In an escalation of Republican opposition to electric vehicle (EV) prone policies, two new Senate bills seek to eliminate key incentives that have fueled EV adoption in the U.S. If passed, the legislation would not only raise the price of electric cars for American consumers but also stifle the growth of automakers like Tesla, whose largest market remains the United States.

The proposed laws—one sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and another by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)—align with the broader efforts of President Donald Trump and his allies to roll back the Biden administration’s clean energy initiatives. While Tesla CEO Elon Musk has frequently positioned himself as a right-wing ally, his vocal support for conservative causes has not deterred the Republican Party from aggressively pursuing policies that could severely damage Tesla’s growth and hinder the transition to electric mobility in the U.S.

A Legislative Assault on EVs: What’s in the Bills?

The first bill, Barrasso’s Eliminating Lavish Incentives to Electric (ELITE) Vehicles Act (S. 541), proposes the most sweeping changes, aiming to eliminate all federal tax credits for EV purchases, used EVs, and EV charging infrastructure. The second bill, sponsored by Fischer, seeks to impose a $1,000 tax on the purchase of every new electric vehicle.

Barrasso’s bill would eliminate the $7,500 federal EV tax credit, a crucial driver of adoption that has helped offset the higher upfront cost of electric vehicles. Without this credit, EVs would immediately become more expensive, making them less competitive with gasoline-powered cars. The bill also seeks to abolish the $4,000 used EV tax credit, which has played an essential role in making electric cars more accessible to lower-income buyers. Without this incentive, the used EV market could shrink, making affordable electric cars harder to find.

Another major target is the federal investment tax credit for EV charging stations, which has helped expand the U.S. charging network. If the bill is passed, funding for new charging infrastructure would dry up, slowing the growth of charging stations and reinforcing concerns over range anxiety—one of the biggest barriers to mass EV adoption. Additionally, loophole incentives for leased EVs, which have allowed many consumers to take advantage of EV subsidies, would be closed under the proposed legislation.

Fischer’s bill goes a step further by actively penalizing EV buyers with a $1,000 tax on every new EV purchase. This move is designed to discourage consumers from choosing electric vehicles altogether, tilting the playing field back in favor of gasoline-powered cars.

How the Legislation Threatens Tesla and the U.S. EV Market

The U.S. is Tesla’s most important market, accounting for a significant share of its sales. By raising the cost of EVs and disincentivizing purchases, these bills could slow Tesla’s growth and hurt the broader EV industry in several ways.

Without federal incentives, consumer demand for EVs could drop, particularly for Tesla’s vehicles, which are priced at a premium. Tesla has relied on tax credits to make its cars more affordable for middle-class buyers, and the removal of these incentives would make its models less attractive compared to gasoline-powered alternatives.

The expansion of Tesla’s Supercharger network, which has been crucial in making EV ownership viable, could also slow down if incentives for charging infrastructure are removed. Tesla’s ability to invest in and expand its charging network has been bolstered by federal tax credits, and without these incentives, the company may struggle to continue its rapid growth in charging coverage.

Tesla’s dominant position in the U.S. EV market is also under pressure from increasing competition. Legacy automakers such as Ford, General Motors, and Hyundai have been ramping up their EV production, with some of their models qualifying for federal tax credits. If Tesla loses access to these incentives while competitors continue to benefit from them, the company could face a growing competitive disadvantage.

Investor confidence in Tesla is another factor at risk. Tesla’s stock is highly sensitive to policy changes that affect EV adoption, and any sign that government support for EVs is weakening could lead to increased market volatility. If these bills gain traction, Tesla’s share price could take a hit as investors reassess the company’s long-term growth prospects.

Elon Musk’s Right-Wing Leanings Offer No Protection from Republican Anti-Green Policies

Despite his outspoken support for right-wing political figures and policies, Musk has found himself at odds with Republican lawmakers who remain hostile to EVs and green energy initiatives.

Over the past few years, Musk has positioned himself as an ally of conservative causes, repeatedly attacking the Biden administration, opposing labor unions, criticizing environmental regulations, and promoting Republican narratives about government overreach. He has also courted Trump supporters and frequently uses his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), to amplify right-wing talking points.

