Oregon — Oregon Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden are urging congressional leaders to preserve federal electric-vehicle (EV) programs in upcoming surface-transportation negotiations, arguing that charging infrastructure and zero-emission incentives remain essential for U.S. competitiveness. Their November statement, warns that scaling back EV funding would undermine job growth, disrupt long-term planning, and “cede progress to China.”
But the senators’ defense of federal EV spending comes during a period of worsening EV market performance and increased scrutiny over the effectiveness of existing programs.
In October 2025, U.S. EV sales fell sharply to 74,835 units, down 49 percent from September and 30 percent from the previous year, according to Cox Automotive’s EV Market Monitor at https://www.coxautoinc.com/insights-hub/ev-market-monitor-october-2025. EV market share slid to 5.8 percent, and EV inventory rose to 79 days’ supply, signaling a cooling market even as average EV prices increased to $59,125, more than $9,300 above comparable gasoline vehicles. Analysts have noted that shrinking incentives and persistent affordability gaps are reducing consumer interest, raising questions about whether federal spending is aligned with market realities.
At the same time, federal oversight findings and agency reviews indicate structural problems in the very EV programs that Merkley and Wyden seek to protect. A July 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report documented persistent implementation challenges across climate- and infrastructure-related programs, including slow execution, fragmented oversight, and limited capacity to deliver large-scale projects on schedule.
Those concerns were echoed shortly afterward by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s August 2025 announcement of revised guidance for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program. DOT noted that 84 percent of NEVI funds nationwide remained unobligated, a signal the agency described as evidence of “failed implementation.” The department stated that previous guidance included layers of non-statutory mandates related to equity, workforce standards, and environmental planning that made it difficult for states to move projects forward. The revised rules removed those requirements, aiming to “cut the waste and do it right.”
Despite this, Merkley and Wyden argue that the NEVI program and related initiatives should be protected from policy changes. Their release characterizes recent administrative reforms as attempts to “undercut zero-emission technologies” and urges Congress to maintain all previously authorized EV and alternative-fuel programs.
The contrasting positions, between lawmakers insisting the programs are essential and federal agencies reporting they are stalled, highlight a widening policy divide. Supporters of the Merkley-Wyden position argue that long-term federal investment is necessary to reach climate goals and that market volatility should not dictate infrastructure strategy. Critics counter that declining sales, rising inventories, and implementation failures suggest federal EV policy has outpaced consumer demand and bureaucratic capacity.
As Congress prepares to rewrite national transportation policy, the question is not simply whether EV programs should continue, but whether continuing them in their current form amounts to responsible governance. With market demand softening, implementation faltering, and oversight agencies issuing warnings, Merkley and Wyden’s insistence on shielding EV spending from reform may leave Congress deciding between political symbolism and practical performance.
About the Author
