
Trump exempts some automakers from Canada, Mexico tariffs for one month
President Donald Trump will exempt automakers from his punishing 25-percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for one month as long as they comply with the terms of an existing free trade agreement, the White House has said.
The announcement on Wednesday came after Trump spoke with the chief executive officers of the three big carmakers, Ford, GM and Stellantis.
Auto stocks rose on the news, with General Motors up 5.3 percent and Ford up 4.1 percent.
Trump's press secretary said on Wednesday that the president is open to hearing about additional exemptions, but Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not willing to lift Canada's retaliatory tariffs if Trump leaves any tariffs on Canada, The Associated Press reported citing a senior government official who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the press.
Trump's tariffs pose extreme difficulties for carmakers, which produce vehicles in all three countries and often ship parts across North American borders multiple times as they get built up into systems and finished vehicles.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford earlier told The Associated Press the auto sector in the US and Canada would last approximately 10 days before they start shutting down the assembly lines in the US and Ontario.
'People are going to lose their jobs,' he said.
A one-month exemption for cars and trucks that comply with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement 's complex content rules, as Trump has outlined, would be a boon for Ford, GM and Stellantis because they comply with the USMCA's complex rules that require vehicles to have 75 percent North American content to get duty-free access to the US market.
The rules also require 40 percent of a passenger car's content to be manufactured in the US or Canada, based on a list of 'core parts' including engines, transmissions, body panels and chassis components. The threshold for pick-up trucks is 45 percent.
Automakers have expressed support for boosting US investment but want certainty over tariff policies as well as on vehicle emissions rules before making dramatic changes, two industry sources told Reuters news agency.
Trump also might eliminate the 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy imports, such as crude oil and petrol, which comply with the USMCA rules of origin, Reuters reported citing a source familiar with the discussions.
Trade tensions
The tariffs threaten to derail Canada's fledgling economic recovery and could trigger a recession, as the country sends the US 75 percent of its exports and gets from it a third of all imports.
Trade tensions also already may be hurting the US. New data released on Wednesday showed slowing payroll growth, as well as lower wage growth for workers who switch jobs, with uncertainty around Trump's policies a likely factor. The dollar hit three-month lows on Wednesday, and US stock indices have fallen steadily this week. The Nasdaq has fallen 9 percent since February 20.
Trump has also imposed an extra 10-percent duty on Chinese goods.
An exemption also would benefit some foreign brand carmakers with large US production footprints, including Honda and Toyota, but some competitors that don't comply would have to pay the full 25-percent US tariffs.
On April 2, Trump plans to announce what he calls 'reciprocal' tariffs to match the tariffs, taxes and subsidies provided by other countries. That could dramatically increase the tariff rates charged globally while maintaining the risk of a broader tariff.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
20 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Los Angeles unrest: Is Trump allowed to deploy National Guard troops?
United States President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles County to quell protests against coordinated immigration raids, bypassing the authority of the governor of California. The extraordinary development came on Saturday, the second day of protests, amid clashes between law enforcement officers and demonstrators in the city. The Los Angeles Police Department said Saturday's demonstrations were peaceful and that 'the day concluded without incident'. But in the two cities south of Los Angeles, Compton and Paramount, street battles broke out between protesters and police who used tear gas and flashbangs to disperse the crowds. Local authorities did not request federal assistance. On the contrary, California Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump's decision to call in National Guard troops 'purposefully inflammatory'. He accused the Trump administration of ordering the deployment 'not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle'. It all started on Friday, when law enforcement officials in full riot gear descended on Los Angeles, rounding up day labourers at a building supply shop. The raids, part of a military-style operation, signalled a step up in the Trump administration's use of force in its crackdown against undocumented immigrants. The arrests were carried out without judicial warrants, according to multiple legal observers and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Department of Homeland Security said more than 100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in two days of raids across southern California. After word spread through southern Los Angeles of immigration agents arresting people, residents came out to show their outrage, and a police crackdown followed. It is made up of part-time soldiers who can be used at the state and federal levels. Under the authority of state governors, National Guard troops can be deployed to respond to emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. It can also be used to tackle social unrest when local police are overwhelmed. During times of war or national emergencies, the federal government can order a deployment for military service – that is, when the National Guard is federalised and serves under the control of the president. The president can federalise, or take control of, the National Guard in very specific cases. The main legal mechanism that a president can use to send military forces is the Insurrection Act to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and civil disorder within the country. If certain conditions are met, the president can send in the National Guard, bypassing the authority of the governor, though that is rare and politically sensitive. Following the breakout of protests in Los Angeles, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, but rather a specific provision of the US Code on Armed Services. It says National Guard troops can be placed under federal command when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority' of the US. But the law also says 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors' of the states, making it not clear whether Trump had the legal authority to bypass Newsom. Trump's directive ordering the deployment of troops said 'protests or acts of violence' directly inhibiting the execution of the laws would 'constitute a form of rebellion' against the government. According to Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights lawyer, Trump's order will likely face legal challenges. 'Normally, federal troops are going to be used inside states at the invitation of the governor of that state,' he told Al Jazeera, citing the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, which were put down by federal troops invited by Pete Wilson, then-governor of California. 'But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges … and this will have to go to the Supreme Court in order to determine who has a legal right to deploy those troops,' Patillo said. In 2020, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to the protests that followed the killing by a Minneapolis police officer of George Floyd. Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper pushed back, saying active-duty troops in a law enforcement role should be used 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations'. Finally, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act and asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, DC. Those who refused to send them were allowed to do so. But this time around, Trump has already signalled his unwillingness to hold back on calling in troops. When on the campaign trail in 2023, Trump told supporters in Iowa that he would not be waiting for a governor to be asked to send in troops as during his first term. 'The next time, I'm not waiting,' he said.


Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Democrats wooing Musk after the Trump breakup is US plutocracy at its best
It's official: United States President Donald Trump and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up. At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies' lucrative contracts with the government. Anyway, US 'democracy' has never met a conflict of interest it didn't like. Musk's service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the 'colossal change' he had achieved 'in the old ways of doing business in Washington'. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity. But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a 'disgusting abomination'. There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk 'so depressed and so heartbroken' after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis: ' It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.' Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump's 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president's campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he'll face 'very serious consequences' if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future. But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet's richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you're just in the business of buying power. California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump's big beautiful bill. As per Khanna's view, 'we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.' He went on to list a few of these alleged values: 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Never mind that Musk's main 'value' is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk's entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the 'values' that Democrats purport to espouse. Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk's Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to 'go back to Africa' among other abuses suffered at his workplace. Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a 'value' that anyone aspires to. To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna's advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: 'I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.' Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could 'bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son' by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there's anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place. Newsweek's write-up of Scaramucci's comments observed that 'It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world's richest man once more.' It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money. And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty. Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk's arms. But either way, the country's plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a 'disgusting abomination'. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump deploys troops to Los Angeles to quell protests against ICE raids
United States President Donald Trump is deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to the city of Los Angeles, where a continued immigration crackdown has led to protests and clashes between authorities and demonstrators. The White House said in a statement on Saturday that Trump was deploying the Guardsmen to 'address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester' in California. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, objected to the move and said in a post on X that the move from the Republican president was 'purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions'. More soon…