Nissan recalls over 79,000 newer vehicles. See impacted models.
Nissan North America, Inc. submitted the recall on May 15 for certain 2025 Frontier and Kicks vehicles, the NHTSA said. According to the recall notice, the center information display unit could display a blank screen when shifted into reverse, thus causing the vehicles to not be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.
"A rearview image that does not display can reduce the driver's view of what is behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash," the NHTSA notice said.
The two Nissan models affected by the recall, which the NHTSA says impact 79,755 vehicles, include:
Nissan Frontier 2025
Nissan Kicks 2025
Nissan owners affected by the recall should contact their dealers, who will update the software of their vehicle's center information display, free of charge, according to the NHTSA.
Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed on July 1, the agency said.
The manufacturer numbers for this recall are PD152 and PMA48.
Jonathan Limehouse covers breaking and trending news for USA TODAY. Reach him at JLimehouse@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Nissan recalls 79,000 Frontier and Kicks vehicles over console display
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Trump tariffs gyrate, economists say the impact on Ohio is murky
New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal. (Photo by) President Donald Trump has imposed massive tariffs on U.S. trading partners and threatened many more. Several economists said last week that it's difficult at this point to predict their impact on the economies of Ohio and other states. But they did say that the tariffs will raise prices for consumers. They added that the unpredictability created as Trump threatens, delays, and imposes tariffs makes it all but impossible for businesses to engage in the complex planning necessary to make major investments. They also said that the promised result of the tariffs — bringing back sectors like Ohio's diminished manufacturing — is a far more complicated proposition than imposing tariffs on a few commodities such as aluminum and steel. While he has threatened far higher tariffs on some countries without following through, the ones Trump has imposed so far have been historic. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Tariffs are as high as they've ever been,' said Christopher Meissner, a University of California at Davis economist who focuses on global trade. 'They are now about 18%, that's the average tariff. That's as high as they were during the infamous rise in the Great Depression in the 1930s with the Smoot Hawley Tariff. They're about 10 times higher than they were just last year. They're at historical highs. Not only that, they are coming with great amounts of uncertainty. Nobody knows what to predict in the short run, or even the medium run at this point.' Meissner was speaking last week during a virtual press conference on tariffs hosted by SciLine, a service for journalists and scientists offered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Negative impacts of the Trump tariffs appear to be manifesting. Core inflation surged last month, the job market was weak, and estimates for the two previous months were lowered. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that over the long run, the Trump tariffs and the retaliatory measures they provoke will sap 1% in gross domestic product, cost nearly 1 million jobs, and cost the average household $1,500 next year. On the other hand, they're expected to generate $2.3 trillion more in government revenue over the coming decade. Meissner and the other panelists said that there are still many uncertainties — including how the unprecedented wave of tariffs will reshape the economy. But they said it's certain they'll be painful for consumers. 'The general lesson is that consumers are going to pay higher prices ultimately for imported stuff — and it will raise prices generally because of less competition,' Meissner said. 'Tariffs generally just lead to higher prices for consumers.' He explained how. 'Tariffs are taxes,' Meissner said. 'They're taxes on imports. But tariffs are taxes on exports, too. So when we put tariffs up, it doesn't just reduce our imports, it's going to inhibit our exports, so stay tuned for that.' Jason Grant, an economist who focuses on agriculture at Virginia Tech, said that unlike the first Trump administration, countries being hit with tariffs have been slower to retaliate this time around. Perhaps they're hoping to work a better deal with Trump, Grant said. But if agricultural products are struck by retaliatory tariffs and other measures, it will be a big problem for Ohio farmers, he said. 'In terms of agriculture, Ohio is dependent on exports,' he said. 'The risk is if these countries choose to retaliate… Our exports are dependent on foreign demand. If that foreign demand retaliates against U.S. products, that's when Ohio farmers, Indiana farmers, Illinois farmers, all the way across to California — whatever form that retaliation takes, tariff or non-tariff — that's what trickles back to lower cash to the farmers.' Vidya Mani, who studies the economics of supply chains at the University of Virginia, said that new tariffs disrupt supply chains, which adds to inflation. Severe supply chain disruptions during the coronavirus pandemic have been blamed in large part for the rapid inflation that occurred starting in 2021. 'Tariffs are a shock,' Mani said. 