US automakers blast Trump's UK trade deal
NEW YORK - The Trump administration's latest trade deal with Britain unfairly penalises US automakers that have partnered with Canada and Mexico, a trade group representing Detroit automakers said.
In a sharply worded statement, the American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) said the US-UK trade deal "hurts American automakers, suppliers, and auto workers," according to the group's president Matt Blunt.
The deal unveiled Thursday between US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer lowers the tariff on British vehicles to 10 percent from 27.5 percent on the first 100,000 cars shipped from Britain to the United States.
In contrast, AAPC members Ford, General Motors Company and Jeep-maker Stellantis now face import tariffs of 25 percent on autos assembled in Canada and Mexico. The Detroit companies organised their supply chains around the 2020 US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which Trump negotiated in his first term.
"We are disappointed that the administration prioritised the UK ahead of our North American partners," Blunt said. "Under this deal, it will now be cheaper to import a UK vehicle with very little US content than a USMCA-compliant vehicle from Mexico or Canada that is half American parts."
Trump last week unveiled some steps to lessen the impact of tariffs on imported auto parts in moves applauded by GM and Ford.
The Trump administration will allow companies that assemble autos in the United States to deduct a fraction of the cost of imported parts for two years to give the industry enough time to relocate supply chains.
In another change, the administration said companies wouldn't face a 25 percent levy on imported steel or aluminium in addition to a 25 percent levy for an imported vehicle.
But last week's changes did not soften the 25 percent tariff on imported finished autos.
The Trump administration plans to negotiate separate agreements with Japan, South Korea and the European Union, all of which export finished autos to the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
11 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Williams on track to reclaim Formula One glory, one race at a time
It's a long-term goal that won't be accomplished soon, but the future is starting to look far more promising than in recent years. Williams Racing is one of the most significant teams in Formula One. The British outfit, founded by grocery salesman Frank Williams and engineer Patrick Head in 1977, is the second-most-successful team in the sport's history. Only Italian team Ferrari (16) has won more constructors' championships. The team was dominant throughout the 1980s and 1990s, earning its nine constructors' championship titles in that period. Australian driver Alan Jones won Williams its first drivers' world title in 1980. Clay Regazzoni had earned Williams its first points a year before. In the following decade Williams achieved more success with the likes of Alain Prost, Keke Rosberg, Nelson Piquet, Nigel Mansell, Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve becoming Formula One champions in its stable. Decline and change The turn of the millennium brought a decline in Williams' performances, and it only worsened as the years went by. The team earned a single point in 2019, finishing at the bottom of the 10-team constructors' championship after 21 races. To highlight just how poor Williams performed, first-placed Mercedes collected more than 700 points that year. Fans of the team who were still holding on to the golden era of the Eighties and Nineties would have been forgiven for thinking it could not get worse. They were mistaken. Williams performed even poorer in the 2020 season, concluding it without a single point. It was a horrid period for the once influential Formula One outfit. The only positive result from that annus horribilis was the Williams family deciding to sell to Dorilton Capital towards the end of the season because of financial difficulties. 'I'm delighted that we found a buyer like Dorilton, which has a passion for Williams and getting that team back to where we all want to see the team in Formula One – being successful,' Claire Williams, the team's former deputy team principal, told PlanetF1 in 2024. 'I'm just incredibly happy that it's got that future and it can now thrive. That's what I wanted to see. 'Towards the end I saw how difficult it was for everybody at Williams that they weren't able to be successful, despite enormous efforts on their part. We didn't have the budget, we didn't have the money to enable these great people that we had working for us to do the job that we were asking them to do. 'That wasn't fair. Selling at that point was the right thing to do because Dorilton has now armed those people with the money to get the job done.' Heading in the right direction Williams is now in better financial standing and heading in the right direction. Though it is still not on solid ground financially, recording an £84-million deficit in 2023, the new owners have invested significantly in the team. They are focused on the future and restoring it to its former glory. Some promising displays so far this season from drivers Alex Albon and Carlos Sainz Jnr have seen Williams performing strongly. The team has already collected 54 points, compared with a paltry 17 last season. 