Ford’s Shocking EV Collapse—What Went Wrong?

Ford Motor Company’s staggering $11.1 billion quarterly loss exposes the catastrophic failure of rushed electric vehicle mandates, as CEO Jim Farley admits customers have rejected expensive EVs in favor of practical hybrids—a vindication of market-driven decisions over government-pushed green agendas.

Story Snapshot

Ford reported an $11.1 billion quarterly loss driven by a $19.5 billion write-down on its failed EV division, scrapping plans for high-end electric trucks
CEO Jim Farley acknowledged “the customer has spoken,” pivoting to hybrids and extended-range electric vehicles after years of bleeding $5 billion annually on EVs
The automaker now targets affordable $30,000 EVs by 2027 while expanding hybrids to 50% of production, abandoning the premium EV strategy that misjudged consumer demand
Ford’s transparency contrasts sharply with the Biden-era push for electric vehicles, revealing EVs hold just 5% of U.S. market share despite massive subsidies and regulatory pressure

Massive Losses Force Strategic Reversal

Ford’s February 10, 2026 earnings call revealed devastating financial damage from its Model e electric vehicle division. The company absorbed a $19.5 billion pre-tax write-down, including $5.5 billion in immediate cash impacts, mostly hitting 2026 budgets. The Model e unit alone lost $4.8 billion in 2025, with $1.2 billion evaporating in the fourth quarter. CEO Jim Farley scrapped plans for next-generation electric F-Series trucks, admitting the $50,000 to $70,000 premium EV market failed to materialize. This represents a spectacular collapse of the aggressive electrification strategy Ford launched in 2021 amid government mandates and climate activism pressure.

Customer Rejection of Liberal EV Agenda

Farley’s candid admission that “the customer has spoken” delivers a harsh reality check to environmental activists and bureaucrats who pushed electric vehicle mandates regardless of consumer preferences. American buyers chose Ford’s hybrid trucks at overwhelming rates, giving the company an 80% share of the truck hybrid market, while expensive electric vehicles languished on dealer lots. U.S. EV sales reached only 1.2 million units in 2024, representing a mere 5% market share, compared to China’s 6.4 million sales. Ford slashed EV production capacity by 35% in 2023-2024 as demand collapsed. This market verdict exposes the disconnect between Washington’s green dreams and working Americans’ actual transportation needs and budgets.

Pragmatic Pivot to Hybrids and Affordability

Ford’s new strategy abandons ideological purity for profitability, targeting a 50% electrified vehicle mix by 2030 split evenly between hybrids and extended-range electric vehicles. The company will launch a $30,000 midsize electric pickup in 2027 using a new Universal EV Platform designed to compete with Chinese manufacturer BYD’s low-cost structure. Extended-range electric vehicles, which use gasoline generators to recharge batteries, offer practical solutions for truck owners who tow heavy loads without range anxiety. Farley established “skunkworks” projects in Kentucky and Mexico to drive down costs, rejecting what he called “compliance vehicles” built merely to satisfy regulatory requirements. This approach respects consumer choice and market realities rather than forcing expensive technology on unwilling buyers.

Broader Industry Implications

Ford’s course correction signals a wider retreat from pure electric vehicles across the automotive industry. General Motors, Rivian, and other manufacturers have delayed affordable EV launches below $50,000, recognizing the same demand weakness Ford experienced. The shift validates hybrids as a sensible bridge technology, allowing emissions reductions without the infrastructure challenges, range limitations, and price premiums that plague battery-electric vehicles. Ford’s transparency about losses contrasts with competitors who obscure EV profitability struggles. The company projects continued $4 billion to $5 billion EV losses in 2026 before targeting profitability by 2029. This timeline reflects realistic business planning rather than politically motivated promises, demonstrating how free-market competition produces better outcomes than government mandates and subsidies that distort consumer choices.

Ford’s energy storage division plans to produce 20 gigawatt-hours of high-margin battery systems, diversifying revenue streams similar to Tesla’s profitable energy business. The strategic reset preserves American manufacturing jobs in hybrid production while maintaining flexibility to scale EVs if genuine consumer demand emerges. Farley’s approach aligns with the Trump administration’s emphasis on energy choice and regulatory flexibility, supporting innovation without crushing traditional automotive excellence through unrealistic green mandates. The market has delivered its verdict on forced electrification, and Ford’s painful but necessary correction shows what happens when corporate leaders finally listen to customers instead of climate activists.