Yet, this has not shielded him or Tesla from the Republican Party’s aggressive efforts to dismantle EV-friendly policies. Trump and his allies remain closely aligned with the fossil fuel industry, which sees the rise of electric vehicles as a direct threat to its dominance. While Musk may be a favored figure among conservatives for his opposition to the Democratic Party, that favoritism does not translate into Republican support for Tesla’s long-term business interests.

Trump, in particular, has taken an explicitly anti-EV stance, falsely claiming that the Biden administration was “forcing” Americans to buy electric cars and vowing to reverse all EV incentives if re-elected. His rhetoric appeals to industries that have traditionally backed the Republican Party, including oil companies and auto manufacturers that remain dependent on internal combustion engine production.

In this political climate, Musk’s attempts to align himself with conservative ideology have proven ineffective in protecting Tesla from the broader GOP agenda. The Republican war on EVs is not about Musk—it’s about preserving the dominance of fossil fuels and slowing the transition to cleaner transportation.

Many things do not make sense in this world because many things in this world are not balanced. In 2015, Britain finished paying off the debt it incurred to cover the payments to slave owners who lost their slaves due to the abolishment law of 1883. Under that law, Britain took a loan from banks and paid those slave owners immediately, and for more than a century has been paying banks for the loans. Understand that no one compensated the victims (yes the slaves)!

As we read that, thousands of Afrikaners (mainly White South Africans) gathered outside the US Embassy in Pretoria under the slogan ‘Make South Africa Great Again,’ echoing support for US President Donald Trump. This gathering was part of a rally where participants expressed their political views, and pushed for the government to compensate them for any expropriated land. Largely, the trajectory is that the government wants to take land from mainly white landholders to blacks since about 7% of those whites control more than 70% of the fam lands.

This should not be an issue for the white South Africans to recruit Trump.  This is a common sense thing on economic opportunity. The government of South Africa should have a dialogue with these white farmers and ask them to voluntarily relinquish assets which can be distributed to the native blacks. That you colonized people, took their land, and registered it in your name without any compensation does not mean it belongs to you.

The idea that the land is in a register your ancestors created and now belongs to you when you know that your grandparents killed and took the land from the natives should be self-evident. The government is approaching this democratically by working on the laws of the nation via the parliament. I am very confident that these citizens are also democrats. They should participate in the dialogue for a fair outcome, and not call Trump.

Many things happened under slavery and apartheid and the modern people should not ignore the root causes of these issues. Asking the government to compensate you from the general purse of the public is like UK black citizens paying taxes since 1883 till 2015 to cover the compensations to people who enslaved their ancestors! The shame was this: no bank rejected those payments despite all the modern crusades of human rights. Someone must show common sense on this in the league of F. W. de Klerk.

Comment on Feed

Comment 1: Slavery was legal. The same way war is legal. The reason why the slave owners were paid was mainly to avoid problems such as another civil war.
Zimbabwe did something similar and destroyed their economy and were still lived under a tyranny. The reason why things don’t make sense is because life is complex

My Response: The South African government is also making it legal by passing laws in the parliament. So, the expropriation will be legal and even super-legal since this was not done via decree by colonizers, but a law passed by reps.

Zimbabwe did not have problems because of the change of lands. Rather, because of sanctions imposed by the global balancers. We expect South Africa’s economy to be sanctioned as a result of this fair deal and if the economy struggles, it has nothing to do with land and inability of natives to use the land. In Zimbabwe, efforts were made to punish Mugabe and farm global inputs suppliers were told NOT to make products available to Zimabwe farmers.

Comment 2: Shouldn’t those who illegally acquired something and sold it for a profit pay for that act, not those who legally paid to buy it later?

My Response: The sins of fathers should be visited to their sons and to the many generations. The natives who have nothing are being visited by those sins of poverty and lack of assets, and those on the other side should also be visited.  The poverty of land did not end with natives, and the wealth from land should not also end with the first illegal colonizers. It goes through generations!

Brazil, which currently holds the presidency of BRICS, has decided not to push forward with discussions on creating a common currency for the bloc in 2025, according to sources who spoke to Reuters.

Instead, the focus will be on reducing dependence on the U.S. dollar by improving cross-border payment systems that facilitate trade in local currencies. While this shift may seem like a neutral economic policy, it has already drawn strong opposition from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has twice in recent months warned BRICS nations against undermining the dollar’s global dominance.

