Toyota to Lift US Prices by Over $200 in July
Toyota spokesperson Nobu Sunaga stated, 'The latest price hike is part of our regular review of the prices,' reinforcing that tariffs were not the sole driver of the decision. Nonetheless, the tariff environment has posed significant pressures on automakers globally, and Toyota acknowledged that its US pricing strategy reflects a response to ongoing cost variations driven by market conditions.
The average increases translate to roughly a 5–7 per cent jump in vehicle pricing, based on benchmark models such as the Camry and Corolla, according to industry analysts cited by Bloomberg. The Camry SEL, priced at around US $30,000, could see a rise of about US $1,500, while a higher-end Lexus RX could face an adjustment of around US $2,000.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tariffs are exerting a ripple effect across the automotive supply chain. The US government's 25 per cent tariff on imported vehicles and parts has intensified cost pressures, prompting not only Toyota but also other manufacturers—such as Mitsubishi and Honda—to consider similar price adjustments or cost‑containment measures. Ford has also announced price increases for North American‑produced models, citing uncertainty over tariff policies.
Toyota's decision highlights the paradox at the heart of the tariffs debate: protectionist measures designed to encourage domestic production may instead shift the cost burden onto end consumers in the US market. Toyota has emphasised its commitment to American manufacturing, citing the economic contribution and employment generated by its US plants. The company operates several factories in states including Kentucky, Texas, and Alabama, producing high-volume models such as the RAV4 and Tundra.
Analysts note the move is consistent with broader inflationary trends in the auto industry, where rising labour costs, supply‑chain disruptions and commodity price increases have required frequent price recalibrations. 'This is not price gouging,' one sector observer told Bloomberg, 'but a necessary step to safeguard margins amid escalating overheads.'
Consumer responses are expected to vary by model and region. Entry‑level compact and mid‑size Toyota models—very popular among US families—are the most sensitive to small price increments, while luxury Lexus buyers may feel less immediate impact. However, consumer advocacy groups have warned that maintaining total vehicle affordability is critical, particularly as financing costs remain historically high.
The US automotive landscape has already seen a rise in manufacturer price guidance and adjustments. Industry data suggest that in the first quarter of 2025, US consumers paid an average of US $2,500 more for new vehicles than a year earlier, reflecting a broader inflationary shift. Toyota's announcement coincides with this trend, signalling that pricing pressures are likely to persist amid ongoing tariff policies and global economic uncertainties.
For dealers, this price increase will necessitate adjustments in inventory valuations and marketing strategies. Many dealerships rely on tight margin plays and promotional leasing rates, and the added costs may reduce flexibility in incentives or alter end‑of‑month sales targets.
While Toyota maintains that the tariffs were not a definitive trigger, observers point out that cost pressures from global trade policies are converging with normal fiscal adjustments, amplifying the need for price revisions. As auto markets enter the second half of 2025, the industry will likely continue to test the elasticity of consumer demand amid elevated prices and shifting policy landscapes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
S&P affirms 'AA+' credit rating for US, cites impact of tariff revenue
S&P Global on Monday affirmed its "AA+" credit rating on the US, saying the revenue from President Donald Trump's tariffs will offset the fiscal hit from his massive tax-cut and spending bill. Trump signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" into law in July after it was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The bill, which delivered new tax breaks, also made Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. "Amid the rise in effective tariff rates, we expect meaningful tariff revenue to generally offset weaker fiscal outcomes that might otherwise be associated with the recent fiscal legislation, which contains both cuts and increases in tax and spending," S&P said in a statement. "At this time, it appears that meaningful tariff revenue has the potential to offset the deficit-raising aspects of the recent budget legislation." The U.S. reported a $21 billion jump in customs duty collections from Trump's tariffs in July, but the government budget deficit still grew nearly 20% in the same month to $291 billion. Interest on the public debt also continued to grow, hitting $1.013 trillion in the first 10 months of the fiscal year, an increase of 6%, or $57 billion, over the prior-year period due to slightly higher interest rates and increased debt levels. Since returning to power in January this year, Trump has launched a global trade war with a range of tariffs that have