Cadillac F1 makes its entrance as official team at Miami Grand Prix as questions swirl about lineup
MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. (AP) — The new Cadillac F1 team officially announced its arrival at a glitzy South Beach extravaganza packed with industry executives and influencers and highlighted by a musical showcase from Janelle Monáe and actor Terry Crews Jr., who shared an anecdote about how he'd never been born had his father not relocated at age 20 to Flint, Michigan, in search of a job with General Motors.
A splashy video ultimately unveiled the Cadillac F1 team logo at a multimillion-dollar party jammed elbow-to-elbow in the Queen Miami Beach venue.
What wasn't revealed? Cadillac's car, a bit of a disappointment for those who expected to see all the bells and whistles at the brand launch introduction to F1's newest team.
No worries, promised the leaders of the new team: Cadillac F1 is on pace to be on the grid in 2026.
'We're building cars, we've been in the wind tunnel for a long time,' said Dan Towriss, CEO of TWG Motorsports, the team owner. 'Chassis has arrived, we're continuing to add (personnel) to the team, there are so many work streams that are happening all at once. But I want to make sure everybody understands just how deep the partnership is with General Motors and with Cadillac. I think that's something that really will set apart this team, this entry, on the grid.'
Cadillac will debut in 2026 with a two-car lineup that will push the F1 field to 22 cars — the first time since 2016 the grid will have more than 20 cars.
A long drive
It was a long road for Cadillac F1 to get to this point. The project started with Michael Andretti, who failed to buy Sauber in his effort to create a true American team that would feature at least one American driver. When he didn't close the Sauber deal, Andretti petitioned F1 and governing body FIA to expand the field for Andretti Global, which led to the equivalent of an IRS audit during a grueling application process.
F1 denied the application.
Towriss and Cadillac pressed on — they spent the last year saying work on the project 'continues on pace' — and when Towriss bought out Andretti late last year, F1 changed course and the new team was suddenly fast-tracked.
General Motors President Mark Reuss was finally able to attend an F1 race — the Miami Grand Prix over the weekend — in an official capacity. So geeked to finally be in the club, Reuss pulled out his phone to play an audio clip for reporters of the first Cadillac engine being fired.
Cadillac will initially race with Ferrari engines before GM's power unit is ready for 2029. Reuss said the Cadillac approach is deliberate to have a reliable, fast engine rather than rush one out for next season.
'You have to go slow to go fast,' Reuss said.
Cadillac will have the largest U.S. presence of any F1 team and will operate out of facilities in Fishers, Indiana, as well as in Charlotte, North Carolina. The team also has a satellite facility at Silverstone, England.
Who will drive for Cadillac F1?
When Andretti first launched this project, he was adamant it was for an American driver, specifically California native and current IndyCar driver Colton Herta.
Now the list of potential drivers is rather long. Towriss and Reuss were adamant they've yet to sign a driver amid reports that Sergio Perez has already signed. The need for there to be an American is not a pressing issue to TWG.
'There's a lot of interest in this team and we're very appreciative of that,' Towriss said. 'We want that person set up for success, and want that seat respected when that American driver does come in for the team. ... We'll find the right way and the right time to bring the right driver into Formula 1.'
IndyCar driver Pato O'Ward, who races under the Mexican flag but spent most of his childhood in Texas, wants a seat. Towriss said they had a funny run-in two weeks ago at the Indianapolis 500 open test when the elevator Towriss was in opened and there was O'Ward; they joked they would talk.
McLaren Racing boss Zak Brown said he wouldn't prevent O'Ward from pursuing a seat with Cadillac. O'Ward drives for McLaren in IndyCar and is the team's F1 reserve driver.
'I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't stop him,' Brown said.
Valtteri Bottas, now an F1 reserve driver for Mercedes, told The Associated Press he is very interested while IndyCar driver Colton Herta has recently hedged on whether he wants the seat.
There are a number of Americans who could be candidates, especially if the team is willing to wait until deeper into its existence to hire one. NASCAR driver Connor Zilisch, an 18-year-old quickly climbing through the stock car series' ladder system, initially pursued European racing in his career. Sebastian Wheldon, who is deep into the Andretti Global driver development program, on Saturday won his debut Italian F4 race at Misano with Prema Racing.
Another idea could put a long-debated topic to the test: NASCAR champion Kyle Larson, who often comes up as potentially the only driver in the world who could match F1 standout Max Verstappen in talent.
When AP asked Reuss about the possibility of Larson, Reuss said 'let's focu on Indianapolis first.' Larson will run for McLaren and Chevrolet for a second consecutive year in the Indianapolis 500 later this month.
Potential effect of tariffs
Reuss said GM's F1 efforts will not be affected by President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs despite a potential $5 billion (£3.8bn) impact. Despite reversing a number of the planned tariffs on imports in recent weeks, a 25% tariff is still in place.
