problems also invites solutions. In several states, Tylek has been involved in movements to make phone calls to incarcerated people free and in more than one of those places, that effort succeeded. “Something that everyone can understand is what’s the importance of a phone call home,” Tylek told her bookstore audience. Families of incarcerated people often face significant financial challenges, including debt, income loss and unemployment. 

In 2017, Tylek began to focus on the prison telecommunications industry. “We led the first successful campaign to make communication completely free in a jail system,” said Tylek. That was in New York, and affected the infamous Rikers Island jail. From 2019 to 2023, Tylek’s organization Worth Rises pushed for free jail calls in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Massachusetts, free prison calls in Connecticut, California, Colorado, Minnesota. Free prison calls were enshrined in the CARES Act as a result of that work. “We’ve been able to save families $600 million to date,” Tylek said, “and generate over 3 billion additional call minutes between people who are incarcerated and their loved ones.”

Dillard recalled celebrating some of those victories with Tylek, but the fight continues. “We’re in a dozen more states trying to fight for the exact same legislation to make communication free in our prisons and jails,” said Tylek. “The outcomes that we get are life-changing. In Connecticut we saw phone volume increase by over 120% overnight. In New York just recently, first data’s coming back and we are north of 40% increases in calling.” Some of that difference is also due to inconsistent call rates across different states, with incarcerated people being charged 2.8 cents per minute in New York versus people in Connecticut who were paying 32.5 cents per minute. 

“No matter where it happens, the change is substantial,” said Tylek. “These are real people with real lives. We have talked to families whose autistic child stopped speaking when her father went to prison. And when phone calls became free and he could call home again she started speaking again, her child development changed, she started engaging more in school, and now she’s flourishing, all off a simple phone call.”

Those kinds of victories can be replicated elsewhere. A campaign was launched earlier this year to make jail calls free in Racine County, and La Crosse became the first Wisconsin county to provide free jail calls earlier this year. 

“What I love about the examples in Wisconsin is that we had nothing to do with them,” Tylek said, drawing laughter from the audience in Madison. “My biggest goal has been for this movement to take itself.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rivals for decades, BMW and Mercedes largely fish in the same pool. But while one of the big German brands saw its catch rate tumble, the other is soon going to need a bigger boat, judging by sales figures released this week.

Mercedes shifted 441,500 cars in Q3 (plus 83,800 vans), a drop of 12 percent on the same quarter in 2024, while BMW moved 514,620 BMW-branded vehicles, representing a rise of 5.7 percent. Factor in the BMW Group’s other brands, including Rolls Royce, BMW M and Mini, and total sales hit 588,300, or 8.8 percent more than in Jul-Sep last year.

Related: BMW Somehow Sold Fewer Electrified Cars Than Last Year

What’s really interesting is how differently the two brands performed in certain key markets. In the US for instance, which has been impacted by tariffs this year, it’s probably not a surprise to see that Mercedes sales dropped 17 percent to 70,800 units.

But turning that logic on its head, BMW actually grew its US sales by a whopping 24.9 percent in the same period to 297,247.

And even in China, where both brands – like many Western automakers – are having a tough time, Mercedes fared much worse. Benz sales sank by a shocking 27 percent but BMW escaped with an 11 percent drop. Still terrible, but much less so.

BMW vs Mercedes Sales Q3

The electric (and electrified) numbers deepen the divide. For Mercedes, battery-electric vehicle (BEV) deliveries flatlined. The company delivered 42,600 BEVs in Q3, essentially holding steady year-on-year as it battles cost pressures, tariff headwinds, and intensifying EV competition in China.

BMW’s story is more complicated. The BMW Group’s electrified portfolio (including BEV + PHEV) showed healthy growth overall, as it moved 151,282 electrified units in Q3, up 8 percent. But they were down 2.8 percent in the US. Full EV sales in that same period fell by 0.6 percent to 102,864 units globally, though they’re up 10 percent YTD.

Both automakers have some crucial new products coming through including the GLC with EQ Technology and iX3, so it’ll be fascinating to see how those cars impact next year’s numbers.

BMW vs Mercedes sales by region

BMW sales split