'Think of a railroad track that's moving seamlessly from the West Coast to the East Coast, and then suddenly you put in stops. You add extra checks. The more stops you put in, the more it's going to create delays.' She added that because of the erratic nature of Trump's tariff policy, businesses can't plan strategically. 'If you have demand seesaw like this, and prices — one day they're protected and they go up and the next day they're not and they go down by a magnitude — no industry can survive a planned production based on those fluctuations,' Mani said. For those reasons, and because it's difficult to turn back the clock, the economists said it's very unlikely that Trump will be able to use tariffs to restore sectors such as Ohio manufacturing to their earlier glory. Meissner explained the complexity of the matter. Aluminum and steel tariffs might help companies that make those commodities. But they hurt all others that use them by making their inputs more expensive, he said. 'Because of the potential for uncertainty, for backtracking, it's unlikely companies are going to pour investment into those sectors, and we wouldn't necessarily be competitive in those sectors,' he said. 'I think the idea that these tariffs are going to bring back or revitalize the economy in the way it was decades ago, I think that's probably a non-starter.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Relying on AI for money advice? What financial experts think of chatbots' responses
From grocery lists to help creating a website to promote her work as a realtor, Jennifer Allen says she uses ChatGPT for everything. When unexpected hospital bills and time away from work after giving birth led her to rely on credit cards, she knew her debt was growing. But she was scared to tally the total amount and rarely looked at her bank accounts. Until one day, she wondered if ChatGPT, or 'Chat,' as she calls it, could help. She fed the chatbot required information and it told her she had amassed $23,000 in debt. Surprised by the number, she wondered how she could pay it off. Allen said she didn't even think about consulting a financial planner. She did, however, ask ChatGPT. 'Even if a financial planner told me something, I would still go to Chat to run it by them,' Allen told USA TODAY. She prompted the chatbot to give her one thing she could do every day to help pay down her debt, and documented the process on TikTok. By the end of two 30-day challenges, she'd come up with $13,078 by following the bot's advice and earned additional money from the TikTok Creator Rewards Program. She said she now has a little less than $5,000 in debt remaining. While not everyone follows ChatGPT's advice every day, the chatbot has experienced rapid growth. It's reaching about 700 million users weekly – four times more than last year, according to OpenAI's Nick Turley. ChatGPT isn't the only artificial intelligence model people are relying on for information. A Morning Consult survey found more than half of U.S. adults said they refer to AI-generated summaires when searching online and 1 in 10 said they don't consult other sources. A Southeastern Oklahoma State University questionnaire found that 1 in 3 Americans have used an AI tool to make a career decision. Some think the technology will transform the financial planning space. Others warn against relying on it for money advice. And while some humans may be self-interested when saying they do a better job than AI, even companies behind popular chatbots advise caution. Large language models, like Gemini, can "hallucinate" and present inaccurate information as factual, according to Google. USA TODAY asked five popular chatbots common personal finance questions. Here's what they said and what financial experts thought of their responses: AI's advice on retirement savings USA TODAY asked ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Grok three personal finance questions in the same order – starting with one of the most common: How much money do I need to retire? Their answers were similar but not identical. In seconds, the chatbots generated somewhat lengthy responses, usually formatted in bullet points, giving examples and general advice with caveats. Grok was the only model to give a specific number in its final answer – about $1 million. But it, alongside ChatGPT and Copilot, also asked the user to provide more information. Gemini recommended using a retirement calculator and Claude suggested meeting with a financial planner. All pointed to the 4% rule — a withdrawal strategy that says retirees can safely withdraw 4% of their savings during the year they retire and then adjust for inflation each subsequent year. However, the rule is more than 30 years old and its creator said it was outdated in 2022. 'There is not one number for everybody. If the chatbot tries to answer this question without asking for information, that's useless,' said Annamaria Lusardi, who heads Stanford's Initiative for Financial Decision-Making. 'The 4% rule of thumb is completely outdated... If you follow it, you have a very high probability of running out.' More: The right financial adviser can help you navigate a shaky economy. We rank the top firms. AI's advice on credit scores The chatbots' responses to the question 'How do I improve my credit score?' were nearly identical. They suggested stategies like paying bills on time, keeping credit utilization low, and maintaining a healthy mix of credit. 'This is a much easier question for ChatGPT to answer correctly because there is all of this information, for example, on the FICO score website,' Lusardi said. 