Modifications made to the electric vehicle tax credit by 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act have left only ten EVs that qualify for that law’s full $7,500 tax break.

The Biden administration has made the promotion of electric vehicles a major pillar of its efforts to decarbonize the American economy. Earlier this month, the EPA announced new emissions restrictions with the explicit goal of driving EV production and sales — the administration is reportedly aiming to make two-thirds of all new car sales in the U.S. electric as early as 2032. The Inflation Reduction Act also contained billions of dollars in subsidies for the production of new EVs, in addition to revamping and extending the existing EV tax credit.

However, the majority of electric vehicles remain far more expensive than their gas-powered counterparts: according to Kelley Blue Book, the average new gas-powered car sold in the U.S. cost roughly $50,000, while the average cost of a new EV was over $61,000. The EV tax credit only applies to vehicles below a set price point: electric vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks must have a manufacturer-suggested retail price below $80,000, while sedans and passenger cars are capped at an MSRP of $55,000.

More than 20 car models met those criteria, but another limit on the tax credit stipulates that the automaker must source some of the car’s battery components and raw materials from the U.S. China, arguably America’s greatest geopolitical adversary, currently manufactures about 80% of the world’s lithium-ion batteries. That additional rule cut the list down to ten: The Chrysler Pacifica, the Ford F-150 Lightning, Chevrolet’s Bolt, Blazer, Silverado, and Equinox, the Cadillac Lyriq, the Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring, and the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y.

Car models that met the first rule but not the second were eligible for half of the EV tax credit, $3,750. Certain used EVs can also qualify for a non-refundable tax credit of up to $4,000.

High prices and a supply chain that is highly dependent on a hostile power are both significant obstacles toward widespread adoption of EVs, and despite aggressive pushes by the federal government and several states, fewer than 20% of consumers say they’re very likely to buy an EV the next time they purchase a car.

The environmental impact of electric vehicles is also a disputed issue. Some studies suggest that purchasing a used car may emit less carbon compared to manufacturing a new electric vehicle, while other studies suggest that the reduction in tailpipe emissions may offset the emissions required to make an EV within a few years — numerous variables, including the efficiency of different gas powered vehicles and the methods used to generate the electricity that powers the EV, come into play.

Furthermore, despite the numerous government subsidies and EVs’ higher prices, most automakers are losing money on their EV divisions and are only turning a profit because of the sales of their gas-powered vehicles — Ford expects to lose $3 billion on EVs in 2023, although it expects to turn a pre-tax profit of between $9-11 billion overall. EV’s currently account for about 6% of all auto sales in the United States.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP

“We believe no U.S. automaker is making EVs profitably aside from Tesla,” CFRA Research analyst Garrett Nelson wrote, noting that “EVs are likely to be a material drag on near- and intermediate-term earnings.”

Tesla recently made headlines for dropping the starting price for its best-seller, the Model Y, below the average price of a new car.

The Biden administration claimed on Tuesday that the extremist Islamic Taliban government that runs Afghanistan killed the leader of the ISIS affiliate who was responsible for orchestrating the attack at the Kabul airport in 2021 that killed 13 U.S. soldiers and nearly 200 Afghan nationals.

Administration officials claimed that the Taliban led a recent a ground offensive against ISIS-K that resulted in the death of the leader, who they refused to name, according to The New York Times.

The Washington Post reported that neither the U.S. nor the Taliban was initially aware that the leader had been killed until days after the offensive.

U.S. officials said that they had “high confidence” that the leader had been killed from intelligence that was likely based on “informants, electronic intercepts or information from allied spy services,” the Times added.

The report was careful to note that officials provided “no evidence to support that conclusion or other details about his purported death.”

The administration began reaching out to American families whose loved ones serving in the U.S. military were killed during the attack.

“They couldn’t give me his name; they couldn’t tell me the details of the operation,” said Darin Hoover, the father of Staff Sgt. Taylor Hoover of the Marine Corps, adding that the call left him “frustrated, again.”

“I want the administration to take some accountability and responsibility for this,” Hoover said. “Say, ‘We screwed up. It’s not going to happen again.’ It can’t happen again. He gave his life for this. This is what he wanted to do, and this is what happened — and now we’re all being treated like garbage.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP

In a separate interview, Hoover said, “Whatever happens, it’s not going to bring Taylor back and I understand that. About the only thing his mom and I can do now is be an advocate for him. All we want is the truth. And we’re not getting it. That’s the frustrating part.”

Tyler Vargas-Andrews, a Marine sergeant during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, broke down last month in front of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs while recounting his experience watching 13 U.S. troops killed by a suicide bomber.

A Marine sniper at the time, Vargas-Andrews and his team were ordered from Saudi Arabia to Kabul, Afghanistan, in August 2021 to oversee the final weeks of the U.S. withdrawal.

On August 22, either ISIS or Taliban militants conducted a “test run” for a terror attack with an improvised explosive device (IED). On August 26, Vargas-Andrews’ team received a description of the suspected terrorist bomber and, later that day, identified a man near the Abbey gate who fit the description and “consistently and nervously” kept looking at the Marines stationed near the gate.

Vargas-Andrews said his team asked twice for permission to take out the suspected terrorist. The first time, he was denied. The second time, the battalion commander, who came to Abbey Gate to see the suspect himself, replied, “I don’t know” if they had the authority to take out the suspect.

“Myself and my team leader asked very harshly, ‘Well, who does? Because this is your responsibility, sir,’” Vargas-Andrews told Congress. The commander responded that he would find out.

“We received no update and never got our answer. Eventually the individual disappeared,” Vargas-Andrews said. “To this day, we believe he was the suicide bomber.”

Tim Pearce contributed to this report.