'This is a long-term footprint that we have that are very old in some cases, that have been there a long time,' Reuss said. 'So we're working to bring as much as we can into the United States and avoid the tariffs. But not at all cost, and it doesn't happen overnight. There's no light switch that says, 'Oh, all of a sudden we're tariff-free.'
'You probably would have seen over the last few days, we did earnings on the early part of the week, and then we came back and did the earnings review and guidance. In that second one, there's about $5 billion of impact for us. But it's not going to affect this (F1) project.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Robert Kiyosaki Warns Hyperinflation Will ‘Wipe Out' Millions
Personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki recently made a bold prediction on X about the state of the American economy. The summary of the prediction is that hyperinflation will be financially devastating to millions of Americans. Another GOBankingRates article discusses hyperinflation, stating that the situation occurs when there's a monthly inflation rate of 50% or more. However, due to the role of the Fed, the American economy has never faced such a situation, even when inflation reached as high as 23% in 1920. Trending Now: For You: Below, we examine Kiyosaki's serious claims and determine their accuracy based on expert insights. 'Hyperinflation is a state of extremely high inflation, typically reaching high double digits or triple digits,' said Marko Bjegovic, macroeconomist and founder of Arkomina Research. Kiyosaki believes everything in the economy will become more expensive, from interest rates for borrowing money to basic necessities. Kiyosaki's reasoning is likely that, with the Fed printing money, in his opinion, this could devalue the American currency and lead to higher inflation. It's safe to say that Kiyosaki believes that inflation will become so exorbitant that the average American consumer will be unable to carry their debt moving forward and will have to declare bankruptcy. Read Next: According to MoneyWise, Kiyosaki isn't a stranger to making bold claims about a possible economic collapse. We reviewed some of these claims in the statement to try to verify their accuracy. Bjegovic said there's nothing to suggest that the U.S. is currently on a path to hyperinflation. 'In that sense, the U.S. has never had hyperinflation since the Fed's inception in 1913,' he added. 'Hyperinflation has been commonly associated with countries experiencing extreme political or economic collapse, such as Weimar Germany (1920s), Zimbabwe (2000s), Venezuela (2010s), and Argentina (2020s).' Since the situation has never occurred in history, it's challenging to expect it to happen this time around. On a similar note, it's worth noting that the current Consumer Price Index (CPI) stood at 2.3% in April, the lowest level since February 2021. While inflation peaked — as reported by CNBC — at 9.1% in June 2022, it never approached the 50% figure required for a hyperinflationary state. With inflation cooling down, it doesn't appear that it will reach double digits anytime soon. Some of Kiyosaki's predictions for future asset prices are extremely bold. For context, the highest price of gold ever peaked at $3,500.05 per ounce on April 22, 2025, according to Investing News Network. Blake Mclaughlin, gold expert and vice president of exploration at Axcap Ventures, said gold's recent surge indicates underlying instability in the economy and that based on current conditions, its upward trend may continue. 'Having exposure to commodities like precious metals is a reasonable hedge for inflation. Generally, physical assets, where supplies cannot be readily or easily manipulated, provide a safe and honest place to invest,' he added. However, no evidence would suggest that gold can reach the value mentioned by Kiyosaki According to Yahoo Finance, iBitcoin hasn't passed $112,000 as of May 30 and silver is hovering around $33. These numbers are far from the substantial numbers shared by Kiyosaki. For bitcoin to go from $110,000 to one million is an extreme stretch and there's no evidence pointing towards this possibility. Upon further investigation, there aren't any other credible experts declaring that bitcoin can go as high as one million. Research shared on Business Insider showed there's only one crypto options trade that has bitcoin hitting $300,000 by the end of June and there's only one platform predicting that the digital asset will hit $200,000 by the end of the year. 'The auction Mr. Kiyosaki mentioned was held by the Treasury and not by the Fed,' Bjegovic said. It's essential to emphasize that the Fed didn't conduct this auction, as that's a crucial fact stated in the announcement. Reuters pointed out that the auction was poorly received, which led to a stock sell-off, with investors concerned about the national debt. However, the article also shared that the 20-year bonds usually see less demand than other maturities and that it wasn't a disaster. While the demand for the $16 billion sale of 20-year bonds was weak, it's also unfair to say that nobody showed up to the auction on May 21. Bjegovic said it went better than feared due to the circumstances at the time (Moody's downgrade, passage of the 'Big Beautiful Bill Act' and wider fiscal deficits). 'Treasury auctions are functioning well (as evidenced by other auctions that followed, like the two-year note this week) and inflation remains relatively low. The contents of Mr. Kiyosaki's post on X have grossly exaggerated both the current situation and what is likely to happen in the future,' Bjegovic explained. While it's important to be cautious about your investing approach, you also don't want to get caught up in the fear-mongering that can be evident on social media. As always, we recommend that you speak with a qualified financial professional before making any important decisions about your funds. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs Warren Buffett: 10 Things Poor People Waste Money On This article originally appeared on Robert Kiyosaki Warns Hyperinflation Will 'Wipe Out' Millions Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Politico
31 minutes ago
- Politico
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Doland Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
