How GM lobbied against its own EV goals — and what it reveals

An exclusive report shows GM spending $20 million on lobbying to weaken EV rules while maintaining ambitious electrification targets.

Summary: what happened

In early 2025, General Motors sent a team of six lobbyists to congressional offices and agencies in Washington, with a lobbying budget of about $20 million that year — one of the highest figures among U.S. companies.

Among the topics listed in the company's records was the Transportation Freedom Act, a proposal introduced a year ago that aimed to weaken regulatory pillars of the electric vehicle transition. Although GM offered supportive quotes when the text was introduced, the goal behind the lobbying was to undermine pro-EV rules.

To understand what happened, Trellis investigated GM's lobbying records and spoke with sustainability experts about corporate tactics regarding public policy. The result is a case study on how lobbying strategies can conflict with long-term climate commitments and the company's options for closing that gap.

The lobbying strategy

During the Biden administration, GM supported parts of the regulatory framework that underpins the transition to EVs — including tailpipe emission limits, federal efficiency targets, and a waiver granted to California to set its own tougher rules. This support, however, waned when EV sales slowed in 2024. With the inauguration of Donald Trump, who is opposed to EVs, GM intensified its contacts in DC to discuss the agenda, tariffs, and other topics, as revealed by lobbying records. In May 2025, thousands of administrative-level employees received an email asking them to encourage senators to support ending the California waiver.

Other automakers, such as Stellantis and Toyota, also defended the Transportation Freedom Act, and EV rules were ultimately weakened over time. The California waiver was revoked in a resolution signed by Trump in June, and the EPA ended up invalidating its own tailpipe emission standards in February. In response, GM maintained a cautious position, while CEO Mary Barra defended the idea of a single national standard during public appearances.

The reasoning behind the opposition

• For incumbents, EVs often generate losses, while pickups bring stable margins; without rules, GM could adopt whatever sales strategy it prefers.
• The pursuit of regulatory consistency is valued: GM has historically resisted California's standards, which have been adopted by several states, with Barra advocating for a single national standard.
• The perception that California's targets would be difficult to meet also weighed on the assessment of the CEO and her peers.

Management options

When comparing with peers, different paths emerged. The EPA opened a consultation on the revocation of a 2009 verdict that underpinned greenhouse gas emissions; automakers said the rules were too rigid, but some suggested maintaining the global structure to ensure the stability needed for long-term investments. Ford, for example, participated in visits to the Capitol in March, organized by Ceres, to advocate for a clean economy — something GM did not explicitly do.

There were suggestions for amendments that would not eliminate the rules, such as extending deadlines or linking standards to the expansion of charging infrastructure. Sustainability experts point out that the relationship between sustainability teams and government relations is not always harmonized, as the main focus of many departments is to protect the company's core business.

The feedback gap

The so-called "ambition loop" between governments and businesses is broken when lobbyists push for changes that do not align with long-term climate commitments. The result could lead to higher costs in the future for consumers and companies — for example, without EV rules, the projection for 2030 points to distinct impacts on the economy, with short-term gains in car prices, but future losses for consumers and manufacturers.

Risk to the U.S. industry

If the industry forces paths of lower regulation, it may fall behind global rivals that are already investing heavily in EVs. In Europe and China, among others, competition is already fierce, with EVs accounting for significant shares of new vehicle sales. The emergence of Chinese manufacturers and government support for those economies complicate the scenario for U.S. automakers that reduce support for pro-EV rules.

Nathan Niese, global lead for EVs at Boston Consulting Group, warns that other nations and companies are moving rapidly to win this future, creating distance from players that hesitate to promote consistent policies.

And you, what do you think? In your view, should large manufacturers defend regulatory reforms to accelerate the transition to EVs, even if it threatens long-term goals? Leave your opinion in the comments below.