'It's been a very promising start to the 2025 season. We've produced some really strong results and scored a huge number of points compared with recent seasons,' Albon told SB Nation. 'We have started the season strongly and we're delivering on the opportunities we're creating. We just need to ensure we don't get complacent and get the very maximum from what we have.' Leading this Williams resurgence is team principal James Vowles. With more than two decades in Formula One in various roles, the former Mercedes strategy director has been charged with bringing back the glory days of the British team. He was instrumental during Mercedes' dominant Formula One run between 2014 and 2021. Before that he played a pivotal role at minnows Brawn, where he oversaw the race strategy that resulted in Jenson Button securing the 2009 Formula One drivers' title and the team shockingly taking the constructors' championship. Key hires Vowles has been clear about his long-term vision and commitment to building the team 'from the ground up' since his arrival in 2023. At this point, the most important thing is fostering a competitive culture. Then, hopefully, the results will follow. 'If you want to win there is only one way to win: you can't get caught in the now,' Vowles told reporters at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. 'We were in a mess because we were short-termist all the way through the last 20 years. Some of it was financially driven, some of it driven by other elements. 'It's hard for fans to understand why we're doing this, but our targets are actually around the introduction of infrastructure, technology systems, how long it takes to build a front wing, how expensive it is. 'If I said to you our goal this year is to finish eighth, who cares? We'll probably beat that, but that's a moment in time. What we're defining here is a pathway that leads us back to winning.' In addition to Vowles, Williams has roped in a number of key people to bolster the technical team, including respected and experienced Pat Fry as chief technical officer. This move is aimed at strengthening its technical departments, particularly in aerodynamics and design. Williams may not reap the rewards any time soon, especially with its rivals also aiming for improvement after each race. However, for the fans who have followed the team through its ebbs and flows, the results so far will provide some hope that Williams can one day reclaim its spot at the summit of Formula One. DM This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
UK regulator leads crackdown on 'finfluencers'
Meta File Pic The announcement came as a group of British MPs said it had sent a letter to Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, asking for information on its approach to financial influencers. Image: Lionel Bonaventure / AFP Market regulators from six countries are cracking down on the illegal promotion of financial products by influencers on social media, UK officials said Friday. Britain's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said the action, which began on Monday, has resulted in three arrests in the UK and the authorisation of criminal proceedings against three individuals. The crackdown is being conducted jointly with regulators from Italy, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates. Some 50 "warning letters" have been issued, which will result in more than 650 requests to remove content from social media platforms and more than 50 websites "operated by unauthorised finfluencers", the FCA said. It has also sent seven "cease and desist" letters, and invited four so-called finfluencers for interviews. So-called finfluencers, or financial influencers, use their social media audiences to promote investment products, share advice, or offer their opinions on investments. Many act legitimately, but some "tout products or services illegally and without authorisation through online videos and posts, where they use the pretence of a lavish lifestyle, often falsely, to promote success", according to the FCA. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading These products can be risky, such as cryptocurrencies. "Our message to finfluencers is loud and clear," said Steve Smart, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA. "They must act responsibly and only promote financial products where they are authorised to do so - or face the consequences." The announcement came as a group of British MPs said it had sent a letter to Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, asking for information on its approach to financial influencers. The letter from parliament's Treasury Committee follows evidence from FCA officials that Meta took up to six weeks to remove harmful content, longer than other platforms. "There was an isolated incident in late 2024 which resulted in a delay in actioning a small number of reports from the FCA," Meta said in a statement Friday.
