Senate Republicans seek to kill US$7,500 EV tax credit
WASHINGTON: US Senate Republicans on Monday proposed a tax and budget bill that would end the US$7,500 tax credit on new electric vehicle sales 180 days after the measure is signed into law and immediately end the credit for leased EVs made outside North America.
Republicans have taken aim at EVs on a number of fronts, a u-turn from former President Joe Biden's policy that encouraged electric vehicles and renewable energy to fight climate change and reduce emissions.
The Republican Senate Finance Committee proposal would also end a US$4,000 used-vehicle EV tax credit 90 days after the bill's approval.
The Senate Republicans propose to end, effective June 16, the US$7,500 credit for leased vehicles that would also not meet the purchasing credit. Currently leased vehicles qualify without any restrictions on content or where they were assembled.
Leased vehicles could still get the tax credit for 180 more days after passage of the measure if they meet the same
stringent North American assembly, battery and
critical mineral content rules as purchased vehicles.
The House of Representatives version would allow the US$7,500 new-EV tax credit to continue through the end of 2025, and through the end of 2026 for automakers that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs before killing it.
The Republican Senate proposal would exempt interest paid on auto loans from taxes for new cars made in the US through 2028, but phases it out for individual taxpayers making more than US$100,000 annually.
The House bill would impose a new US$250 annual fee on EVs for road repair costs and US$100 for hybrid vehicles. The House bill would phase out EV battery production tax credits in 2028.
President Donald Trump last week signed a resolution approved by Congress to bar California's landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, which has been adopted by 11 other states representing a third of the US auto market.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
20 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
‘No increase' in radiation levels after US attack on Iran, says UN nuclear watchdog
VIENNA, June 22 — The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today said that it had not detected any increase in radiation levels at key nuclear sites in Iran following US air strikes. 'Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran... the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,' the nuclear watchdog posted on X, just hours after US President Donald Trump said the strikes had 'totally obliterated' Iran's main nuclear sites at Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz. — AFP
Malay Mail
38 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
US and international probes on bombed nuclear sites will be a scientific nightmare in Iran, while Tehran retaliates too — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 22 — When President Donald Trump ordered coordinated airstrikes — likely in concert with Israel — on Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan in mid-June 2025, the reverberations were not just geopolitical. They were scientific, environmental and humanitarian. The attack on these fortified nuclear sites, some buried 80 metres deep into Iranian mountains, was reportedly executed using GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, or so-called 'bunker buster bombs'. The consequences of such actions are only just beginning to unfold. While the strategic intent might have been to permanently degrade Iran's capacity to enrich uranium or build nuclear weapons, the cost of these strikes will be paid not just in political capital — but in the ability of scientists, inspectors and humanitarian actors to make sense of the damage, assess the risk and contain any radiological fallout. What lies ahead is a scientific and diplomatic nightmare, one that may take years to resolve. These would be some amidst Tehran's promise of more retaliation the likes of which the US and Israel have not seen. Indeed, if one were to look at Fukushima in Japan. To this day, more than a decade later, the full containment of the fallout from the Daiichi Nuclear Plant is still uncertain. Leading to copious doubts about the purity of the water and seafood emerging from that area. That is not unless multiple scientific authorities have been able to verify their untainted quality. But Fukushima was not bombed. The sea water overflooded its nuclear energy plant. In Iran, the nuclear sites are turned into a total wreck. But did the bombs actually do the job at all three sites? And there are many more. Thus the situation in Iran is serious and not as flippant as what the Trump administration has made it out to be. Unfathomable complexity of verifying damage First, consider the scientific dimensions. International inspectors, particularly those from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), now face a profoundly altered landscape. Pre-strike, these nuclear facilities were under partial IAEA monitoring, even if Iran had steadily limited access since the collapse of the JCPOA. Post-strike, the destruction of key installations — tunnels, centrifuge halls, radioactive storage units — means that any baseline of comparison is now gone. Without intact facilities, it becomes nearly impossible to determine what was being produced, how much enriched material has been destroyed or dispersed and — most worryingly — what radioactive material might now be unaccounted for. In a worst-case scenario, uranium hexafluoride gas or plutonium residues may have been aerosolised or buried beneath tonnes of concrete rubble, exposing both the local population and international experts to long-term contamination. Unlike inspections in peaceful conditions, post-bombing forensics in nuclear environments is fraught with danger. Radiation levels can spike unpredictably due to damaged shielding or ruptured storage chambers. The same instruments used to detect radiation — Geiger counters, spectrometers — can malfunction in unstable debris zones. Protective suits only go so far; cumulative exposure is a near certainty. Legal and normative breach Secondly, this episode constitutes a profound rupture of international law and scientific protocol. Iran is still a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Striking its nuclear infrastructure, even with claims of preemptive self-defence, undermines the very principles of international safeguards. IAEA verification relies on cooperation, transparency and physical access. Once these are obliterated by force, the norm of peaceful nuclear oversight is severely weakened. Worse still, it may set a precedent: any state with suspicions — founded or not — could feel emboldened to take kinetic action rather than pursue diplomacy or technical verification. The United States, which has withdrawn from multiple arms control agreements over the last decade (the JCPOA in 2018, the INF Treaty in 2019), has now removed any fig leaf of credibility as a steward of non-proliferation norms. The bombings send a message that compliance is no longer a shield against aggression, and that suspicion, not verification, determines