Trump will reduce some tariffs on the auto industry, according to White House officials
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration will move to reduce the impact of his automotive tariffs on Tuesday by alleviating some duties imposed on foreign parts in domestically manufactured cars and keeping tariffs on cars made abroad from piling on top of other ones, officials said.
"President Trump is building an important partnership with both the domestic automakers and our great American workers," Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a statement provided by the White House.
"This deal is a major victory for the president's trade policy by rewarding companies who manufacture domestically, while providing runway to manufacturers who have expressed their commitment to invest in America and expand their domestic manufacturing.
The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the development, said the move meant car companies paying tariffs would not be charged other levies, such as those on steel and aluminum, and that reimbursements would be given for such tariffs that were already paid.
A White House official confirmed the report and indicated the move would be made official on Tuesday.
Trump is traveling to Michigan on Tuesday to commemorate his first 100 days in office, a period that the Republican president has used to upend the global economic order.
The move to soften the effects of auto levies is the latest by his administration to show some flexibility on tariffs, which have sown turmoil in financial markets, created uncertainty for businesses and sparked fears of a sharp economic slowdown.
Automakers said earlier on Monday they were expecting Trump to issue relief from the auto tariffs ahead of his trip to Michigan, which is home to the Detroit Three automakers and more than 1,000 major auto suppliers.
WATCH | What the original auto tariff plan meant for Canada:
Why experts think Trump's new auto tariff plan 'defies logic' | About That
1 month ago
Duration 10:06
U.S. President Donald Trump plans to levy a new 25 per cent tariff on vehicles imported to the United States. Andrew Chang explains why this latest threat is different, and why it's concerning trade and industry experts.
General Motors CEO Mary Barra and Ford CEO Jim Farley praised the reported changes.
"We believe the president's leadership is helping level the playing field for companies like GM and allowing us to invest even more in the U.S. economy," Barra said.
Farley said the changes "will help mitigate the impact of tariffs on automakers, suppliers and consumers."
Last week, a coalition of U.S. auto industry groups urged Trump not to impose 25 per cent tariffs on imported auto parts, warning they would cut vehicle sales and raise prices.
Trump had said earlier he planned to impose tariffs of 25 per cent on auto parts no later than May 3.
"Tariffs on auto parts will scramble the global automotive supply chain and set off a domino effect that will lead to higher auto prices for consumers, lower sales at dealerships and will make servicing and repairing vehicles both more expensive and less predictable," the industry groups said in the letter.
The letter from the groups representing GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai and others, was sent to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Lutnick.
"Most auto suppliers are not capitalized for an abrupt tariff induced disruption. Many are already in distress and will face production stoppages, layoffs and bankruptcy," the letter added, noting "it only takes the failure of one supplier to lead to a shutdown of an automaker's production line."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
22 minutes ago
- Global News
Trump's tariffs on Canada, world to stay in place during case, court rules
A federal appeals court agreed on Tuesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs will remain in place while a case is heard — extending an emergency stay granted after a lower court found the devastating duties unlawful. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found 'a stay is warranted under the circumstances.' It provides a temporary victory for the Trump administration as it hits its first legal barriers for realigning global trade. 'The Trump administration is legally using the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address our country's national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking,' said White House spokesman Kush Desai in an emailed statement Tuesday. 'The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' stay order is a welcome development, and we look forward to ultimately prevailing in court.' Story continues below advertisement The U.S. Court of International Trade last month said Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. The ruling from the three-judge panel at the New York-based federal court in May said 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It said 'the challenged tariff orders will be vacated,' representing a nationwide injunction against any further imposition of the duties. The Trump administration quickly was granted an emergency motion, essentially freezing the decision by the trade court that blocked the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs. The appeals court upheld that stay but noted the need for an expedited hearing, saying 'these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration.' A proposed schedule says arguments are expected in court by July 31. That means that countries will continue to be hit by those duties, for now. 5:32 Economist says counter-tariffs on the United States would hurt Canada George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called it an 'unfortunate decision.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, represents five American small businesses pushing against the tariffs. Story continues below advertisement He noted that the court did go out of its way to indicate this is not a ruling on the merits, and ordered an expedited schedule for consideration of the case. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'We have a strong case, and I remain guardedly optimistic that the appellate court will ultimately see that the president's claim of virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs is blatantly illegal — which is what every court to have considered the issue so far has concluded,' Somin said in an email to The Canadian Press. Stock markets have been in turmoil and supply chains have been upended as Trump used unprecedented presidential power to enact his tariffs. Up until Trump's return to the White House, IEEPA had never been used by a president to impose tariffs. Trump hit Canada with economywide duties in March after he declared an emergency at the northern border related to the flow of fentanyl. He partially paused levies a few days later for imports that comply with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. U.S. government data shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. Trump took his trade war to the world in April with duties on nearly every country saying America's trade deficits amounted to a national emergency. The president walked back the most devastating duties a few hours later but left a 10 per cent universal tariff in place for most countries. Story continues below advertisement Trump said the 90-day pause would give countries time to negotiate a deal. The president said if countries didn't comply he would simply set tariff rates himself. 2:41 U.S. trade court 'brazenly abused' judicial powers to block Trump tariffs, WH says White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this' and called the lower court's decision 'judicial overreach.' The appeal ruling will consider two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One included the five American small businesses against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other stemmed from 12 states arguing against both the 'Liberation Day' duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs. At least seven lawsuits are challenging the tariffs. Lawyers for the businesses say IEEPA does not mention tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. They say Trump is misusing the statute. Story continues below advertisement Lawyers for Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont argued that tariffs make U.S. trade policy dependent on Trump's whims. Thirty-three senators also filed an amicus brief — a legal submission from a group that's not party to the action — in the case, saying the duties would cause harm to small- and medium-sized businesses while also grabbing powers that should be assigned to Congress. 'Small businesses do not have cash-on-hand or capital reserves to pay the increased tariffs, nor can they quickly adapt to them by modifying supply chains,' it said. 'If they cannot pass on the tariff costs to consumers — which would create additional harms for… constituents — many face letting employees go or filing for bankruptcy. Even a few weeks of additional tariffs means small businesses will suffer irreparable harm.' Canada is also being hit with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Trump used different powers under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties.
