Trump's budget cuts put Rivian's $6.6B loan in jeopardy
The loan, approved in the final days of the Biden administration, was intended to support the construction of a nine-million-square-foot facility capable of producing up to 400,000 EVs per year. However, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp recently acknowledged that the funding could be on the chopping block.
'You know, they secured that loan at the tail end of the Biden administration, and I think there's no secret that the Trump administration is taking a look at all those things,' Kemp told WSB-TV 2. 'So I don't really know where that stands right now.'Despite the uncertainty, Rivian has already started hiring for the Georgia plant, which is expected to employ up to 7,500 people when fully operational. Production is scheduled to begin in 2028, with the facility manufacturing the upcoming R2 and R3 models — smaller, more affordable vehicles that Rivian hopes will drive profitability.
The factory is a major piece of Rivian's long-term strategy, as the company continues to lose money on its flagship R1T pickup and R1S SUV. While Rivian remains optimistic, a revoked loan could spell trouble for its ambitious expansion plans.The potential loss of federal backing has sparked political concern. Georgia Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff warned that pulling the loan could create economic 'chaos,' particularly in a state that has aggressively pursued EV manufacturing investments. Meanwhile, Kemp has reassured residents that Georgia will still support Rivian's factory, regardless of federal funding.
'We got parameters in, and whether it's the incentives, the side itself to protect taxpayers regardless of what happens with that side,' he said. 'Rivian keeps telling us they're coming and, you know, we're taking them for their word at that.'
Still, without the $6.6 billion loan, Rivian could face significant financial hurdles. The automaker has been burning through cash in its push to scale up production, and losing a key source of federal support could force it to seek alternative funding or slow its expansion plans.Despite achieving its first-ever gross profit in the fourth quarter of 2024, Rivian's stock has faced headwinds due to mixed analyst sentiment and uncertainty surrounding government policy shifts.
A recent downgrade from Bank of America, along with concerns about potential changes to federal EV funding under the Trump administration, has shaken investor confidence. Since its Feb. 20 earnings report, Rivian's stock has declined by approximately 13%.
For now, Rivian remains confident that the loan will remain in place. 'We're working hard to onshore US manufacturing, providing thousands of American jobs here in Georgia,' the company said in a statement. But with Trump's budget cuts looming, the future of Rivian's Georgia factory — and its broader EV ambitions — remains uncertain.
Love reading Autoblog? Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get exclusive articles, insider insights, and the latest updates delivered right to your inbox. Click here to sign up now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump administration launches Smithsonian review to remove 'divisive' materials
The review seeks to 'remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' according to a letter. The Trump administration is launching a "comprehensive" review of the Smithsonian Institution, taking a microscope to the nation's premier museum system amid a culture war campaign that has targeted leading American institutions. Administration officials sent a letter on Aug. 12 to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III announcing there would be a review to determine if the Institution's materials conformed to the Trump administration's views on teaching history. "This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions," the letter states. The letter sets a timeline for the Smithsonian to turn over materials for review and make changes. It states that within 120 days, the Smithsonian is expected to begin making "content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions." In a statement, the Smithsonian said it would "continue to collaborate constructively with the White House." "The Smithsonian's work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history. We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind," the statement reads. The review will focus on Smithsonian exhibits, along with the process for creating them. It is expected to be completed early next year, which is the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding. The letter cites the anniversary, saying, "As we prepare to celebrate... it is more important thanever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define theAmerican story." More: Smithsonian ignores Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombings on 80th anniversary Founded in 1846, the Smithsonian is