UNM: We will cooperate with feds over Civil Rights complaint
People cross Central Avenue, which borders the University of New Mexico's Albuquerque campus, on Aug. 27. (Photo by Bella Davis / New Mexico In Depth)
The University of New Mexico said it would cooperate with the federal investigation into alleged 'race-exclusionary practices' announced earlier this month, and is working to put together a response about the university's relationship with a nonprofit aiming to increase minority participation in PhD programs and faculty positions.
On March 14, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new release informing 45 universities that the Office for Civil Rights had received a complaint that they were allegedly discriminating against graduate students based on race or ethnicity for their past affiliations with the PhD Project.
The New Jersey-based nonprofit PhD Project supports Black, Hispanic and Native American students pursuing business PhD programs, and provides peer support as they become professors, according to its website.
PBS reported that letters sent to other higher education institutions instated a March 31 deadline for universities to submit information about their relationship to the nonprofit.
However, UNM's Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Cinnamon Blair told Source NM she had not seen a copy of a letter from federal education officials.
'What I can share is that the University was notified that a complaint was filed with the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, related to Project PhD,' Blair said in a written statement Wednesday. 'UNM prohibits unlawful discrimination and will cooperate with OCR in its review of this matter.'
Blair told Source NM the UNM administration is 'still determining the extent of its relationship with the PhD Project,' in a phone call Thursday.
Blair also said she could not make anyone who had read the letter available for an interview as the university would not comment on an open investigation before issuing its formal response.
A spokesperson for the PhD Project did not respond to questions regarding the organization's relationship with UNM, but issued the following statement on behalf of the nonprofit.
While college student populations have become increasingly diverse in the past 20 years — especially Hispanic and Latino students, who doubled their share of admissions to approximately 21.2% of the population, according to a 2024 report from the higher-ed think tank American Council on Education. However, enrollment of white students (40.6%) and Asian students (61.6%) remain 'far above' other racial and ethnic groups.
Higher education faculty are less diverse than student bodies. The latest federal data from 2022 reports that 72% of all faculty at post-secondary institutions are white; 13% Asian; 7% Black; 6% Hispanic; 1% are more than one race; and the remaining 1% split between American Indian/Alaskan Native and Pacific Islanders.
'For the last 30 years, The PhD Project has worked to expand the pool of workplace talent by developing business school faculty who inspire, mentor, and support tomorrow's leaders. Our vision is to create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders who are committed to excellence and to each other, through networking, mentorship, and unique events.'
The statement concluded: 'This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision. The PhD Project was founded with the goal of providing more role models in the front of business classrooms, which remains our goal today.'
Source NM has filed public information requests at both the federal and state level for the complaint against UNM, as well as for the letter informing UNM of the complaint.
The complaint comes amid a period of uncertainty for higher education as President Donald Trump and other Republicans move to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education fully, while also threatening to pull universities' funding for continuing programs to increase diversity, equity and inclusion. The Department of Education touches nearly every level of education in the U.S., from issuing grant funds to lower-income schools, to administering loans, grants and work-study funds for college attendees.
The investigation also follows a 'Dear Colleague' letter from federal education officials stating that universities must 'cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities' or face the loss of federal funding. An FAQ on that letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights includes — as its first FAQ — information on where to file discrimination complaints.
Earlier this month, President Garnett Stokes, in a weekly newsletter to students, said the university will continue to 'monitor and review' UNM's policies and provide updates on the President's webpage.
