GM weighs tariffs, EV demand, factory flexibility as it moves some production to U.S.
Now it's spending $4 billion to move some of that production to the U.S. starting in 2027, as President Donald Trump's tariffs and evolving consumer demand changed the calculus.
GM's plan to build more gasoline-powered crossovers, pickups and SUVs at three U.S. plants gives the automaker more manufacturing flexibility for American consumers, who haven't switched to electric vehicles as fast as once anticipated.
General Motors is spending $4 billion at three U.S. assembly plants as it moves some vehicle production from Mexico and increases output of some gasoline-powered models in response to customer demand.
Investment
Chevrolet Blazer
Chevrolet Equinox
Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra
Chevrolet Silverado
Source: General Motors
And it helps fill underused U.S. assembly plants, a key priority for the UAW, which has supported Trump's tariffs as a tool to encourage domestic auto manufacturing.
'It respects the tariff issue, but it is not driven entirely by the tariff issue,' said Stephanie Brinley, associate director of AutoIntelligence for S&P Global Mobility.
The fact that GM won't start building the vehicles in the U.S. for two years underscores the industry's message to the White House that production changes can't happen quickly, Brinley said. And with a longer runway for gasoline engines as EV demand builds gradually, GM will need to invest to keep its internal combustion lineup fresh.
After already spending billions of dollars to prepare an assembly plant in suburban Detroit for electric pickup production, GM now plans to build gasoline-powered trucks there instead. Orion Assembly will be a relief valve for other high-volume factories, including GM's SUV plant in Arlington, Texas, that are running near capacity.
'Automakers are thinking about more than one thing when they make sourcing decisions that are expected to last for a few life cycles,' Brinley said.
GM's new $4 billion investment will be shared among Orion Assembly, Fairfax Assembly in Kansas and Spring Hill Manufacturing in Tennessee. The automaker did not specify how much each plant would get, but sources told Automotive News affiliate Crain's Detroit Business that roughly half the amount is earmarked for Orion.
Sign up to get our afternoon video email. The video focuses on a new topic in the news each day.
'We believe the future of transportation will be driven by American innovation and manufacturing expertise,' GM CEO Mary Barra said in a June 10 statement. 'Today's announcement demonstrates our ongoing commitment to build vehicles in the U.S. and to support American jobs.'
GM will expand production of light-duty full-size gasoline pickups and SUVs to Orion Assembly, which has been down for retooling since the first-generation Chevrolet Bolt ended in late 2023. GM had delayed its timeline for the plant to reopen multiple times as EV demand stagnated.
'We had planned for that to be a big EV plant as we were thinking about rapid expansion of electric vehicles, and clearly we haven't seen that happen,' GM CFO Paul Jacobson said June 11 at a Deutsche Bank automotive investor conference.
'This is a great example of how we can pivot, how we can adjust, how we can be resilient in the face of an environment that's changing around us,' he said.
The Kansas plant will make the gasoline Chevy Equinox compact crossover, while Spring Hill will become the new home of the midsize Chevy Blazer now made in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico. A company source told Automotive News that production of the gasoline-powered Blazer will end in Mexico, while Equinox production will continue there for other markets.
The UAW celebrated GM's investment as 'a turning point' in its advocacy to bring auto jobs back to the U.S. from Mexico and other lower-cost countries.
Want to keep up with the latest product planning news? Go to Automotive News' regularly updated database of product plans for brands that sell in the United States. Future Product Pipeline >5-year product timelines by brand >
'The writing is on the wall: the race to the bottom is over,' UAW President Shawn Fain said in a statement. 'We have excess manufacturing capacity at our existing plants, and auto companies can easily bring good union jobs back to the U.S. They can prove the naysayers wrong by investing in our communities and putting workers before corporate greed. GM is showing that it can be done.'
GM's U.S. factory investment comes as the auto industry navigates the vehicle import tariffs Trump enacted in April. GM has said the tariffs will add $4 billion to $5 billion in costs this year and lowered the company's full-year earnings guidance as a result.
In recent weeks, GM has said it will increase U.S. production of full-size pickups that also are built in Canada and Mexico. The automaker likewise will cut production of the trucks in Oshawa, Ontario.
With the latest investment, GM said it will have capacity to build more than 2 million vehicles annually in the U.S. The $4 billion is in addition to $888 million it's spending to build more V-8 engines at a plant in New York.
Fairfax Assembly is currently offline for retooling to build the next-generation Bolt EV starting later this year, but that had been the factory's only assigned product after GM discontinued the Chevrolet Malibu sedan and Cadillac XT4 compact crossover. GM said the plant also is slated to build future low-priced EVs.
The automaker already uses a similar approach at Spring Hill and will assemble the Blazer alongside both gasoline and electric Cadillac crossovers.
'The idea that the Blazer and the Equinox EVs were going to replace volume of the gas-powered versions is a bit premature, and they're rectifying that situation by building more of them,' said Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions.
'Having flexible plants will help all automakers over the next decade or so. This is going to be a drawn-out transition, and many of the manufacturers did not plan for that.'
Jacobson said investing in existing U.S. plants with excess capacity is a more efficient use of capital than building new factories.
'That optionality is really important and critical for us as we move forward, being able to respond to where EV demand is going to be,' he said.
Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump rebukes Goldman's Solomon and bank's economics research on tariff impact
(Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday consumers are not paying the costs of tariffs, countering a recent Goldman Sachs' research division estimate that they had absorbed 22% of the costs through June. "It has been shown that for the most part, consumers aren't even paying these tariffs, it is mostly companies and governments, many of them foreign picking up the tabs," Trump wrote in a post on social media platform Truth Social. "But David Solomon and Goldman Sachs refuse to give credit where credit is due." Trump did not specifically mention which Goldman report he was referring to. The Wall Street investment bank declined to comment on the matter. U.S. consumers had absorbed 22% of tariff costs through June and their share will rise to 67% if the recent tariffs follow the same pattern as the earliest ones, Goldman Sachs Economics Research said in a note published on August 10. "This implies that U.S. businesses have absorbed more than half of the tariff costs so far but that their share will fall to less than 10%," analysts led by Jan Hatzius said. Hatzius did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Since February 1, when Trump kicked off trade wars by slapping levies on imports from Mexico, Canada and China, at least 333 companies worldwide have reacted to the tariffs in some manner, as of August 12, according to a Reuters tracker. Tariffs are taxes levied on imported goods to typically protect domestic industries or influence trade policies. Its financial impact can be distributed among manufacturers, retailers and consumers, depending on market conditions and supply-chain dynamics. Economists continue to study how much of the tariff cost is ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices. Meanwhile, Trump has also been vocal about his complaints concerning corporate policies and operations since he took office in January. He met Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan on Monday, days after seeking his resignation. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
China may have more engineers, but it still lacks a culture of innovation
China announced last month a $100 billion push into artificial intelligence, intensifying what is already a fierce race for global tech dominance. Policymakers in Washington are watching with concern, and rightly so. China graduates more than 1.38 million engineers each year, about seven times more than does the U.S. The numbers sound alarming and suggest we're falling behind. But that's not the full story. While engineering degrees are critical, they don't guarantee technological leadership. What really drives innovation is not how many people you train, but how you train them. And here, China faces a deeper, cultural problem that raw output can't solve. The Chinese education system is highly structured and built for scale. But it's also rigid, top-down and deeply rooted in deference to authority. In most classrooms, memorization takes precedence over questioning and the teacher's word is rarely challenged. Correcting a professor's mistake could cause them to 'lose face,' a cultural breach that most students won't risk. This environment produces excellent test-takers but not risk-takers. It produces technical workers who are strong on facts but weak on critical thinking. They can follow a formula, but they struggle to break new ground. This is a key reason China, despite its massive engineering workforce, has yet to deliver the kind of world-changing breakthroughs we've seen from the U.S., from the microprocessor to the iPhone to mRNA vaccines. These innovations didn't come from rote learning. They came from interdisciplinary research, unorthodox thinking and cultures that reward questioning everything. Even when it comes to research output, China's surge in published papers masks a more complex reality. While China now leads the world in scientific publishing volume, scholars like Ming Xia have pointed out that much of this work lacks the originality, rigor and theoretical depth typical of Western scholarship. Plagiarism and fabrication remain persistent problems, even at top institutions. At Tsinghua University, one professor felt compelled to reassure students that if they wrote something publishable, he wouldn't steal it and submit it under his own name. The root issue is systemic. Many Chinese academics were trained in the same system they now uphold, one that prizes metrics and obedience over ideas and inquiry. As a result, scholarship often becomes descriptive, not theoretical. It explains what exists but rarely asks why it matters or how to build something new from it. Contrast that with American higher education. Our universities aren't perfect — they can be chaotic, expensive and uneven, but they're designed to cultivate thinkers, not just technicians. Students are encouraged to disagree with their professors, to explore across disciplines and to challenge the conventional wisdom. The freedom to question isn't a side effect of our system. It's the whole point. Yes, China has closed gaps in recent years by acquiring Western technology through joint ventures, forced transfers and even cyber espionage. But copying isn't creating. Without a culture that fosters original thought, China may scale existing tech but it won't lead the next wave of innovation. That doesn't mean the U.S. can relax. We need to double down on what works, investing in universities, supporting fundamental research and attracting the best minds from around the world. At the same time, we must protect critical technologies and intellectual property from exploitation. Still, we should remember what gives America an edge: a culture that values curiosity, dissent and the freedom to think differently. That's the foundation of every breakthrough we've ever made. In the long run, engineering dominance isn't just about how many degrees a country prints. It's about whether those engineers are trained to challenge the status quo and imagine something better. If the U.S. keeps leaning into its strengths of diversity, openness and academic freedom, we won't just keep pace with China. We will continue to lead.
Axios
13 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump appointments could bring on a breakdown of economic trust
No longer are America's most important economic institutions politically untouchable. Why it matters: Econ wonks — those far more comfortable with large datasets than the inner dealings of Washington — won't just question the significance of indicators or policy decisions. Now they will wonder whether they can trust if data, or monetary policy conclusions, reflect reality or political motivations. Driving the news: President Trump said Monday night he would nominate Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE," Trump said in a Truth Social post. Details: Antoni, a frequent BLS critic, got his Ph.D. in 2020 from Northern Illinois University and is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation's Hermann Center for the Federal Budget. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon had been pushing Antoni as a preferred MAGA candidate for the role. Antoni is the second former Heritage economist picked by Trump to lead BLS, after William Beach in 2017. (Beach has recently blasted Trump's firing of BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer.) What to watch: There is no evidence to suggest the BLS is fudging the data to make Trump appear more or less favorable. But the pick raised questions among economists on the right and the left about what qualified Antoni to lead the agency — beyond his support of Trump. It is also unclear what types of sweeping changes Antoni might implement in the near term, a possibility that could leave Wall Street in the dark for a longer stretch than usual. Antoni told "Fox Business" on Monday that the BLS "should suspend issuing the monthly job reports but keep publishing the more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data." What they're saying: Antoni's "work at Heritage has frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction," Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in an email to Axios. Veuger, who also cited Antoni's lack of relevant research or management experience, pointed to a paper from last year co-authored by Antoni. It claimed the American economy was in recession since 2022 — which was rebutted thoroughly in a subsequent National Bureau of Economic Research paper. The big picture: Trump's BLS pick comes days after the White House said Stephen Miran would be appointed to the Federal Reserve board to serve out a term that expires in January. Like Antoni, Miran — who is currently the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers — will soon be a top official at an institution he has previously criticized. If confirmed, Miran will likely join other Fed governors in calling for rate cuts, as Trump repeated Tuesday morning he wants. The other side: In nominating both Miran and Antoni, Trump has suggested the picks will correct perceived faults at the respective agencies. Trump said the July jobs report was "RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME look bad," though he did not offer evidence to support that claim. The intrigue: The BLS is dealing with plummeting survey response rates and funding cuts that have plagued data collection — key issues Antoni, if confirmed, will face.
