What the Smart Money is Doing as Trump Pushes Car Price Cuts

The administration's pitch is straightforward: scrap the Biden-era EV mandates, and car prices will fall. On Saturday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and EPA head Lee Zeldin closed out a Midwest tour by touting this very message at the Detroit Auto Show. Duffy said the rules "will bring car prices down and allow car companies to offer products that Americans want to buy." The core of the new "Freedom Means Affordable Cars" proposal is a rollback of what the administration calls an "illegal" fuel economy standard. Officials project this will save American families $109 billion over five years and $1,000 on the average new vehicle.

But the real test isn't in the political messaging. It's in the economic reality critics are highlighting. The rollback, they argue, is less about affordability and more about propping up the oil industry. By weakening fuel efficiency requirements, the policy could lead to Americans driving less efficient vehicles, which means higher fuel bills over the long haul. One analysis suggests the cumulative cost of this shift could reach up to $185 billion in additional fuel costs through 2050. In other words, the promised savings on the sticker price might be offset by a hidden tax at the pump.

This sets up a clear tension. The administration frames the rule change as a direct path to lower car prices, a key concern for voters. Yet the critics see a policy that benefits a specific industry while potentially increasing the total cost of ownership for American drivers. The smart money will watch not just the headlines, but the numbers that matter: will automakers' insider actions show they believe in the promised affordability gains, or are they hedging their bets against a more complex financial picture?

Insider Skin in the Game: Sales vs. Promises

The smart money doesn't buy headlines. It buys stock, or sells it. And when you look at the filings, the alignment of interest between executives and the promised affordability gains is telling. For Ford, the signal is minimal. Over the last year, the only insider selling was a single transaction by Andrew Frick in July, totaling $330,000. With no other sales and only one buyer, the insider ownership remains at a tiny 0.48%. This isn't a vote of confidence, but it's not a vote of no confidence either. It's a whisper, not a shout.

General Motors tells a much clearer story. The lack of alignment here is stark. Over the past year, insiders have sold $141.35 million in stock while buying just $607,920. That's a net selling spree of over $140 million. The top of the pyramid is moving money out. CEO Mary Barra and President Mark Reuss have been heavy sellers, with Barra alone offloading more than $45 million in a single month last September. When the people running the company are taking money off the table, it's a red flag that the bullish narrative may not be reflected in their own skin in the game.

Then there's Tesla, where the CEO is the biggest seller. Elon Musk and other top executives have been active in the market, with a major sale by his brother, director Kimbal Musk, in December 2025. That single transaction saw him sell 25.6 million shares at a price around $450.66. While Musk himself has made some purchases, the sheer scale of these sales by insiders suggests a view of the stock that doesn't match the regulatory optimism. The smart money is not betting on a cheap car future; it's securing gains now.

The bottom line is that the promised affordability from regulatory rollbacks isn't being backed by insider capital. For Ford, it's a quiet non-event. For GM and Tesla, it's a clear divergence between executive actions and political promises. When the people who know the business best are selling, the smart money listens.

The Congressional Trade: What's in the Deal for Automakers?

The administration's push for trade changes is a parallel track to the regulatory rollback, aiming to tackle automakers' cost structures directly. The timing is no coincidence. As senior officials like Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and EPA head Lee Zeldin tour Midwest plants, the White House is also preparing for the USMCA renegotiation scheduled for this summer. For automakers like Ford, which rely on integrated North American supply chains, this is a make-or-break issue. CEO Jim Farley has made it clear: the industry needs changes to the agreement to protect its North American cost structure.

The political pitch is that a revised trade pact will lower costs and support domestic manufacturing. Yet the insider actions tell a different story. The scale of selling by GM executives, totaling over $140 million in the last year, suggests a lack of confidence in the sector's near-term outlook. This skepticism extends to Congress. Representative Ro Khanna, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee with oversight over trade, has been an active seller of GM stock. In November 2025, he sold shares worth $1,001 to $15,000 on two separate days. While a single transaction is not definitive, it adds to the pattern of smart money moving capital out of the sector.

The bottom line is that the promised cost relief from trade negotiations is not being mirrored in insider wallets. When the people who know the supply chain and regulatory risks best are selling, it signals they see vulnerabilities that the political narrative may be overlooking. The smart money is hedging against the uncertainty of a summer renegotiation, betting that the promised savings will be harder to achieve than the headlines suggest.

Catalysts and Risks: What to Watch Next

The smart money's thesis hinges on a simple question: will the promised affordability materialize, or is this a regulatory shell game? The near-term catalysts are clear, and they center on two things: new data and new trades.

First, watch for any new 13F filings from major institutional investors. These quarterly reports are the best gauge of whether the smart money is accumulating or distributing. A sudden surge in purchases of Ford, GM, or Stellantis shares would signal a belief that the regulatory and trade tailwinds are real and will soon boost earnings. Conversely, another wave of institutional selling would confirm the skepticism already visible in executive actions. The current pattern of insider selling suggests the institutional whales may be waiting for a clearer signal before committing capital.

Second, monitor insider trading activity with a hawk's eye. The recent sales by Stellantis' COO and General Counsel are a reminder that executives are still moving money out. The critical test will be any large-scale purchases from automaker CEOs or board members. A single, significant buy by a top executive-especially one that contradicts the recent selling trend-would be a powerful vote of confidence. Until then, the pattern remains one of caution.

The key risk is that the regulatory rollbacks fail to materially lower sticker prices. The administration estimates the changes will save families $930 on the average new vehicle. Yet critics warn the long-term cost of ownership could balloon, with an analysis suggesting up to $185 billion in additional fuel costs through 2050. If automakers' high stock prices are not supported by a fundamental improvement in affordability or profitability, the current valuations look vulnerable. The smart money is betting on a disconnect between political promises and economic reality. Watch the filings, watch the trades, and watch the numbers. The next move will be clear when the insiders and the institutions decide where to put their skin in the game.