military action. Iran's scientific infrastructure in ruins The tragedy is compounded by the loss of Iran's highly trained nuclear workforce and academic infrastructure. These facilities were not merely military installations. They were also research hubs — employing physicists, engineers, technicians and students. While the West tends to view Iran's nuclear programme solely through a security lens, for Iranians, it has also been a symbol of scientific independence and sovereignty. Now, with laboratories flattened and likely contaminated, it may take generations to rebuild the human capital and trust needed to resume even peaceful nuclear research. Furthermore, Iran's reluctance to invite inspectors after the bombing is understandable — yet it will be used as propaganda by the US and Israel to justify further action. In truth, no sovereign country would willingly invite foreign probes into bombed-out, unstable zones that might still be leaking radiation or secondary explosives. The absence of verification post-strike is not Iran's sole fault — it is a direct consequence of the preemptive aggression against it. Smoke rises following an Israeli attack in Tehran, Iran, June 18, 2025. — Reuters pic Environmental catastrophe in the making Environmental scientists warn that even in controlled nuclear facilities, minute leaks can have long-term consequences. In a post-strike environment, uncontrolled leakage is virtually guaranteed. Fordow and Natanz are located near populated regions. The contamination of aquifers, soil and air cannot be ruled out. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster — caused not by bombs but by human error — led to widespread contamination across Europe. In Iran, where containment has been violently breached, we may see similar risks, though on a localised scale. The use of high-yield bunker busters may also have destabilised underground water tables and soil compositions. Without access to geological surveys and radiation data — which Tehran is unlikely to release in the immediate aftermath — the true scale of the damage may remain unknown for years. Trump's post-strikes conference took few minutes to wrap up. Surrounded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, cum the National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, and Vice President JD Vance. The four horsemen may have heralded in the apocalypse which they needed to hurry back into their Situation Room to assess the actual damage. Diplomatic isolation and scientific paralysis For now the larger consequence is that international scientific cooperation with Iran will now grind to a halt. Academic exchanges, technology-sharing arrangements and collaborative energy research will vanish. Any Iranian scientist seen working on nuclear technology — regardless of purpose — will now be treated as suspect. This will only deepen Iran's scientific isolation, pushing it closer to autarky or toward alliances with China and Russia. In effect, what the bombings have done is not prevent proliferation, but dismantle the very framework of international engagement that had made diplomacy possible in the first place. Asean and the moral dimension As Asean Chair, Malaysia has the responsibility to take a firm stance. Not against Iran — but against the erosion of peaceful scientific norms. The use of military force to dismantle nuclear infrastructure, especially in the absence of clear evidence of weaponisation, sets a dangerous precedent for the Global South. If the Middle East becomes a theatre where nuclear energy programmes are no longer protected by international law, then smaller states may reconsider peaceful nuclear energy programmes altogether — for fear that they may one day become targets of 'preemptive' destruction. Asean must rally its member states to call for independent, neutral inspections once conditions allow — not led by NATO countries but by a coalition of non-aligned experts from states like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa. Conclusion: A scientific disaster with no end in sight The tragedy of the bombed nuclear sites in Iran is not just about diplomacy or war — it is about a fundamental breach of how the world cooperates to avoid the horrors of nuclear conflict. What we are now witnessing is the collapse of decades of scientific verification, shredded by a few bombing runs and sealed by political arrogance. The IAEA will struggle to re-establish credibility. Iran will entrench itself in scientific secrecy. And the world will have moved one step closer to normalising the unacceptable: the bombing of science in the name of security. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Sun
40 minutes ago
- The Sun
Bombing Iran, Trump gambles on force over diplomacy
WASHINGTON: For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran's Islamic Republic but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with US policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable. With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States -- like Israel, which encouraged him -- has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come. 'We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want,' said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. US intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes. Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump 'has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years.' 'We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success,' said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks but President Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well,' he said. Weak point for Iran Yet Trump's attack -- a week after Israel began a major military campaign -- came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel -- besides obliterating much of Gaza -- has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy. Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was also toppled in December. Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium. 'Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the US administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance,' said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee. 'The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal,' he said. Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had 'rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace.' Abrupt halt to diplomacy Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former president Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work -- which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term. Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date. But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran. This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump. 'Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint. 'Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests.' Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall. 'The US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, US foreign policy, global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order,' he said. 'Its impact will be measured for decades to come.'