targeted individual products and countries. The Republican president has set a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports to the U.S., as well as additional duties on some items and trading partners. IMPACT OF TARIFFS S&P, which became the first ratings agency to cut the pristine U.S. government rating in 2011, said the outlook on the U.S. rating remains stable. The ratings agency said it expects the Federal Reserve, which Trump has criticized this year for not cutting interest rates, "to navigate the challenges of lowering domestic inflation and addressing financial market vulnerabilities." It projected the country's general government deficit to average 6.0% of GDP during the 2025-2028 period, down from 7.5% in 2024 and from an average 9.8% of GDP in 2020-2023. S&P said it could lower the rating over the next two to three years if already high deficits increase. "The ratings could also come under pressure if political developments weigh on the strength of American institutions and the effectiveness of long-term policymaking or independence of the Federal Reserve," it said. SP, however, said it could raise the U.S. rating in the event of sustained economic growth and adjustments to the U.S. fiscal profile that would diminish recent increases in the country's debt burden. There was no reaction in markets on Tuesday to SP's credit rating affirmation, which follows a U.S. sovereign credit downgrade by Moody's in May, when that ratings agency cut the triple-A U.S. rating by one notch, citing rising debt levels. The U.S. national debt load surged above a record $37 trillion last week. James Ragan, co-chief investment officer and director of investment management research at D.A. Davidson, said the SP rating affirmation was an acknowledgment of the meaningful tariff revenue generated so far. "That's all good revenue (coming) in, but that's also a drag on the economy, so I think we don't know the impact of that going forward," he said.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Apple defeats UK order that would give law enforcement access to encrypted user data
Apple has secured a victory in defeating a proposed mandate from the British government that would have required the company to provide backdoor access to user data uploaded to the cloud. The February order from the British government that mandated access to data, including encrypted data on cloud services, provoked fury from the US tech industry, which has accused the UK of Orwellian practices in policing online content. 'Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside President Trump and Vice President Vance to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected,' Tulsi Gabbard, US director of National Intelligence, announced on X on Tuesday. 'As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens.' Technology tycoon and entrepreneur Elon Musk responded to Ms Gabbard's post with an arm flex emoji. Mr Musk has been highly critical of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour Party over the backdoor data access policy. Apple has not yet responded to The National's requests for a comment on this story. According to The Washington Post, which first broke the story about the law colloquially known as the 'Snoopers' Charter', the proposed legislation would have made it a criminal offence for a company to reveal that the government had made a request to access data. The policy push is not unique to the UK, with police and security services around the world advocating for more access to encrypted communications in recent years, warning that encryption can benefit criminals. For Apple, the matter has proven to be particularly sensitive, given the company's significant marketing emphasis on user privacy. In 2016, the US-based consumer technology company challenged a federal magistrate's order to unlock an iPhone used in the San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack. At the time, Apple chief executive Tim Cook argued that such a move would undermine encryption by creating a backdoor that could potentially be used on other future devices. 'The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers – including tens of millions of American citizens – from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals,' he said. 'We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack.' He added that the demand threatened the security of Apple's customers and had 'implications far beyond the legal case at hand'. During prosecution, the FBI announced that it had found its own way to access the iPhone data for the accused terror suspects. As far back as 2010, when Apple's co-founder Steve Jobs was still at the helm of the company, Apple was considered to be significantly more stringent than other Silicon Valley companies when it came to protecting user privacy. 'A lot of people think we're old fashioned about this,' Mr Jobs said during the D8 conference that same year. 'We take privacy extremely seriously.' Some, however, have questioned whether Apple's commitment to privacy is more style than substance, and whether it is just an attempt to sell more devices and services. 'Privacy … that's iPhone,' the advertisement concludes.