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Veterans are divided over the Army's big parade, being held on Trump's birthday
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — James McDonough served in the U.S. Army for 27 years, fighting in Vietnam and delivering humanitarian aid to Rwanda. For him, Saturday's military parade in Washington for the Army's 250th anniversary — coinciding with President Donald Trump's birthday — is about the resilience of a vital institution and the nation it serves. 'The soldiers marching that day represent all of that history,' said McDonough, 78, of Crofton, Maryland. 'They don't represent a single day. They don't represent a single person. It's the American Army still standing straight, walking tall, ready to defend our country.' Christopher Purdy, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, called the parade a facade that paints over some of the Republican president's policies that have targeted military veterans and current service members, including cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a ban on transgender troops. Purdy said the parade, long sought by Trump, will needlessly display U.S. military might on the president's 79th birthday. 'It's embarrassing,' said Purdy, 40, of Atlanta. 'It's expensive. And whatever his reasons are for doing it, I think it's entirely unnecessary.' Until recently, the Army's long-planned birthday celebration did not include a big parade. Added under the Trump administration, the event, featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, has divided veterans. Some liken it to the military chest-pounding commonly seen in North Korea, a step toward authoritarianism or a perverse birthday party for Trump. Others see it as a once-in-a-lifetime accounting of the Army's achievements and the military service of millions of soldiers over centuries. The parade is not about Trump, they say, but the public seeing the faces of soldiers when so few Americans serve. The Army expects up to 200,000 people could attend and says the parade will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million. Trump, speaking at Fort Bragg this week, said Saturday would be 'a big day' and noted 'we want to show off a little bit.' 'We're going to celebrate our greatness and our achievements,' he said. 'This week, we honor 250 years of valor and glory and triumph by the greatest fighting force ever to walk the face of the Earth: the United States Army.' 'Divisive politics have ruined it' For Edmundo Eugenio Martinez Jr., an Army veteran who fought in Iraq, the parade is a missed opportunity to honor generations of veterans, many of whom paid a steep price and came home to little fanfare. 'Sadly, the timing and the optics and divisive politics have ruined it,' said Martinez, 48, of Katy, Texas. 'And I'm not picking one side or the other. Both sides are guilty.' 'It's just suspicious' Joe Plenzler, a retired Marine who fought in Iraq, said Trump wants to see troops saluting him on his birthday as tanks roll past. 'It's just suspicious,' the 53-year-old from Middletown, Virginia, said of the timing. 'I absolutely love the Army from the bottom of my cold black Marine heart,' he said. 'But if the Army's birthday was a day later, we probably wouldn't be doing it. I'd rather see that $50 million take care of the men and women who went off to war and came back with missing arms, legs and eyeballs, and with damaged brains.' 'Part of American culture' Joe Kmiech, who served in the Army and Minnesota National Guard from 1989 to 1998, supports the parade because the Army is 'part of American culture and our fabric.' He notes the Army's pioneering contributions to engineering and medicine, from dams to new surgical techniques. Like many veterans, he has a strong familial connection: His father served in the Army, and so did his maternal grandfather, who fought in World War II. 'I didn't vote for President Trump, but the commander in chief is going to be part of that celebration,' said Kmiech, 54, of Roberts, Wisconsin. 'The distinction needs to be made that the parade is a celebration of our Army, not of a person.' 'Stroking Trump's ego' For Gulf War Army veteran Paul Sullivan, Trump and the parade are inextricably linked. 'This Trump tank travesty is all about stroking Trump's ego,' said Sullivan, 62, who lives outside Charlottesville, Virginia. 'If Trump truly cared about our service members, he would sit down with them quietly and say, 'What can we do with $50 million or $100 million to make your lives better?' He's not.' 'We are a great nation' McDonough, the veteran from Crofton, Maryland, disagrees that the parade is about Trump or too costly. He said the U.S. held a grand celebration in New York after World War II when the nation was deeply in debt. 'We certainly need to bring our debt down, and we certainly need to take care of our veterans,' he said. 'But it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying if we bought two less aircraft carriers, we could do so much better to take care of our poor.' And McDonough said soldiers' oath is to the Constitution, not to Trump. The president 'understands the importance of doing this, not only for the Army, but for the nation,' McDonough said. 'A real dark turn' Purdy, the veteran from Atlanta, said the parade's brazen flex of military strength is not an American tradition, particularly absent a recent victory. 'I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate the country,' he said. 'But for us to be projecting this type of hard power, in such a real in-your-face way, that's just not who we are.' Trump is brushing aside old alliances and foreign aid that have helped maintain peace for decades, Purdy asserted. 'It signals a real dark turn if we're just going to roll out the tanks,' Purdy said. 'People are the Army' Michael Nardotti, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said military hardware has long been in American parades, which can help recruitment. More important, he said, is the tremendous value in the public seeing soldiers' faces in a parade when active-duty troops make up less than 1% of the population. ''People are the Army,'' said Nardotti, 78, of Aldie, Virginia, quoting a former Army chief of staff. Nardotti said he'll listen carefully to Trump's speech. 'I hope it sends the right message,' he said.