'To avoid amplifying uncertainty or disrupting our work unnecessarily, we have established a general response philosophy that we will only respond to specific and actionable federal requirements or actions, says a statement posted to website. 'We will avoid making rapid changes to university policies and programs where not clearly warranted.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated 'R' for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, 'I have a [expletive deleted] dream.' Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand 'toxic.' Walz told his fellow Dems: 'We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing.' It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: 'A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.' Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers 'win elections because their opponents were unpopular,' Levin wrote, 'and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.' It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy 'maybe' period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Small Michigan auto suppliers face a tariff crisis with thousands of jobs at risk
Small Michigan auto suppliers face a tariff crisis with thousands of jobs at risk Show Caption Hide Caption Appeals court allows Trump tariffs while appeal plays out An appeals court ruled the Trump administration will be allowed to levy tariffs while an appeal on previous court rulings plays out. Michigan auto parts suppliers are struggling with the 25% tariffs imposed by President Trump on imported vehicles and parts. Smaller suppliers are especially vulnerable, facing potential job losses and business closures due to increased costs. Industry experts warn that tariffs could lead to supplier consolidation, potentially driving up prices for consumers. Michigan-based auto parts suppliers are getting creative in their attempts to mitigate President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. They must, because many industry experts worry the tariffs could put smaller players — which constitute the bulk of auto suppliers — out of business and result in widespread job losses. Take Michigan-based Lucerne International in Auburn Hills, which is looking for the U.S. government to grant it foreign trade zone status to help it delay its tariff bills and free up its cash flow. Another supplier, Team 1 Plastics Inc., is reassessing its business model, including what to do about a much-needed factory expansion that may no longer be affordable. Still others are asking automakers to help foot the bill. 'We've had a lot to think about when you take an industry that is as far-flung as the supply base is in automotive, and then throw in tariffs.' said Gary Grigowski, vice president of Team 1 Plastics, Inc. Adds Lucerne CEO Mary Buchzeiger, "I wake up in the morning and I deal with tariffs. I go to bed and I deal with tariffs. Then the policy keeps changing and when that playbook continuously keeps changing and we don't know what is going to happen two weeks from now … that's a challenge for any industry.' In Michigan, auto parts suppliers are huge employers and contributors to the economy. While experts believe the big suppliers will adapt to tariffs, it's all those smaller companies, such as Team 1 Plastics, which has just 80 employees, that industry observers worry about. In case you missed it: Economists estimate new tariff costs to range between $2,000 to $12,000 per vehicle "University of Michigan economists said tariffs on the auto industry, along with steel and aluminum, can be expected to reduce employment by roughly 13,000 jobs over the next several years. That's a lot of jobs," said Glenn Stevens, executive director of MichAuto. "This is what we've been concerned about because our industry is so tied to Mexico and Canada and the global auto supply chain. We were concerned that the tariff situation would cause an outsized impact on Michigan's economy.' Industry consolidation could drive up prices On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority in imposing 'reciprocal' tariffs globally, as well as duties on Canada and Mexico. Some in the auto industry said they were encouraged by the ruling, until they realized that the tariffs Trump put on autos still apply, providing no relief from the worry over possible supplier consolidation and job losses. The next day, an appeals court ruled Trump can continue to levy tariffs — which are taxes an importer pays on goods when they cross borders — while challenging the court order that had blocked them. Stevens said there are 'absolutely conversations going on' between suppliers and their customers, including automakers, about ways to shoulder the extra tariff costs together. 'When you have a tremendous increase in costs … that has to either be absorbed by the company, which is very difficult for small suppliers, or passed along to the customer,' Stevens said. 