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
India needs to find its own ‘Trump whisperers' to deal with the US tariff threat
The threat of up to 50 per cent US tariffs on goods from India, which emerged from the White House over the past month, struck many as a bolt seemingly out of the blue. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had had a good visit to Washington in February, and a detailed trade deal between Washington and New Delhi seemed all set for approval at the end of this month. While India will probably avoid the worst-case outcome, the level of surprise indicates that New Delhi lacks high-level advocates in Washington with the inside track. As a result, it is still struggling to grasp how US President Donald Trump makes decisions, or how he views both trade and the Indo-US equation. Until those inter-linked problems are sorted out, bilateral relations will continue to bounce between the highs of periodic direct contact by the two national leaders, and regular lows in between. India's diplomatic and business communities continue to wonder how things went so wrong between the two governments in recent months. The answer to this question lies in New Delhi's struggle to adapt to Mr Trump's commercial (rather than diplomatic) approach to dealmaking. The tariff threats to India come from two directions: the Russia-Ukraine war and the emergence of competition – as opposed to co-operation – between major trading powers facing the threat of tariffs from Washington. The war in Ukraine is the more volatile of the two factors, with the Trump administration's policy veering from Moscow's point of view, then to that of Kyiv and Brussels, and now back to Moscow's following the US-Russia summit in Alaska last Friday. This latest swing is good news for New Delhi, as the threat of secondary sanctions for buying Russian oil is likely to recede at least temporarily. But even if (or more likely when) the pendulum swings again, it is unlikely that the US will be maximalist in its demands. Any rapid and major change in Indian oil purchases would put strains on global oil supply and send prices shooting up for American voters, something that no administration wants to see. The battle between the EU and UK on the one hand, and Russia on the other, to influence Mr Trump on the war in Ukraine also provides an essential window into the challenges of diplomacy with the administration. Much has been made in commentary about the importance of top-level chemistry, and the natural advantage of strong leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin winning Mr Trump's respect and agreement. However, Russia's example goes to show why this just isn't enough. Mr Putin's ability to effectively communicate Russia's perspective is extremely powerful. But the lack of any other interlocutors who can engage with Mr Trump as persuasively means that Moscow struggles to build momentum. In contrast, the EU and UK have found a range of 'Trump whisperers', people below the head-of-state level who understand the US President. It is these contacts who have managed to stay appraised of Mr Trump's ever-shifting priorities and perspectives and convince him of the relevance of their positions to those priorities. Until India can find its own Trump whisperers, the positive, can-do Trump-Modi personal equation will not be enough to keep the bilateral relationship on the rails. The other half of the tariff threat is closely tied to this problem. Mr Modi's productive meeting with Mr Trump in February gave India's notoriously tough negotiators a sense of what it would take to craft an agreement that would satisfy both sides. But one of the Trump administration's greatest successes is that it has created competition rather than co-operation between countries facing the threat of US tariffs. Over the course of the summer, the larger trade partners of the US – led by the EU and UK – showed a new willingness to cross their own previous red lines to make deals with Washington. Mr Trump seems to regard it as axiomatic that these developments shifted the baseline of expectations for all others who followed. In this view, it would be up to India (currently only the US's 10th-largest trade partner) to try to improve its offer and match the depth of concessions granted by the larger US trade partners. Despite all this, India and the EU find themselves in a similar boat. The Trump administration does not view either entity to be dominant security actors in their regions (unlike say China, Russia or Israel). This magnifies his annoyance when they offer a narrative that contradicts his own – for example, the EU's constant reminders that Russia is the aggressor in the Ukraine war, or New Delhi's rejection of Mr Trump's claim that he mediated the end of the recent hostilities between itself and Pakistan earlier this year. Similarly, the US President's anger with European and Indian trade surpluses with Washington is complemented by a lack of fear over their economic advantage. In contrast, Mexico, China and Canada have greater political leverage than the EU or India that goes beyond the sheer volume of trade with the US. These exporters supply daily goods from food to energy and mid-to-low-range cars and phones that have a critical direct impact on the everyday lives of average American voters. Any trade war brings serious political costs for the Trump administration. Indian exports, on the other hand, range from engineering goods to gems and jewellery that do not carry the same risks. Neither do luxury European goods, whether cheese, wine or limousines. The one exception is India's supply of generic medications, which have become a cornerstone of American health care; a canny Mr Trump may extend a temporary waiver to generate pressure while avoiding backlash. In short, the strength of India's hand in dealing with the Trump administration is fundamentally different than it looked at the start of the US President's second term, when the new rules of the power game were just beginning to emerge. But on the other hand, the European experience suggests that even a so-so hand can be played to great advantage once those new power rules have been understood and applied.
