Got an EV? You Might Be Paying New Hidden Fees, Thanks to Congress
The "beautiful" bill has already drawn a lot of attention due to landmark measures packed into the document, including significant tax reform based on major cuts, Medicaid and SNAP reform, increased immigration spending, and an increase to the national debt ceiling, to name just a few.
However, packed into the text of the nearly 1,000-page bill are some measures that will affect American motorists, especially those who seek to free themselves from the crutch of the gas pump. Hidden very deep in the bill's text is an amendment titled Section 10004, or "REGISTRATION FEE ON MOTOR VEHICLES." This amendment states that the federal government will impose annual registration fees of $250 for electric vehicles and $100 for hybrids, which individual states' motor vehicle departments will collect.
Lawmakers like Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), the chairman of the influential Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said after the bill was passed that such a provision would help fund the Highway Trust Fund, the main source of federal highway funding. He argues that as EV ownership increases and drivers adopt more fuel-efficient cars and hybrids, the gas tax could lose its relevance very quickly.
"The bill includes provisions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to provide historic investments in the United States Coast Guard to strengthen our national and border security, as well as […] ensuring that electric vehicles begin contributing to the Highway Trust Fund," Graves said.
The Highway Trust Fund is funded in part through the gas tax, which is reflected in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, the gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel, a rate that has not been raised since October 1, 1993. Graves originally tabled this provision in the US House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in late April, where it passed and was added onto the "Big Beautiful Bill" after a 36-30 vote.
Graves's proposal in the BBB will impose enforcement responsibility on the states. Specifically, states will be charged 25% on top of the calculated amount of funding they were expected to bring into the Highway Trust Fund if their motor vehicles departments do not collect the respective EV and hybrid fees.
"The Administrator shall withhold, from amounts required to be apportioned to any State under section 104(b), an amount equal to 125 percent to the amount required to be remitted under subsection (c)(2)," the bill says. "The Administrator shall withhold the amount on the first day of each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2026, in which the State does not meet the requirements of subsection (c)."
This is not the first time that congressional lawmakers have proposed some sort of "fairness" fee targeted at EV owners. In February 2025, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) introduced the Fair Sharing of Highways and Roads for Electric Vehicles (Fair SHARE) Act, which would add a $1000 fee to EVs at the time of purchase, aimed at recouping around 10 years' worth of federal gas tax revenue per car.
However, it should be noted that this sort of doctrine has already been enforced at the state level. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 39 states have a special registration fee for EVs to recuperate lost gas tax funding.
For example, EV drivers in New Jersey, which has reached nearly 200,000 strong as of December 2024, will have to pay a $250 annual electric vehicle fee in addition to their registration fee. This fee will increase by $10 per year for four years and exceed $290 starting in 2028. New Jersey's yearly EV registration tax proceeds will fund the state's trust fund for transportation projects and NJ Transit.
It should be noted that this provision affecting EV and Hybrid drivers is sandwiched in the BBB along with dozens of other amendments affecting critical programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, as well as raising the debt ceiling. According to Politico, several Republican Senators say they'll be making changes to the BBB, as many of the provisions could affect constituents in their states.