Trump’s latest warning, issued in January, came with a direct threat of 100% tariffs on BRICS nations if they attempt to replace the dollar in international trade. In a fiery post on social media, Trump declared, “There is no chance that BRICS will replace the U.S. dollar in international trade, or anywhere else, and any country that tries should say hello to tariffs, and goodbye to America!”

The aggressive rhetoric highlights Washington’s growing concerns about the bloc’s moves toward financial independence from Western-dominated monetary systems.

However, the sources insist that BRICS’ monetary discussions are not meant to challenge the United States. One of the sources explained that the goal is to “reduce friction in global trade” by making transactions between BRICS nations more efficient. Another echoed the sentiment, saying, “No one wants to create trouble, but BRICS countries also don’t want to abandon the idea of exploring this possibility.”

Experts: A BRICS Currency Is a Long Shot

While leaders like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva have championed the idea of a shared BRICS currency in the past, financial experts widely agree that such a project would be incredibly difficult to implement. The BRICS bloc includes economies with vastly different monetary policies, inflation rates, and levels of financial stability. Creating a common currency that could be effectively managed across these nations would require years—if not decades—of coordination.

Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s ambassador to BRICS, has previously pointed out that the idea of a BRICS currency remains a distant goal rather than an immediate priority.

“There is no clear consensus on key issues like governance, reserve allocations, and macroeconomic policy alignment. Until those challenges are addressed, any talk of a single currency is purely theoretical,” he stated.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has also raised concerns about the feasibility of a BRICS currency. A 2023 UNDP report found that African and Latin American economies within BRICS already struggle with structural economic weaknesses, making the prospect of a shared currency even more complex.

Brazil Moves to Strengthen Trade in Local Currencies Instead

Since a single currency is off the table for now, Brazil’s BRICS presidency is focusing on enhancing trade mechanisms that allow transactions in local currencies, reducing the need for the U.S. dollar as an intermediary. Officials say the initiative will involve integrating payment systems using advanced technologies such as blockchain, following standards set by international bodies like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Brazil is taking lessons from its own domestic success with digital payments. The country’s instant payment system, Pix, launched in 2020, has revolutionized transactions, surpassing cash, credit, and debit card payments. Now, Brazilian officials are looking to use similar technology to facilitate cross-border trade among BRICS members.

Another model under consideration is Brazil’s Local Currency Payment System (SML), which already allows transactions to be settled directly in Brazilian reais between Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. However, SML has struggled with adoption due to long settlement times—transactions currently take up to three business days to clear. Brazilian officials believe integrating instant payment technology could make these transactions faster, more secure, and cost-effective, ultimately increasing trade within BRICS nations without the need for a common currency.

Brazil will formally present its agenda for BRICS at the upcoming July 2025 summit, with key discussions set to take place in South Africa later this month on the sidelines of the G20 meetings. The BRICS bloc, which has expanded in recent years to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, is positioning itself as an alternative economic powerhouse to traditional Western financial institutions.

For now, the focus is on strengthening financial cooperation without directly challenging the U.S. dollar’s role. However, Trump’s threats of 100% tariffs on BRICS nations suggest that even small steps toward financial independence could provoke economic retaliation from the U.S.

The spat between Binance and the Nigerian government has escalated further as Tigran Gambaryan, a senior executive of the cryptocurrency exchange, revealed three Nigerian lawmakers who demanded a $150 million bribe from the crypto company last year.

The revelation comes months after his detention by Nigerian authorities on allegations of money laundering and economic sabotage. The Nigerian government, however, has dismissed the claim as a “diversionary tactic”, accusing Binance of attempting to evade justice.

On Friday, Gambaryan, Binance’s Head of Financial Crime Compliance, identified Peter Akpanke, Philip Agbese, and Ginger Obinna Onwusibe as the lawmakers who allegedly demanded the massive bribe in cryptocurrency in exchange for halting investigations into Binance’s operations in Nigeria. Ironically, Onwusibe chairs the House of Representatives Committee on Anti-Corruption, while Agbese serves as the Deputy Spokesperson of the House.

Gambaryan claimed the lawmakers orchestrated a sham meeting to make the process seem legitimate.