'If you compare these two questions, this is really a type of situation where you can have rules for everyone.' Greg Clement is the CEO and Founder of Freedomology, a technology and coaching company that launched its own chatbot dedicated to helping people with their finances, health, and relationships. He worked as a financial planner for eight years and thinks popular AI models can be useful when people have financial questions but that their answers are still 'very vague and generic.' 'It's almost as if you're talking to 100 financial planners and you ask the same question to 100 people and you try to consolidate all of their answers into one summary,' Clement said. Between AI's documented bias and inabilty to understand things on a human level, Tori Dunlap, a money expert who founded Her First 100k, is skeptical of people relying on the technology. 'It's there as your digital robotic personal assistant. It's not meant to challenge you or push back, or help you think differently. That's something a coach or expert can you help you do,' Dunlap said. 'I would also say though, if you're going to go from no financial advice to ChatGPT, I will take ChatGPT every time.' What happens when you give AI specific numbers? Using the median household income and down payment in Illinois, USA TODAY asked the chatbots what home price a couple could afford in that state. Before giving a number, most asked the user to consider factors including their debt-to-income ratio, private mortgage insurance, and property taxes. But without asking for more information, each gave a different range. ChatGPT and Gemini were the most optimistic, suggesting $300,000 to $320,000 and $275,00 to $325,000, respectively. Claude said $245,000 to $270,000 and Copilot said $225,000 to $250,000. Grok gave the lowest range from $200,000 to $240,000. 'Personal finance is about our life. I don't know that I would leave it to just artificial intelligence without a careful check and being aware that different ones will give me different results,' Lusardi said. 'Some of these suggestions can be very simple and potentially not very useful.' Dunlap said the chatbots' variety of answers is the result of them not having enough information. If someone asked her this question, she said she'd follow up by asking about their credit score, their ideal mortgage payment, and interest rates. 'But before we even do that, my question is: Do you actually want to be a homeowner or do you just feel like you need to in order to be successful?' she said. 'By definition, you're talking to a robot. You're not talking to somebody who understands real complex human emotion.' After all, if someone asks AI this question, they're talking to a chatbot who has never experienced homeownership. 'If a young couple in the Freedomology community would ask the same question, they'd probably get answers from people that have owned a house for 10 or 20 years,' Clement said. 'How do you replace that? I don't think you can.' What do AI companies recommend? In USA TODAY's chats with the AI models, several included disclaimers that they were not financial advisers, and AI companies have some safeguards in place to fact check their responses. Google's double-check feature highlights any information that is contradicted online. The company's help center notes that people should not rely on Gemini for financial advice. A spokesperson for Anthropic, the company behind Claude, said they are encouraged to see people using the model as a financial literacy tool to demystify topics like compound interest and credit scores. However, they said while Claude can help people become more informed, it should not replace licensed professionals for personalized financial decisions. They recommend using Claude to learn and prepare smarter questions, but to rely on certified professionals who can give personalized advice when it comes to actual investment decisions and retirement strategies. 'The most successful approach we see is people using Claude to level up their financial literacy, then taking that knowledge into real-world decisions,' the Anthropic spokesperson said in a statement to USA TODAY. 'They understand the terminology, recognize better opportunities, and feel more confident, whether they're negotiating a car loan, choosing between job offers, or preparing for retirement planning meetings. That's where AI genuinely helps — making financial knowledge accessible to everyone.' In another statement to USA TODAY, a spokesperson for Microsoft said Copilot's Deep Research mode can help people make well-informed choices in areas that require careful evaluation, including financial decisions. 'As we look ahead, we're focused on making Copilot an even better AI companion; one that's more personal and feels natural being used in everyday life,' the spokesperson said. 'AI can still make mistakes, so we always recommend people check sources and reach out to a financial adviser if needed.' While Allen said she doesn't take everything AI says at face value, she credits it as a reason she went from not knowing how much debt she had, to paying a majority of it off. 'That's what changed about this whole process,' Allen said. 'I'm not afraid. I have ChatGPT on my side.' OpenAI and xAI did not respond to USA TODAY's requests for comment. Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@ and follow her on X @rachelbarber_
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Tensions flare over gender pronouns as trans rights and religious freedom collide
