J.D. Vance’s Anti-Electric Vehicle Stance: A Strategic Advantage for China

This week, J.D. Vance, a millennial from Ohio, was announced as former President Donald Trump’s running mate. Vance’s rise to fame came during the pandemic. Notably, his 2016 best-seller, Hillbilly Elegy, was adapted into a Netflix film in 2020, chronicling his journey from Appalachian poverty to Yale Law School. Shortly after, Vance was elected to the U.S. Senate, a feat some attribute to his compelling story and others believe resulted from his transformation from Trump critic to supporter, all while maintaining a pro-worker, pro-middle class stance. For instance, he backed the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) strike last year, advocating for higher wages and better contracts. However, he controversially stated he would have rejected the 2020 election results.

Ultimately, Vance’s policies are not favorable towards electric vehicles (EVs) and he is dismissive of climate change concerns. If he ascends from Senator Vance to Vice President Vance—or possibly even higher as Trump’s potential successor—the repercussions on the transition to EVs could be dire for all parties involved.

Vance’s opposition to EVs was especially evident during the widely publicized UAW strike in 2023. On social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), he expressed support for the striking workers, many of whom are Ohioans employed by Stellantis, General Motors, and Ford. While this may appear as bipartisan support for Ohio’s autoworkers, the latter part of his statement criticizes “green” technology. He pointed to Ford’s high EV manufacturing costs, claimed that tax credits have failed to get drivers behind the wheel, and disapproved of Ford’s EV production plans. However, this perspective is contradicted by the reality that tax incentives have driven record EV adoption, and despite high initial costs, Ford is now America’s second-largest EV manufacturer behind Tesla.

This sentiment wasn’t limited to social media. Vance authored an op-ed in the Toledo Blade where he argued that transitioning to EVs would erode American jobs and wages while benefiting China. Ironically, Toledo is the production site for the Jeep Wrangler, including the Plug-in Hybrid Wrangler 4xe—America’s top-selling plug-in hybrid vehicle.

Vance’s piece was a rebuttal to an op-ed in the same paper that voiced concerns about the EV transition potentially sidelining UAW members. This is significant, given that some EV manufacturers prefer right-to-work, anti-union states or Mexico for their production. For example, the Chevrolet Blazer EV and Equinox EV are made in non-union facilities in Ramos Arzipe, Mexico. GM’s Ultium battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio, originally non-union, only joined the UAW after a strike and subsequent contract ratification in early 2024. UAW President Shawn Fain has clarified that the union is not anti-EV; it simply aims to ensure these vehicles and their components are built with American labor, applied to both gas cars and hybrids.

Vance holds a different view. In a September op-ed critiquing the UAW’s support for EV integration, he wrote, “Instead of leveraging this moment to steer the Biden Administration away from their obsession with EVs, the editors would have Toledo’s autoworkers resign themselves to a fate of lower wages and fewer job prospects. Make no mistake: that is what the future holds if Joe Biden’s EV folly is allowed to continue.”

On October 6, 2023, Vance repeated this sentiment in Newsweek, describing the U.S. auto industry as facing “Death by electrification.” He argued that Washington elites, who are beholden to special interests and radical environmental activists, downplay the economic damage an all-EV auto industry would cause. He noted that most battery production and mineral mining occur in China, which he sees as a strategic adversary. This ignores the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) provisions incentivizing the establishment of U.S. and North American EV and battery plants, aiming to reduce reliance on China. Every Republican in the Senate and House voted against the IRA, and Vance had not yet been sworn into Congress when it was signed into law.

On the surface, Vance’s critiques might be seen as the concerns of a senator cautious about job losses due to EVs requiring fewer parts and thus fewer manufacturing jobs. However, his actions suggest a more profound agenda.

The Drive American Act, which would eliminate the IRA’s tax incentives for EVs and redirect them to gas and diesel vehicles, exemplifies this. Even if EVs are made in the U.S., the bill explicitly excludes them from receiving these tax credits.

This raises a question: Is Vance genuinely advocating for American jobs, or is he engaging in a broader culture war? Statements like these are likely crafted to energize a voter base with a politicized view of EVs, associating them with elite Democrats they believe have damaged the country in recent years. Trump himself has spread misinformation about EVs, criticizing their weight, cost, and the supposed financial burden of switching to EVs. He even promised in June to reverse the Biden Administration’s EV policies.

We reached out to both the UAW and J.D. Vance’s office for comments, but neither responded by the time of publication. However, it’s unmistakably clear that Vance holds a strong aversion to EVs, or if he holds any neutrality, he is willing to use them as a weapon in America’s ongoing cultural conflicts. Instead of supporting American automakers in building more battery manufacturing and mineral mining facilities, Vance’s policies would halt progress, pushing for gas cars while the world moves towards electrification.

Vance’s policies would primarily impact UAW workers employed at Big Three facilities transitioning to EV manufacturing. Factories such as Grand River, Hamtramck, or Spring Hill—all of which employ workers producing or soon-to-produce EV parts and vehicles—could see job losses if EV support vanishes. Looking at Hyundai and Kia’s delayed EV rollout in China, leaving them with excess capacity for ICE car factories and subsequent layoffs, we see a cautionary tale.

If the U.S. aims to compete against Chinese dominance in the global EV market and reduce reliance on gas, it needs robust support for its EV industry. Although attacking EVs might generate appealing sound bites for news headlines and social media, it won’t create the policies needed for America to remain competitive.

For more insights and the latest updates, follow us on X @automotivefyi and visit our website, Automotive.fyi.

Written by William Kouch, Editor of Automotive.fyi.