CBC
30 minutes ago
- CBC
Musk says he regrets some X posts he made about Trump
Social Sharing Billionaire businessman Elon Musk said on Wednesday he regretted some of the posts he made last week about U.S. President Donald Trump as they had gone "too far." Trump said on Saturday his relationship with Musk was over after they exchanged insults on social media, with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO describing the president's sweeping tax and spending bill as a "disgusting abomination." Musk has since deleted some posts critical of Trump, including one signalling support for impeaching the president. He also deleted a post in which he claimed without evidence that the government wasn't releasing more information regarding what it knows about Jeffrey Epstein because of Trump's past association with the infamous alleged sex trafficker who died in jail in 2019. "I regret some of my posts about President Donald Trump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote in a post on his social media platform X on Wednesday, without saying which specific posts he was talking about. Tesla shares rose 2.3 per cent in pre-market trading. Don't support Democrats, Trump warns Declaring his relationship with Musk over during interviews last weekend, Trump said there would be "serious consequences" if the billionaire decided to fund U.S. Democrats running against Republicans who vote for the tax and spending bill. Trump also said he had no intention of repairing ties with Musk. On Monday, Trump said he would not have a problem if Musk called and that he had no plans to discontinue the Starlink satellite internet provided to the White House by Musk's SpaceX but might move his Tesla off-site. "We had a good relationship, and I just wish him well," Trump said. Musk responded with a heart emoji to a video on X showing Trump's remarks. WATCH l A timeline of the relationship, and the rupture: Will Donald Trump and Elon Musk destroy each other? | About That 13 hours ago Duration 15:38 How did two of the most powerful men on the planet — Donald Trump and Elon Musk — go from friends to foes embroiled in a public meltdown? Andrew Chang explains what drove a wedge between them and why it may be in their best interests to reconcile sooner rather than later. Images provided by Getty Images, The Canadian Press and Reuters. (Additional credits: 4:35 - MSNBC/YouTube; 4:37 - CNN/YouTube; 4:29 - CBS News/YouTube) In 2018, Musk declared in a Twitter post that he was "not a conservative" and that "humanitarian issues are extremely important to me." But his political views changed, and in 2024 he bankrolled a large part of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, spending nearly $300 million US in last year's U.S. elections, taking credit for Republicans retaining a majority of seats in the House and retaking a majority in the Senate. Musk led downsizing, foreign aid cut efforts Trump then named him to head an effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending, despite Musk's apparent conflicts of interest leading several companies subject to government regulation. Musk individually or with his companies had faced inquiries into alleged securities violations, questions over the safety of Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems, potential animal welfare violations in Neuralink's brain-chip experiments and alleged hiring discrimination practices at SpaceX. Musk left the role late last month after criticizing Trump's marquee tax bill, calling it too expensive and a measure that would undermine his work at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk's DOGE, not a Congress-approved department, took dramatic steps to reshape and shrink the federal government. Agencies were dismantled, and thousands of federal workers were fired, dismissed or reassigned, leading to a spate of lawsuits challenging the moves. As a result of the moves, significant foreign humanitarian aid from the U.S. government was scaled back, leading to concerns from global health organizations. Musk characterized much of that funding as fraudulent, though Democrats charged that Musk statements on specific agency initiatives have largely only highlighted actions he disagrees with politically, such as measures to provide condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Musk's activities led to protests at many Tesla dealerships across North America, with vandalism reported in some instances. "Elon Musk's Legacy Is Disease, Starvation and Death," New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote, citing the impacts around the world of cuts to the United States Agency for International Development, when Musk announced late last month he was returning to the private sector full-time. Democrats have expressed alarm at members of Musk's DOGE team, who were not confirmed by Congress, having access to sensitive governmental, personal and payment data related to the federal civil service.