“They set up fake cameras and media to make the meeting appear official, but the cameras weren’t even plugged in. As you may already know, this ended with them asking for a $150 million bribe, paid in cryptocurrency into their personal wallets. A Mickey Mouse operation at its best.”

The revelation comes after months of speculation that high-ranking officials may have tried to extort Binance under the guise of regulatory enforcement. Gambaryan further alleged that Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS) was aware of the bribery attempt.

“The DSS was involved in the House of Representatives matter. We met with them at their office on Friday, January 5, 2024, as a prerequisite to our meeting with the House of Representatives. They alluded to the fact that we had to comply with whatever the House members instructed us to do,” he said.

The House of Representatives had previously denied any demand for bribes from Binance or its officials.

Gambaryan did not stop at the bribery allegations. He also accused the Nigerian government of using Binance as a scapegoat for the naira’s dramatic fall in the foreign exchange market. He said that the administration of President Bola Tinubu knew the depreciation was a direct result of its monetary policy but shifted blame onto Binance.

“They tried to use us (Binance) to violate international privacy laws by demanding user data on all Nigerians to target opposition members allegedly ‘manipulating the price of the naira’,” he said.

Gambaryan explained that the root cause of the naira’s depreciation was the decision by the Tinubu administration to unpeg the currency from the dollar, removing government intervention in the foreign exchange market.

“I’m not saying this policy decision was wrong, but everyone understood that removing government intervention would lead to extreme devaluation. Instead of acknowledging this, they used Binance as a scapegoat,” he said.

The Alleged Escape of Binance Executive, Nadeem Anjarwalla

Gambaryan also addressed another controversial incident—the escape of Binance’s regional manager for Africa, Nadeem Anjarwalla. Nigerian authorities had claimed that Anjarwalla escaped from custody during mosque prayers. However, Gambaryan dismissed this account as false, revealing that Anjarwalla had actually returned before making his escape.

“They lied about Nadeem escaping during mosque prayers. In reality, he returned and escaped1 afterward. I don’t know exactly how he managed to flee,” he said.

Gambaryan further criticized the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for mishandling the case, claiming that innocent EFCC detectives were detained while the actual security lapses went unpunished.

“If anyone should have been detained, it was Belloji (an EFCC operative) for multiple basic law enforcement failures and incompetence.”

Nigerian Government Responds: “Binance Is Engaging in Blackmail”

In response to these explosive allegations, the Nigerian government has denied the bribery claims and accused Binance of trying to manipulate public perception.

In a statement released by Rabiu Ibrahim, Special Assistant to the Minister of Information and National Orientation, the government dismissed the bribery claims as part of a coordinated international campaign to undermine Nigeria’s authority.

“In a blog post that has now been published by many international media organizations, in an apparent well-coordinated public relations effort, Binance CEO Richard Teng made false allegations of bribery against unidentified Nigerian government officials who he claimed demanded $150m in cryptocurrency payments to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation against the company,” he said.

The Nigerian government insisted that Binance is under legitimate investigation for its alleged role in money laundering, terrorism financing, and foreign exchange manipulation.

“The facts of this matter remain that Binance is being investigated in Nigeria for allowing its platform to be used for money laundering, terrorism financing, and foreign exchange manipulation through illegal trading,” he said.

The Nigerian government also highlighted that Binance is facing criminal charges in multiple countries, including the United States.

“Just a week ago, the founder and former CEO of Binance, Changpeng Zhao, was sentenced to prison in the United States, after pleading guilty to charges very similar to what Binance is being investigated for in Nigeria.”

The statement referenced the $4.3 billion fine Binance was ordered to pay to U.S. authorities, as well as Zhao’s $50 million personal fine for violations of U.S. financial laws.

Nigeria to Press Forward with Binance Investigation
Despite the international media attention on Binance’s bribery allegations, the Nigerian government vows to continue its legal proceedings against the crypto giant.

“We would like to remind Binance that it will not clear its name in Nigeria by resorting to fictional claims and mudslinging media campaigns. The only way to resolve its issues will be by submitting itself to an unobstructed investigation and judicial due process.”

“The Nigerian government will continue to act within its laws and international norms and will not succumb to any form of blackmail from any entity, local or foreign,” he said.