Jocelyn Boden, 47, managed a Bath & Body Works store in West Valley City, Utah for 3½ years. In March, she hired a transgender man as a retail associate and, during their first shift together, Boden said she twice referred to the employee as 'she' in keeping with her faith as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches that gender is an immutable characteristic of a person's 'eternal identity.' After two associates corrected her, Boden informed her manager she would use the employee's chosen name but would not 'degrade my religious and moral beliefs by lying and calling this biological girl a he,' she told USA TODAY. Boden was fired. Her termination notice cited "unwanted conduct directed at an individual based on their sex, which includes sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or transgender status." She says her termination was religious discrimination. Boden is at the forefront of a growing conflict between religious freedoms and transgender and nonbinary rights in the workplace. While some say correct pronoun usage to affirm someone's identity is a matter of basic respect, others view expectations they will use someone's chosen gender pronouns as an infringement of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. The standoff has only intensified as the political and legal landscape shifts. When an employee objects on religious grounds to using a colleague's pronouns that are not consistent with their sex assigned at birth, 'you have a clash of rights,' said Jonathan Segal, a partner with the Duane Morris law firm who advises companies on how to comply with discrimination laws. 'The question,' he said, 'is which one gives?' When employees refuse to use chosen pronouns According to a discrimination complaint Boden filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, her supervisor 'made no attempt to discuss my religious beliefs with me or to offer an accommodation.' Bath & Body Works has its employees wear 'I belong' pins on their aprons, but 'Bath & Body Works is obviously not tolerant of everyone,' Boden told USA TODAY. Bath & Body Works 'strives to foster a workplace where all associates are respected and valued' and does not discriminate 'in the treatment or management of our associates on the basis of any protected status,' the company said in a statement. 'While respecting the confidentiality of employment matters, we are confident that additional specifics will emerge in due course that will shed further light on this case.' In 2020, federal workplace protections were extended to LGBTQ+ employees for the first time when the Supreme Court sided with three employees who were fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County prompted a wave of claims from religious workers who were terminated for refusing to use coworkers' identified pronouns. Those claims got a boost from another Supreme Court decision broadening protections for religious workers and expanding the requirements employers must meet to accommodate their beliefs. In that case, an evangelical Christian and former postal worker, Gerald Groff, alleged he was discriminated against because he refused to deliver mail on Sundays. 'An employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business' to deny a request for religious accommodation, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court. In light of that ruling, a federal appeals court this month revived an Indiana music teacher's religious discrimination claim against his former employer, Brownsburg High School, over a requirement to use transgender students' first names and pronouns. Kluge taught at the school for four years. In 2017, the school district began requiring that teachers use transgender students' first names and pronouns. He requested and was granted a religious accommodation to refer to his students by their last names but, after complaints from a few students and teachers, the school district revoked the accommodation and Kluge left his teaching position. The school district declined to comment on pending litigation. Legal experts say the courts are still sorting out what constitutes undue hardship. Last year, a federal court ruled that a Washington state counseling and treatment center did not have to face discrimination claims from a Christian former employee because an accommodation exempting her from its pronoun-use policy would have exposed the organization to legal liability. 'The facts and circumstances of each case matter when it comes to determining whether a reasonable accommodation meets the Groff undue hardship standard,' Segal said. Steven Ressler, who was fired after five years from his job with IKEA in Indiana, says he informed his managers that using they/them pronouns conflicted with his Christian beliefs and requested a religious accommodation to refer to his colleague by their first name instead. One day later, Ressler says he was fired. "I received a written corrective action form citing my alleged misgendering as the reason for my termination," Ressler said in the complaint he filed with the EEOC and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. "IKEA is an international corporation with numerous stores and thousands of employees and Mr. Ressler simply referred to his co-workers in a respectful manner consistent with his beliefs," his attorney Joshua Hershberger said. In a written statement, IKEA said it was committed 'to providing an inclusive workplace where all co-workers are treated with dignity and respect.' 'As a general principle, we do not comment on legal matters. However, in this instance, we feel it is important to clarify that our decision to terminate the co-worker was because he repeatedly violated the IKEA Code of Conduct and related policies regarding respectful and inclusive treatment of all co-workers,' the company said. 