a public-private partnership established by Congress. It has 21 museums, 14 education and research centers and includes the National Zoo. Federal funds make up about 62% of its budget, according to the Institution's website. It is governed by a 17-member Board of Regents that includes Vice President J.D. Vance, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, six members of Congress and nine members of the public. The Trump administration's review will initially focus on eight museums, including the Museums of American History, African American History and Culture and Natural History, and the Museum of the American Indian. Trump's second administration has been marked by an aggressive culture war campaign that has taken aim at institutions such as Harvard University, which is locked in a legal battle with the administration, and the Kennedy Center, where the president named himself chair. Trump has also targeted diversity efforts and transgender athletes. The president laid the groundwork for the Smithsonian review with an executive order in March entitled "restoring truth and sanity to American history." The order includes a section called "Saving Our Smithsonian" that directs Vance to work with other administration officials on "seeking to remove improper ideology from such properties." The executive order was met with criticism by some historians who questioned whether it would allow for a balanced and accurate telling of history. The Smithsonian recently removed references to Trump from an exhibit on presidential impeachment but later restored them.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Struggling city-owned Missouri market — akin to Zohran Mamdani's NYC grocery store proposal — shuts its doors
A publicly funded grocery store in Missouri abruptly closed Tuesday morning — leaving a note on the entrance stating it can no longer serve residents due to circumstances 'beyond our control.' Sun Fresh Market in Kansas City — which opened in 2018 as part of a multi-million-dollar revitalization plan — mysteriously shuttered just weeks after viral footage exposed the struggling store's bare shelves, foul odor and frustrated clientele. The alarming footage, taken by local outlet KSHB 41, sparked renewed skepticism of Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's signature proposal to bring city-owned markets to the Big Apple if he's elected mayor. 4 City-owned Sun Fresh Market in Kansas City, Missouri, abruptly shuttered Tuesday. KSHB 'Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, we are no longer, at this time, able to serve the residents of this community,' a sign posted outside the store read, KSHB reported. 'It has always been our dream and passion to provide quality products and services in a safe, family environment. At this time, unfortunately, we are unable to do that.' The store — located in a city-owned building — was opened as part of a $15 million revitalization project aimed at rejuvenating the community. 4 Viral footage exposed the store's bare shelves and foul odor last month. KCTV5 However, the area quickly became plagued by crime and safety issues, according to the report. Despite receiving millions in taxpayer funding since opening and thousands more for security upgrades, the store still struggled to stock the shelves with produce and other essential goods. The store's nonprofit owner told the outlet in a statement that its Midtown location can longer serve residents as of Tuesday, without providing an explanation. 4 NYC Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has proposed opening city-owned grocery stores. Zohran Mamdani / TikTok The sudden shutdown comes a few months after Mamdani secured the New York City Democratic mayoral nomination with a campaign centered on affordability, including a plan to establish a $65 million network of government-owned grocery stores, with one located in each of the five boroughs. The Queens assemblyman has repeatedly claimed that city funds would be redirected from corporate supermarkets to city-owned groceries that would lower prices. However, Mamdani's plan remains vague on key details, including whether the city itself will operate the stores or delegate management to private or nonprofit partners, as he uses the term 'city-owned' and 'city-run' interchangeably to describe his ambitious campaign proposal. 4 The Queens assemblyman has repeatedly claimed the ambitious plan will help residents. Matthew McDermott Experts and critics predict Mamdani's far-fetched plan will ultimately fail over supply chain issues, but he has continued to pursue it as a potential practical experiment. 'No matter how you think about the idea, I do think there should be room for reasonable policy experimentation in our cities and in our country, where we actually test out our idea,' he said on 'The Bulwark' podcast last month. 'And if they work, they work. And if they don't, c'est la vie, then the idea was wrong.