Politics aside, looking at the numbers, it is easy to see how the shift from traditional to alternative fuels could upend decades-old rules and legislation, especially regarding the gas tax and the Highway Trust Fund. However, finding a straight-line solution will require a lot of time, work, and understanding of EVs and the needs of EV buyers by our leaders.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT To Explain Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' To Me Like I'm 12 — Here's What It Said
I'm no stranger to sweeping legislation. I have 30 years of combined experience covering politics and state government, advocating for healthcare and education nonprofits, and negotiating policy from both sides of the table. Discover More: Try This: However, when President Donald Trump unveiled his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' even I had to pause. What exactly is in it? What's at stake for everyday people now and in the future? I asked ChatGPT to cut through the noise and condense sprawling policy documents to provide me with a clear, emotionally neutral summary. In other words, I asked ChatGPT to explain it in a way that I would understand, as if I were a 12-year-old. Here's what it said. It's All In the Branding There's no official legislation called the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' According to ChatGPT, it's a branding phrase Trump used to signal his agenda. It includes tax cuts, deep rollbacks, and restructuring of social safety nets, carrying significant implications for energy, education, and public debt. Read Now: What Does It Mean for Average Americans? One of my first questions while reviewing any public policy, including Trump's budget bill, is how it would affect regular citizens. Same with ChatGPT. I asked how Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would affect average Americans. It said that workers could see slightly larger paychecks if payroll taxes are reduced. However, there's a catch. 'Those same payroll taxes fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, and without a replacement funding mechanism, the long-term stability of those benefits could be in jeopardy,' ChatGPT said. 'We've seen versions of this play out before: short-term relief, long-term risk.' Healthcare on the Chopping Block For those who rely on the Affordable Care Act, it could bring significant disruption. According to ChatGPT, 'Trump has repeatedly signaled interest in dismantling parts of the ACA. That could mean higher premiums, fewer protections for people with preexisting conditions, and a market-wide ripple effect for anyone who buys insurance independently or through the exchanges.' While the bill doesn't eliminate the ACA outright, it lays the groundwork for targeted rollbacks that could weaken coverage and affordability. For millions of Americans, especially gig workers, freelancers, and early retirees, this isn't just a policy; it's a potential threat to their health and finances. Student Debt Relief Could Disappear Tucked into the Big Beautiful Bill are provisions that would unwind key aspects of the Biden administration's student debt relief efforts. While not framed explicitly as an attack on borrowers, the bill signals a sharp policy reversal, one that could shut down or restrict forgiveness programs and income-driven repayment options. According to ChatGPT, 'If you have student loans or are counting on forgiveness programs, they could disappear overnight. The bill includes a rollback of debt relief efforts and the potential return of higher interest rates for federal loans. And if you're a parent planning for college, the financial aid landscape could shift beneath your feet.' Social Security Is Fine Until It Isn't While the Big Beautiful Bill doesn't explicitly cut Social Security, its structural changes to payroll taxes and entitlement spending raise serious questions about long-term funding. By lowering or eliminating certain employer-employee tax obligations, the bill could weaken the primary revenue stream that supports Social Security's solvency. ChatGPT explained: 'Reducing payroll taxes without a clear replacement funding mechanism puts pressure on programs like Social Security and Medicare. Even if benefits aren't cut immediately, the financial sustainability of those programs becomes more fragile.' For retirees and future beneficiaries alike, this isn't just theoretical. A weakened Social Security trust fund could lead to delayed payments, reduced benefits, or increased retirement age, all of which disproportionately affect low-income earners and workers with physically demanding jobs. The Real Power Play From an AI and systems-thinking perspective, the 'Big Beautiful Bill' revealed something deeper: it's not just about the policies; it's about who benefits from speed and opacity. According to ChatGPT: 'Wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists can plan for these changes before they hit. They have access, leverage, and legal teams. The average worker? They're just trying to make rent and keep the lights on.' With a degree of self-awareness, ChatGPT said. 'While AI can help decode the structure, it can't shield anyone from the real-world consequences. That's why clarity, accountability, and deliberate scrutiny still matter. Because in a system where speed favors power, the rest of us need time to see clearly, before the ground shifts beneath our feet.' More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT To Explain Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' To Me Like I'm 12 — Here's What It Said
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
How the 2017 Trump tax cuts made the ‘big, beautiful bill' so expensive