'What we don't want is it passed to the consumer, because that means repressed demand and lower sales, which leads to job losses. It's a fine balancing act.' Other industry experts report that the topic of the day among suppliers is how to remain solvent when faced with the tariffs potentially eating up their operating cash. "We are actively speaking with the tiered supplier community about this topic," said Joe McCabe, CEO of AutoForecast Solutions. "Everyone is taking the tariff talks seriously and looking at ways to improve efficiencies internally and investigate secondary supply strategies. The further down the supply chain you go, the more exposed the supplier will be." McCabe said the Tier 1 suppliers are in the strongest position to adapt to tariffs. They are bigger suppliers that sell directly to automakers. They have a diverse product portfolio to either relocate production and/or pressure the lower-tier suppliers — those companies that sell parts to the Tier 1 supplier — with price-reduction demands while investigating new suppliers in low-to-zero tariff regions. But in times of volatility, there has always been concern that the smaller suppliers will not be able to weather the storm, allowing larger suppliers to buy the distressed suppliers on the cheap and strengthen their product portfolio, McCabe said. As the number of suppliers dwindles, it could allow those that remain to strong-arm carmakers on the prices they pay for the parts, he said. The number of suppliers According to U.S. Census data in 2022, 3,814 firms operated at least one plant classified as producing auto parts in the United States, with a total of 4,846 plants in this industry. Those plants shipped $278.24 billion in parts and employed 575,338 people, said Jason Miller, a supply chain management professor at Michigan State University. Even the small suppliers shoulder big economic muscle. Miller said 3,045 companies with fewer than 100 employees operated 3,111 manufacturing plants that shipped $17.66 billion in parts and employed 54,561 people. In Michigan alone, data from the Upjohn Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center in Michigan, calculates that the state has 117,675 auto supplier jobs. Team 1: A typical small supplier On an afternoon in mid-May, Grigowski drives down the highway, going from meeting to meeting as he talks on the phone to the Free Press about his ever-growing to-do list to mitigate the impact tariffs will have on his company. The company, Team 1 Plastics in Albion, Michigan, is a small supplier, bringing in about $20 million in annual revenue. Its size represents the bulk of companies that make up the auto parts supplier base, Grigowski said. "We're little companies in little towns," Grigowski said. "We employ 80 people, so it's a big deal in a town of 7,000. And we have one location, so we're making decisions that impact everything." Team 1 makes the plastic vehicle parts such as covers, switch components or underhood components. Its business is "almost 100% automotive with a little bit of plumbing," Grigowski said. It provides parts to suppliers that eventually end up on vehicles made by General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Stellantis, Toyota, Honda and Subaru, he said. The parts they make are links in the complex supply chain that weaves across North America. The good news for Team 1 is that some of the materials it uses to make plastic parts are made in the United States, so the company dodges paying tariffs there. But dies used to make other parts will face tariffs and have "a very big impact" on the company's books, Grigowski said. Team 1's troubles Grigowski said the dies, which are used to shape or form plastic into the parts, are made from suppliers in Canada and India. India is subject to a 10% tariff, but Canada and Mexico got 25%. "That was a big surprise for us — 25% is a lot," Grigowski said. "A typical die cost might be $70,000, so that's going to be $17,500 more. So it's a lot of money. We typically get 10 dies a year from Canada, so that's $175,000 more. That's real money were I come from.' Grigowski said it is unclear whether the dies will be exempt from the Canada tariffs for being compliant with the U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement because it is not a part, but rather a piece of capital equipment. "It's unclear if that will be covered or not" under the exemption, Grigowski said. "We will have to figure it out in the next week or so" before putting in new orders. If the dies are not exempt, he said the extra cost for the tariff will be passed onto Team 1's customers. As for the dies Team 1 already ordered before the tariffs were applied, it already had quoted its prices to its customers so it will not raise those prices to offset the added expense. He said some companies in Michigan make dies, but they don't have enough capacity to meet all the suppliers' needs. And, as those companies get busier, they will raise their prices too. On top of that problem, Team 1 also needs a new injection molding machine, which is made in Japan. Grigowski ordered a new one even though the 24% tariff on goods coming from Japan tacks on $72,000 to its price tag. He is hoping the tariff on Japan will be lowered to 10%, bring down the bill to $30,000. It would be less of an impact, "but it's still painful," he said. Finally, because Team 1 has added new clients in recent years, it has outgrown its facilities and needs to make a 50% expansion to its plant. It got a construction quote six months ago and had hoped to break ground this summer. But Grigowski said he has to get a new quote now because of the recently imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. "We're using an American company and an American building supplier and they will use as many American parts as they can, but they will probably