IOL News
14 hours ago
- IOL News
Europe's Left Must Unite to Oppose NATO's Rearmament and Austerity
U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth (left) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in conversation ahead of the meeting of NATO defence ministers at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, on June 5, 2025. Image: AFP John Ross As Europe approaches NATO's 24–26 June summit in The Hague, its 750 million people face a decisive strategic choice that will affect their lives for years to come – and one with a far wider global impact. The policies implemented in Europe in recent years have been disastrous socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Europe is experiencing worsening social conditions, its largest war since 1945 in Ukraine, and the biggest rise of far-right authoritarian, racist, and xenophobic forces since the Nazis in the 1930s. The proposals to the NATO summit would worsen that situation. The key question is therefore whether Europe will continue down this destructive, disastrous path or adopt policies that offer a way out. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed to the 32 NATO members that 'the NATO summit… aim for 3.5% hard military spending by 2032' – a 75% increase from the previous 2.0% GDP target. Trump calls for even higher military expenditure of 5% of GDP. Rutte opened the door to this by supporting a commitment to '1.5% related spending, such as infrastructure, cybersecurity and things like that. Also achievable by 2032'. The 3.5% plus 1.5% adds up to Trump's 5%. The social and political consequences of such a course are already clear. Europe's economies are nearly stagnant, with the EU's annual per capita GDP growth averaging less than 1% from 2007 to 2024. The IMF, somewhat optimistically, projects an increase to only 1.3% by 2030. With rising inequality and reductions in social spending due to austerity policies, hundreds of millions of people in Europe have already experienced stagnant or declining living standards. Diverting more resources into military spending, already being accompanied by social spending cuts to finance it, will worsen that situation further. The political consequences are also clear. Far-right and neo-fascist forces, exploiting the worsening conditions, which are caused by austerity measures and increased military spending, by demagogically blaming immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities, will gain further strength. The disastrous consequences for traditional left-wing and progressive parties supporting or enacting these rearmament and austerity policies, even before their support for the new NATO rearmament policies, are already known in major European countries. The SPD in Germany in 2025 saw its vote drop to 16%, the lowest since 1887. In the last elections at which they stood independently, the French Socialist Party gained only 6%. In Britain, the Labour Party, which already received one of its lowest votes since the 1930s at the last election, is now in the polls behind the far-right Reform Party. In contrast, left-wing parties that have opposed austerity and NATO policies – La France Insoumise in France, Die Linke in Germany, and the Belgian Workers Party – have maintained or significantly increased their support. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This disastrous collapse suffered by traditional left-wing parties that have supported war and austerity is extremely dangerous in the context of the rise of far-right parties across Europe. The reason for the collapsing support for such parties is obvious. Such policies attack the population's living standards. If parties claiming to be on the left continue to support austerity and rearmament, this trend of decline will just continue. The only way out of this situation for both Europe's population and the left is a complete policy reversal to one that prioritises social progress and economic development. Following the end of the Cold War, Europe should have focused on fostering economic cooperation and minimising military tensions and expenditures. This would have created a balanced economic area, equivalent to the US, with a strong potential for growth by combining Western Europe's manufacturing and services with Russia's energy and raw materials. What was possible was shown in Asia by ASEAN, which, in a continent that had suffered the worst conflicts of the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, became the world's most rapidly growing economic region through a concentration on economic development and the absence of military blocs. But, because an economically cooperating Europe could have been a successful competitor to the United States, US administrations pursued a path to prevent it – primarily through NATO's eastward expansion, which was carried out in direct violation of US promises to then-Soviet Premier Gorbachev that NATO would not advance 'an inch' eastward after Germany's reunification. Instead, in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, new countries were added to NATO, and the door was deliberately left open to admitting Ukraine, known to be a red line for Russia due to Ukraine's proximity to Russia and its position as a historical route for invasion. Numerous US experts on Eastern Europe opposed this, led by George Kennan, the original architect of US Cold War strategy, who warned NATO expansion would be 'the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era'. But their warnings were ignored, with results culminating in the Ukraine war. Now NATO demands rearmament and cuts in social protection to finance this war. NATO forces simultaneously expanded outside Europe to participate in wars in the Global South, Afghanistan and Libya, and set up numerous organisations and initiatives to prepare for intervention in the Global South – such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Strategic Direction-South HUB, the Liaison Office in Addis Ababa – and has begun to expand into the Pacific – with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea attending every NATO summit since 2022. Such NATO expansion would involve Europe in even more conflicts and more calls for military expenditure. What is required is the complete opposite – priority to social progress and investment for economic growth. Both require more spending and are therefore directly contrary to a military build-up. Europe's need for social spending is obvious. But Europe's investment, the key to economic growth, has also collapsed. In the EU, investment, once depreciation (the wearing out of existing means of production) is taken into account, has halved from 7.4% of GDP in 2007 to only 3.5% on the latest data. International comparisons show this is enough only to generate 1% annual economic growth. Additionally, the US is now pressing for further policies harmful to Europe and its people. The US has already enormously damaged Europe by its conscious policy of cutting off Western Europe's source of cheap energy from Russia, achieved via the Ukraine war and the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, which anyone who looks seriously at the matter knows was carried out by the US.
