Trade and Investment

What the world thinks about the new US electric vehicle tax plan

The European Union warned that the EV tax plans "risks creating tensions that could lead to reciprocal or retaliatory measures."

The European Union warned that the EV tax plans "risks creating tensions that could lead to reciprocal or retaliatory measures." Image: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Spencer Feingold
Digital Editor, Public Engagement, World Economic Forum
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Trade and Investment?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how Trade and Investment is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Trade and Investment

Listen to the article

  • In an effort to lower its carbon emissions, the United State is introducing tax breaks for electric vehicles.
  • The credits, however, are attached to production requirements that many countries have spoken out against.
  • The European Union warned that the EV tax plans "risks creating tensions that could lead to reciprocal or retaliatory measures."

In August, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was signed into law in the United States, marking a major step by the US government towards decarbonising high-polluting industries and increasing green financing. The legislation, which allocated $369 billion in climate provisions, introduced new incentive-based policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Such measures include a tax break for electric vehicles (EVs). However, several countries and automakers have called for reforms to the tax plan, with many opponents arguing that the credit could significantly disrupt the EV sector—and potentially violate free trade rules.

“The Act risks causing not only economic damage to both the US and its closest trading partners, resulting in inefficiencies and market distortions, but could also trigger a harmful global subsidy race to the bottom on key technologies and inputs for the green transition,” the European Commission said in letter submitted to the US Treasury.

The EU has suggested other elements beyond EVs are also discriminatory, including credits for renewable electricity generation, clean electricity production, clean electricity investment and clean fuel. Further, it suggests the IRA provides discriminatory subsidies via tax credits on sustainable aviation fuel, clean hydrogen production and advanced manufacturing production.

For its part, the EV tax plan includes a credit of up to $7,500 for passenger vehicles, which proponents hope will boost demand for EVs and accelerate the country’s development of a nation-wide charging station network.

The credit, however, is only available for vehicles with final assembly in North America. Most of the requirements are linked to critical mineral extraction, processing and recycling, and battery component manufacturing and assembly. As of January 2024, at least 40% of the critical minerals must come from the US or a country that it has signed a free trade agreement with, while the battery must have at least 50% of North American content. These minimum thresholds rise to 80% by 2027 for critical minerals and 100% from 2029 for batteries.

“On its face, the requirement of domestic production requirements for EV tax credits violates the principle of national treatment, one of the core principles at the foundation of the international trade regime,” said Michael Plouffe, an assistant professor of international political economy at the University College London.

US EV tax plan raises concerns

Following the legislation being enacted, the US government sought comment on the law’s implementation.

Japan, one of the world’s leading automaking countries, said it has “serious concerns” about the EV tax credit and warned that it could disrupt the ability of Japanese manufacturers to operate in the US. “Japanese automakers have been investing in the US for more than 40 years, creating well-paid jobs in the US and contributing to the US society as good American corporate citizens,” Japan’s statement read, adding that the requirements are “not consistent with the US and Japanese governments’ shared policy to work with allies and like-minded partners to build resilient supply chains.”

Brazil also requested that the US government provide further details on what constitutes final assembly and mineral extraction requirements, noting specifically that the restrictions could negatively impact Brazil’s mining sector. South Korea, meanwhile, called for a three-year grace period to allow Korean companies time to finalise planned investments in the US market.

Opponents also claimed that the EV tax plan could be in violation of international trade rules. The European Union, for instance, said in its statement that the tax plan contains “discriminatory” requirements that constitute a breach of countries’ commitments via the World Trade Organization. “Moreover, it risks creating tensions that could lead to reciprocal or retaliatory measures,” the EU warned.

Several top car manufacturing companies and industry associations have also spoken out against the EV tax credit plan in its current form.
Several top car manufacturing companies and industry associations have also spoken out against the EV tax credit plan in its current form. Image: REUTERS/ Rebecca Cook

Several top car manufacturing companies and industry associations have also spoken out against the EV tax credit plan in its current form.

The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association—whose members like Honda, Nissan and Mitsubishi employ 110,000 US workers, according to the organization—said the credit could “cause an extraordinary burden” to stakeholders and have a “counterproductive effect of narrowing consumers’ ability” to buy EVs. The Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association also said it was “deeply concerned” with the legislation.

The North America final assembly requirement imposes an unfair and perhaps illegal barrier to US market entry

Hyundai Motor Group

US automakers have raised concerns, too. In a letter to the US Treasury, Ford Motors urged the government to clarify key provisions of the EV tax plan and ease rules around foreign manufacturers so that more EVs can be eligible for credits.

Ford wrote that while it “appreciates and supports the overall objective” of the legislation, an “overly expansive interpretation of this provision risks undermining that very same objective by making the clean vehicle credit largely unavailable.”

The EV tax plan requirements could “have the effect of increasing supply chain rigidity, increasing corporate susceptibility to exogenous shocks,” Plouffe explained. “This is particularly jarring, given that one of the prevailing lessons coming out of the pandemic was a need for flexibility and resilience in supply chains.”

Efforts are underway to reconcile the concerns.

In late October, the EU and US established an official Task Force on the Inflation Reduction Act to facilitate a series of high-level meetings to address the issues raised in Brussels. The US Treasury Department is tasked with providing guidance on the final details of the credits’ implementation, but many experts have said the legislation leaves little room for manoeuvre.

"The task force is a welcome move. A trade dispute over green industrial policy would be damaging and suck oxygen from collaboration opportunities,” said Kimberley Botwright, the World Economic Forum's head of sustainable trade. “Further, since the issues impact countries beyond the US and the EU, the two sides should also encourage discussion with other partners."

Going forward, experts suggest it is likely governments will tie green policies to domestic job creation, which brings both opportunities and challenges. "Countries need to evaluate how to strike the right balance, to avoid creating inefficiencies and international tensions," Botwright added.

Moreover, a key question, industry experts note, is how much domestic jobs focus will be politically necessary, or whether green policies can be justified more on their own strengths.

Have you read?
Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

Global trade growth could more than double in 2024. Here’s why

Andrea Willige

May 14, 2024

About Us



Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum