Trump says he may soon increase car tariffs to push more US production
US President Donald Trump on Thursday warned he may soon hike car tariffs, arguing that could prod carmakers to speed US investments.
"I might go up with that tariff in the not too distant future," Trump said at a White House event.
"The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here."
Carmakers have been pressing the White House to reduce the 25% tariffs Trump imposed on cars. The Detroit Three carmakers have criticised a deal that would cut tariffs on British car imports but not on Canada or Mexico production.
Trump cited recent investment announcements, including GM saying this week it plans to invest $4bn (R 71,882,393,200) in three US plants and move some SUV production from Mexico. He also noted a $21bn (R 377,382,600,000) Hyundai investment announced in March, including a new US steel plant.
"They wouldn't have invested 10c if we didn't have tariffs, including for manufacturing American steel, which is doing great," Trump said.
Mexico said last month cars assembled in Mexico and exported to the US will face an average tariff of 15%, not 25%, because Washington is giving carmakers reductions for the value of US content.
Carmakers are facing increasing cost pressures stemming from tariffs. In recent weeks, Ford Motor and Subaru of America have hiked prices on some models due to higher costs from Trump's tariffs. In May, Ford estimated tariffs would cost it about $1.5bn (R26,939,413,200) in adjusted earnings.
GM said last month it had a tariff exposure of between $4bn (R71,882,393,200) and $5bn, including about $2bn (R35,942,920,000) on the more affordable vehicles GM imports from South Korea, where it makes entry-level Chevrolet and Buick models.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
26 minutes ago
- IOL News
South African expert criticises Israeli missile strikes on Iran as unjustified
Rescue teams work outside a heavily damaged building, targeted by an Israeli strike in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on June 13, 2025. Israel carried out strikes against Iran early on June 13, targeting its nuclear and military sites as well as residential buildings in Tehran, after US President Donald Trump warned of a possible "massive conflict" in the region. Image: AFP The Israeli missile attack on Iran was unprovoked because the latter had not made any moves to initiate the attack, said South Africa's expert on international affairs, Nazreen Shaik. Shaik weighed in following a barrage of attacks on the Iranian territory in the early hours of Friday in Tehran, Iran's capital, killing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major-General Hossein Salami and other senior military officials, as well as nuclear scientists. South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation had on Friday condemned the Israeli action. 'These actions raise serious concerns under international law, including the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the protection of civilians enshrined in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law,' read the statement. Iran had already retaliated by firing missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The Israeli strikes targeted Iran's nuclear and military sites. Both the Israeli and the United States of America governments accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, which might be a threat to their enemy countries. 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 Iran, through its embassy in Pretoria, rejected the allegation of nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear programme 'is strictly peaceful and operates under full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a long-standing and committed member'. Shaik said the Israeli attack was not provoked, and the matter should have been resolved through the rules of engagement, which are governed by international laws. 'Only if it's known that soldiers from country B are on the border and are about to attack, and they have gained that by military or security intelligence, only then would country A attack country B. 'But in the situation, this is what we call in international law a belligerent attack, where a country takes a unilateral state of action by itself, you decide that somebody poses a threat to you, therefore you will now attack that country,' said Shaik. She said such actions were not acceptable in the norms and standards of international warfare. She stated that the attack occurred while the US was holding talks with Iran regarding the issue of the nuclear facility, and 'the sunset clause, which instructs Iran to denuclearise, is due to take effect in 2029'. Both Israel and the US opposed the terms of the clause as they felt that waiting for 2029 was too long. 'Israel seems to be acting on behalf of the US, pushing Iran to do something (denuclearise), which is the international bullying at the very least. 'No country should ever be allowed to attack another country without being prompted to do so,' said Shaik. She said those who were concerned about Iran's nuclear programme should have approached the United Nations and the Security Council to intervene. She said Israel and the US avoided the intervention of the Security Council because of Russia, which was assisted by Iran in the attack on Ukraine, and was a member of the Security Council. 'If the US approached the Security Council to cast the vote (on Iran's nuclear programme), Russia would veto those who are against Iran because Iran stood by it during the attack against Ukraine.' She said even if Iran had reported Israel to the Security Council instead of retaliating, nothing would have been done as the US and Russia would not agree with each other, while the council's decision should be unanimous. She feared that since Iran had already retaliated by firing missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the conflict might escalate. 'If Iran retaliates, the US is going to back Israel, and the US will send forces to Israel,' said Shaik. She believed that Russia would not make a quick move to back Iran, 'but Russia would be supporting Iran in principle'. Responding to this reporter's questions, an official from the Iranian embassy in Pretoria, who declined to give his name, said his country was committed to cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations. 'All of Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities are under the Agency's verification and supervision, and no deviation toward weapon production has ever been reported. 'Furthermore, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic has issued a binding religious decree (fatwa) that clearly prohibits the development or use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances,' said the official. He said Israeli strikes also deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and residential areas in Tehran and other cities. 'Iran holds the Zionist regime fully responsible for this aggression, and also places direct responsibility on the United States and its allies, who enabled, coordinated, and politically supported this act. 'Without the approval and logistical backing of the US government, such a reckless attack could not have taken place. 'Iran reserves the full right to defend itself decisively, proportionally, and in accordance with international law,' said the official. Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) chief executive officer, Mark Dubowitz, said in a statement late this week: 'Israel did what had to be done: defend itself, the West, and ultimately the Iranian people from the genocidal ambitions of the mullahs. 'Nuclear talks were heading to collapse under Tehran's defiance, and sanctions alone couldn't stop Iran's race toward multiple nuclear weapons.'
TimesLIVE
6 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US Marines make first detention in LA as more protests expected
US Marines deployed to Los Angeles made their first detention of a civilian on Friday, part of a rare use of military force to support domestic police and coming ahead of national protests over President Donald Trump's military parade in Washington. The detention of the man, a US Army veteran and an immigrant who obtained US citizenship, punctuated a series of highly unusual events that have appealed to Trump supporters but outraged other Americans who are demonstrating discontent in the streets. Trump ordered the Marines to Los Angeles in response to street protests over immigration raids, joining National Guard forces already deployed to the city over the objection of California's governor. Trump said troops were necessary to quell the protests — a contention that state and local officials dispute. About 1,800 protests are scheduled across the US on Saturday in opposition to the Washington military parade that marks the 250th anniversary of the US Army and coincides with Trump's 79th birthday. Both the military parade and domestic use of active duty troops are uncommon for the US , as was the military detention of a US citizen on American soil. It was also unusual when federal agents forcibly removed and handcuffed a US Senator on Thursday as he interrupted a press conference by Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem. Trump has thrived politically on unconventional tactics. But Democratic opponents are starting to push back. Fifteen protests are expected in Los Angeles alone, mayor Karen Bass said, urging people to remain peaceful. 'We are here today because the raids have caused fear and panic,' Bass said, joined by two dozen elected officials to oppose the raids and military presence. 'Can the federal government come in and seize power from a state and from a local jurisdiction? How much will the American people put up with?' About 200 Marines were assigned to protect the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles, part of a battalion of 700 Marines sent to support the National Guard, said army Maj-Gen Scott Sherman, who is in command of both the National Guard and Marine forces. The Marines and National Guard deployed in Los Angeles are assigned to protect federal property and personnel and may temporarily detain people, but they are required to turn them over to civilian law enforcement for any formal arrest. Reuters witnessed Marines detain one person at the Wilshire Federal Building. Reuters images showed Marines restraining his hands with zip ties and then handing him over to civilians from the department of homeland security (DHS) nearly two hours later. US military confirmed the detention after being presented with Reuters images, in the first known detention by active duty troops. The detained man, Marcos Leao, 27, an immigrant and a US Army veteran, said after he was released that he was told to get on the ground upon venturing into a restricted area, as he crossed a line of yellow tape to avoid walking around the building. Leao, who said he is Portuguese and Angolan and became a US citizen through the military, said he complied with all commands and that the Marines apparently mistook him for a protester when he simply had business with the Veterans Administration office inside the building. 'They treated me very fairly,' Leao said, adding that he was told, 'Understand, this is a whole stressful situation for everybody, and we all have a job.' Asked about the incident, the US military's Northern Command spokesperson said active duty forces 'may temporarily detain an individual in specific circumstances', and that the detention would end when the person is transferred to civilian law enforcement. DHS referred press queries to the Northern Command. Meanwhile, Los Angeles demonstrations continued for an eighth straight day, after they were sparked last Friday by a series of immigrations raids. The demonstrations have been concentrated in the downtown area, and fewer than 1% of those present have caused problems, Los Angeles County sheriff Robert Luna said. Some people have been charged with assaulting a police officer, looting, or damaging property. There was a 'big difference' between legitimate protesters and 'people who are coming out to cause problems', Luna said at a press conference in which law enforcement officers said they welcomed peaceful protests on Saturday but warned they would arrest those who harm others or damage property. Bass implemented a curfew over 2.5 square km of the downtown area, which officials said has been useful for maintaining order. Bass said there was 'no termination date' for the curfew. 'We are hoping that if the cause of the turmoil ends, which is stopping the raids, then I can almost guarantee you the curfew will go away in short order,' Bass said.
The Citizen
8 hours ago
- The Citizen
BYD Shark banks on credentials to take down Ford Ranger Raptor
Shark's claimed 0-100km/h time of 5.7 seconds is more than a second faster than that of the Raptor. This is a debate that has been brewing since the announcement that the BYD Shark bakkie will come to South Africa. The Chinese carmaker Build Your Dream made it very clear right from the get-go that it only had one prey in mind for the BYD Shark and that was the Ford Ranger Raptor. On paper, it would seem like the Shark has the Ranger Raptor beat hands down. Two years ago, when The Citizen Motoring first got to drive the Ford Ranger Raptor, which included high-performance testing at altitude and at sea-level, I was left in no doubt that this Ford will not be beaten. Ever! 300kW bakkies in demand Toyota was the first to laugh off the thought of using their 305kW/650Nm 3.5-litre V6 twin-turbo petrol engine from the Land Cruiser 300 to bring some GR Hilux hurt to the Ford Performance brand. As for the rest of the legacy brands, the likes of the Isuzu D-Max, Nissan Navara and Mitsubishi Triton simply slammed the door shut on such a ridiculous idea that anybody would need a 300kW bakkie. How fast do you need to move people from A to B, or some sheep from farm to farm? But what they all underestimated, is how many people would want a 300kW bakkie. Ford SA sell its allocation of Ranger Raptors as fast they arrive. ALSO READ: Sub-R1m BYD Shark becomes South Africa's most powerful bakkie The other thing nobody saw coming at the time, was that the Chinese were secretly eyeing up the Ford Ranger Raptor too and the BYD Shark is now the first of several 300kW bakkies rumoured to be on their way to enter this power war. BYD Shark undercuts Raptor The BYD Shark retails for R959 900, which makes it substantially cheaper than the R1 270 000 Ford Ranger Raptor. And the price of the Shark includes a 7kW wall charger, V2L socket, 2.2kW portable charger and a roll bar and tow bar. The last few will set you back extra if you opt for the Ranger Raptor. Same, same, but different The Shark is covered by a five-year/100 000km vehicle warranty and an eight-year/200 000km battery warranty. The Ford Ranger Raptor offers four-year/120 000km vehicle warranty. We could call this one a draw, but what might sway potential buyers is the difference in the service and maintenance plan offerings from BYD and Ford. The Ford Ranger Raptor is the fastest bakkie we have tested. Picture: Jaco van der Merwe Service and maintenance The BYD Shark comes standard with a five-year/100 000km full maintenance plan. Ford SA only recently included a six-year/90 000km service plan into the selling price of their vehicles. Which means that if you want a maintenance plan for your Ranger Raptor, you will need to purchase one. BYD Shark ahead on power Can they be the same in drive and feel? No chance, but for some, the power and torque numbers just might be the heart of the battle. And here the BYD Shark offers a better combined power output of 321kW and 650Nm from its 1.5-litre petrol engine, electric motor combination, The Ford Ranger Raptor's 3.0-litre V6 twin turbo petrol engine produces 292kW and 583Nm. ALSO READ: What R960k BYD Shark money can buy in other bakkie stables Raptor's title on the line I don't recall Ford SA ever officially releasing a claimed 0-100km/h time for their Ranger Raptor, but we got a time of 6.90 seconds when we tested the bakkie back in 2023. Despite the Shark weighing in at 280kg heavier than the Ranger Raptor, at 2 710kg to 2 430kg, the superior power and torque numbers, and electrical assistance, still see BYD claiming that their bakkie can get to 0-100 km/h in a time of just 5.7 seconds. Which again on paper suggests that it will easily outrun the Ford in an on-road shoot-out. Throw some dirt in the mix, and the tables could well be comprehensively turned. BYD Shark easier on the juice What is not at all in dispute is that the Ford Ranger Raptor is going to hurt you at the filling station and in your pocket. We know this bakkie loves fuel as much as it does a dirt road. Ford claim a combined fuel consumption figure of 11.5-litres per 100km, but we averaged a crazy 17.6 litres per 100km when we had the Ranger Raptor on test. BYD claim 9.6-litres per 100km for their Shark, and simple logic dictates that the more you make use of the 85km pure electric range from the battery, the less you will use fuel, and the lower you monthly running cost bill will be. Even when you factor in the price of electricity.