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Pentagon plan would create military ‘reaction force' for civil unrest
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The proposal, which has not been previously reported, represents another potential expansion of President Trump's willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil. It relies on a section of US Code that allows the commander in chief to circumvent limitations on the military's use within the United States. Advertisement The documents, marked 'predecisional,' are comprehensive and contain extensive discussion about the potential societal implications of establishing such a program. They were compiled by National Guard officials and bear time stamps as recent as late July and early August. Fiscal year 2027 is the earliest this program could be created and funded through the Pentagon's traditional budgetary process, the documents say, leaving unclear whether the initiative could begin sooner through an alternative funding source. Advertisement It is also unclear whether the proposal has been shared yet with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe,' Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement. 'We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.' The National Guard Bureau did not return a request for comment. While most National Guard commands have fast-response teams for use within their home states, the proposal under evaluation by the Trump administration would entail moving troops from one state to another. The National Guard tested the concept ahead of the 2020 election, putting 600 troops on alert in Arizona and Alabama as the country braced for possible political violence. The test followed months of unrest in cities across the country, prompted by the police murder of George Floyd, that spurred National Guard deployments in numerous locations. Trump, then nearing the end of his first term, sought to employ active-duty combat troops while Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other Pentagon officials urged him to rely instead on the Guard, which is trained to address civil disturbances. Trump has summoned the military for domestic purposes like few of his predecessors. He did so most recently on Monday, authorizing the mobilization of 800 D.C. National Guard troops to bolster enhanced law enforcement activity in Washington that he said is necessary to address violent crime. Data maintained by the D.C. police shows such incidents are in decline; the city's mayor called the move 'unsettling and unprecedented.' Advertisement Earlier this year, over the objections of California's governor and other Democrats, Trump dispatched more than 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area under a rarely used authority permitting the military's use for quelling insurrection. Administration officials said the mission was necessary to protect federal personnel and property amid protests denouncing Trump's immigration policies. His critics called the deployment unnecessary and a gross overreach. Before long, many of the troops involved were doing unrelated support work, including a raid on a marijuana farm more than 100 miles away. The Trump administration also has dispatched thousands of troops to the southern border in a dramatic show of force meant to discourage illegal migration. National Guard troops can be mobilized for federal missions inside the United States under two main authorities. The first, under Title 10, puts troops under the president's direction, where they can support law enforcement activity but not perform arrests or investigations. The other kind, Title 32, is a federal-state status where troops are controlled by their state governor but federally funded. It also allows more latitude to participate in law enforcement missions. National Guard troops from other states arrived in D.C. under such circumstances during racial justice protests in 2020. The proposal being evaluated now would allow the president to mobilize troops and put them on Title 32 orders in a state experiencing unrest. The documents detailing the plan acknowledge the potential for political friction should the governor refuse to work with the Pentagon. Some legal scholars expressed apprehension about the proposal. The Trump administration is relying on a shaky legal theory that the president can act broadly to protect federal property and functions said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in legal issues germane to the US military's domestic activities. Advertisement 'You don't want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,' he said. 'You don't want to normalize routine domestic deployment.' The strategy is further complicated by the fact that National Guard members from one state cannot operate in another state without permission, Nunn said. He also warned that any quick-reaction force established for civil unrest missions risks lowering the threshold for deploying National Guard troops into American cities. 'When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you're going to want to use it,' Nunn said. 'It actually makes it more likely that you're going to see domestic deployments - because why else have a task force?' The proposal represents a major departure in how the National Guard traditionally has been used, said Lindsay P. Cohn, an associate professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. While it is not unusual for National Guard units to be deployed for domestic emergencies within their states, including for civil disturbances, this 'is really strange because essentially nothing is happening,' she said. 'Crime is going down. We don't have major protests or civil disturbances. There is no significant resistance from states' to federal immigration policies, she said. 'There is very little evidence anything big is likely to happen soon,' said Cohn, who stressed she was speaking in her personal capacity and not reflecting her employer's views. Moreover, Cohn said, the proposal risks diverting National Guard resources that may be needed to respond to natural disasters or other emergencies. The proposal envisions a rotation of service members from Army and Air Force National Guard units based in multiple states. Those include Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee, the documents say. Advertisement Carter Elliot, a spokesperson for Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, said governors and National Guard leaders are best suited to decide how to support law enforcement during emergencies. 'There is a well-established procedure that exists to request additional assistance during times of need,' Carter said, 'and the Trump administration is blatantly and dangerously ignoring that precedent.'