'Why trans people feel unsafe at work' LGBTQ+ advocates say the use of pronouns that align with a person's gender identity is an important signal of acceptance in the workplace for transgender and nonbinary employees who face high rates of on-the-job harassment and discrimination. Researchers at the UCLA School of Law Williams Institute estimate that 2.1 million Americans are trans adults − whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth − a third of whom are trans nonbinary people. In 2021, researchers estimated 1.2 million LGBTQ adults identify as nonbinary, meaning their gender identity and expression fall outside the binary categories of "man" and "woman." From a cosmetics store in California to a restaurant in Michigan to a hotel in New York, trans and nonbinary employees across the country have filed lawsuits alleging hostile work environments including the repeated use of incorrect pronouns. Recently, Marz Marcello, 33 and a veteran of the podcast industry, sent a pitch to a podcast offering an expert as a guest. The person responded: 'Because you have they/them in your email signature, I will not be engaging any further. YOU ARE EITHER A MAN OR A WOMAN.' "This is real. This happens. Quietly. In inboxes. In 'friendly' or 'cool' industries," Marcello, who has openly identified as nonbinary for 15 years, wrote on LinkedIn. "Let's be clear: This is discrimination. This is unprofessional. This is why trans people feel unsafe at work." After they shared the email on LinkedIn, Marcello and their partner received death threats. "It does feel unsafe to just be visible," they told USA TODAY. 'But I am proud of who I am and I won't hide it." A Williams Institute survey last year found that 82% of trans employees have reported experiencing discrimination and harassment in the workplace at some point in their lives. Nearly 6 in 10 nonbinary employees reported experiences of discrimination and harassment. Brad Sears, founding executive director at the Williams Institute, said transgender and nonbinary people are especially vulnerable and marginalized groups in the workplace. In surveys, they share stories of coworkers and customers intentionally and persistently referring to them by the wrong pronouns. One Black nonbinary employee from Virginia said their boss regularly called them by their deadname – the name they used before transitioning. "We often think of discrimination as a discrete event that happens on a certain day," Sears said. "For those who are misgendered in the workplace, the experience can become an almost daily challenge." Is 'misgendering' unlawful? Since the Trump administration crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion policies, some employers – especially government contractors – have retreated from trans-inclusive policies while others have become more cautious. Donald Trump leaned into anti-trans rhetoric on the campaign trail. Campaign ads attacking Democrats frequently focused on trans issues including one spot with the tagline: 'Kamala's For They/Them. President Trump is for you.' In one of his first acts in office, Trump issued an executive order recognizing only two sexes, male and female, and directed his administration to eradicate 'gender ideology extremism' in the federal government and elsewhere. Aligning herself with the president's agenda, acting EEOC chair Andrea Lucas has moved to roll back protections for transgender workers and strengthen religious rights in the workplace, dropping lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers, removing the nonbinary gender option from discrimination claim forms and rejecting previous guidance her agency issued that the repeated and intentional use of incorrect pronouns could contribute to a hostile work environment. 'Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable,' Lucas said in a January press release. 'It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths – or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.' The 2020 Bostock ruling that federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination against workers on the basis of their gender identity did not address "bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind." 'Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination," Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, "are questions for future cases.' In 2024, the Biden administration weighed in with EEOC guidance that unlawful workplace harassment includes the 'repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual's known gender identity.' Some courts agreed, but in May a federal judge in Texas said the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority in "expanding the scope of 'sex' beyond the biological binary" and "defining discriminatory harassment to include failure to accommodate a transgender employee's bathroom, pronoun, and dress preferences" and gutted the guidance. 'Anti-trans discrimination is still against the law,' said David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at the NYU School of Law. 'The tricky question is what exactly constitutes anti-trans discrimination.' The Jackson Lewis law firm recently told clients it's unclear whether employers 'can or should limit access to bathrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex and whether they must accommodate an employee's personal pronouns.' But, even without the EEOC guidance, 'courts may still conclude name-calling or repeated intentional misgendering could constitute unlawful harassment' under federal discrimination laws, the law firm wrote. 'As always, and as with most matters, employers can and should continue to require employees to treat everyone – regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious belief or any other classification – with respect,' it advised.