Congressional Republicans really like the 2017 Trump tax cuts. It's why the 'big, beautiful bill' costs so much. The decision to either extend those cuts or make them permanent before their year-end expiration date was the driving force behind the original, $2.4 trillion price tag of the House-passed megabill. Then the Senate GOP went even further, deepening the financial impact of the vast domestic policy package. That exacerbated the string of intraparty fights that consumed Republicans for weeks. Even as different factions squared off over issues such as slashing Medicaid — hundreds of billions here, tens of billions there — the extension of the 2017 tax cuts had already set the table. In the end, the Senate added another $1 trillion to the price tag. Detailed final estimates from Congress' scorekeeper haven't yet been released, but the overall picture is clear: The cost of President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending legislation was inflated by the desire to extend the tax cuts from his first administration. Other political fights shifted the price tag from there, but there was not much the staunchest deficit hawks could do but chip away at the margins. 'This was going to be a fiscal challenge from the start, because of how expensive it is to extend [the 2017 cuts],' said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center. Here's how the bill's cost ballooned, starting with its initial cost: $2.4 trillion added to the federal deficit over 10 years.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like
WASHINGTON — Two weeks after he cast a decisive vote to pass a sweeping domestic policy bill that cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill to repeal some of those cuts. 'Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a statement. It sparked mockery from the normally mild-mannered Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who posted on X: 'Just so I'm clear… he's introducing a bill….to repeal the bill… he voted for….two weeks ago?' Hawley said he feared the party's megabill would cause long-term harm if the Medicaid cuts are fully implemented, but still voted for it because it will deliver more hospital money for Missouri in the first four years. 'You can't get everything you want in one piece of legislation. I like a lot of what we did. I don't like some of it,' he told reporters after unveiling his own measure on Tuesday. The move represents a trend in Congress during President Donald Trump's second term. Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep casting votes in favor of bills even while warning that they're deeply flawed and may require fixing down the road. In some cases, lawmakers explicitly threaten to vote 'no' on bills before eventually folding and voting 'yes.' It isn't unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures. Nowhere has that dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump's megabill, they complained about red ink: It's expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'What the Senate did is unconscionable,' Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said in a Rules Committee meeting, vowing that 'I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor.' He ultimately voted for that bill, unamended, after conservatives were told Congress would consider future bills to lower the debt. In the House, a faction of swing-district Republicans voted for clean energy cuts in the "big, beautiful bill" while voicing their hope that the Senate would undo them. That didn't happen, and nearly all of them voted for the legislation regardless. Across the Capitol, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, cast another key vote to approve the megabill, she said she 'struggled mightily with the impact on the most vulnerable in this country, when you look to Medicaid and SNAP,' and called on the House to make changes. They didn't. The House passed it as written and sent it to Trump to become law. "Do I like this bill? No. But I tried to take care of Alaska's interests,' Murkowski told NBC News after the Senate vote earlier this month. 'But I know, I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that,' she added. In another case, Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., who represents a battleground district with a high share of Medicaid recipients, threatened to vote against the entire Senate bill if it maintained the steeper cuts to the program. 'I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments,' he said in a statement, urging the Senate to 'stick to the Medicaid provisions' in the earlier House version of the bill; 'otherwise, I will vote no.' Valadao's request was ignored. Five days later he voted for the Senate bill when it returned to the House, securing final passage. (His office didn't respond to queries about the contradiction.) In the end, just three Republicans who expressed concerns about Medicaid voted against the bill: Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who had just announced he wouldn't seek re-election, as well as Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick R-Pa., who are set to face tough races in next years midterms. And Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who consistently voted against the megabill throughout the process over deficit concerns, is now facing the threat of a Trump-backed primary challenge. A similar trend occurred on the $9 billion package of spending cuts to NPR, PBS and foreign aid that passed Congress this week and was sent to Trump's desk. In the run-up to the votes, multiple Republicans expressed serious concerns with the substance of the bill, its deference to the executive branch and the damage it could do to bipartisan dealmaking on government funding if one side can undo the parts it doesn't like on a party-line basis. 'I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret. Some second and third order effects. And I suspect that when we do we'll have to come back and fix it,' said Tillis, before voting in favor of the bill. Tillis told NBC News that he was 'trying to have a positive view about how this rescission is going to be implemented' and that if he's unsatisfied it will change his attitude to future rescission bills. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the chair of the Armed Services Committee, said he was troubled that Congress wasn't detailing which programs were cut and deferring to the White House. 'It concerns me — as perhaps approaching a disregard for the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch under Article I,' said Wicker, who voted for the bill. 'And in this situation it will amount to the House and Senate basically saying: We concede that decision voluntarily to the executive branch.' This article was originally published on