import some of the steel and even if they didn't, the domestics will raise their price because they can," Grigowski said. "So it's a lot of things for a company our size to keep track of." He said it's a tough situation that feeds his bigger fear, which is "nothing we hear sounds like it's going to lower the price of the car.' "Cars are already super pricey for most customers," Grigowski said. According to Cox Automotive, in April the average transaction price for a new car was $48,699. "Which means, it could lead to lower volumes for us. Lower volume is never good.' A bigger supplier's strategies Across the state in Auburn Hills, Lucerne International, which makes chassis, powertrains and body structural components for passenger cars and commercial vehicles, is a bigger supplier at the tier one and tier two levels. CEO Buchzeiger declined to provide Lucerne's annual revenue or employee count, but she has been grappling with Trump tariffs since 2018 because of Lucerne's scale and reach into Asia. Trump was threatening to boost tariffs on China to 25% back then too. So she has learned a thing or two about mitigating tariffs that she's willing to pass on to smaller suppliers to help them. "The biggest issue with the supply base, especially with paying more cash up front, is cash flow and liquidity," Buchzeiger said. "The smaller suppliers can't pay that up front … it sucks cash flow out of your organization." Buchzeiger said her company has been working to get more of its supplies from domestic providers. She shares other strategies, such as what to do when the goods clear a port, as duties are due within seven to 10 days. Sometimes, the goods "aren't even at our door yet and the tariffs are due," Buchzeiger said. To offset that problem, Lucerne signed up for a U.S. Customs and Border Protection program called Periodic Monthly Statement, Buchzeiger said. That program allows a company to pay all the tariffs on the 15th of the month. So if the parts clear the border on the 16th, the company has a full month to pay it, she said. Buchzeiger said the company is also applying to be a foreign trade zone. "That allows us to bring the goods in and sit on them and not pay duties until they clear our door because we're considered a foreign trade zone," Buchzeiger said. "It's just to save millions of dollars in our cash flow because the longer we hold onto our money, the better." Buchzeiger agrees with the president's goal that more goods should be made in America. But she said to make that happen, tariffs have to be executed strategically. The U.S. aluminum manufacturers, for example, can produce only 15% of the aluminum her company requires, she said. So Lurcerne has to import 85% of it. With the 25% tariffs on aluminum now, "you just made me uncompetitive to manufacture here. To help me manufacture here, you have to understand where raw materials come from.' Find 'a path out' Like Grigowski, Buchzeiger believes tariffs will raise new vehicle prices. Buchzeiger is on the board for MEMA and MichAuto and she said the expectation is tariffs will drive up the average price of a new car by $5,000 to $7,000. As for the impact on jobs, MEMA, the group that represents the auto parts supplier industry, told the Free Press it did not have a precise estimate for supplier job losses so far due to tariffs. But it referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' April report that noted a national net decline of 5,800 U.S. jobs in motor vehicle and parts production since February. The bureau does not distinguish between parts and vehicle manufacturing. In March, steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said it would idle some operations at its Dearborn plant this summer, tied to tariffs. It said it will lay off about 600 employees. In a statement at the time, the company said, 'We believe that, once President Trump's policies take full effect and automotive production is re-shored, we should be able to resume steel production at Dearborn Works.' But MEMA spokesperson Megan Gardner said that based on its internal surveys, a growing number of MEMA's 1,000 members have reported reducing U.S. employment — both production and nonproduction — and investment since the tariffs went into effect. She said many indicated they expect to make further cuts if tariffs remain in place over the next year. Still, Grigowski said he is sticking to his plan to hire a couple people this fall to work on that new machine from Japan. He even sees a potential upside to tariffs if some work that is currently done in Mexico shifts over to Team 1. 'That's a very real possibility," Grigowski said. "We've had some additional inquiries from a Canadian company." He also believes the Trump administration will negotiate tariffs country by country and come up with something workable for the auto industry, creating a "path out" of his problems. "It's like COVID. When it first happened, we thought we'd have to shut our plant down. Then we saw a path out," Grigowski said. "Ultimately, if these tariffs were to stay in place and they drove volumes down dramatically, then yeah, we'd have to make adjustments. We have to hope cooler heads will prevail. We're in a good financial position that we can wait for a solution. I feel like it's a significant problem, but a problem we can start to work.' Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber.
