GM announces $4 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing plants, including in Lake Orion Township
(Photo by)
General Motors on Tuesday evening announced plans to put $4 billion over the next two years toward its domestic automotive manufacturing, increasing U.S. production of both gas and electric-powered vehicles.
GM hopes to assemble more than 2 million vehicles per year in the U.S., focusing on plants in Michigan, Kansas and Tennessee.
In Michigan, GM will invest in Lake Orion Assembly in Lake Orion Township to begin producing gas-powered full-size SUVs and light duty pickup trucks starting in early 2027. GM said that move would help the company meet continued strong demand.
GM's Factory ZERO in Detroit and Hamtramck will be its location dedicated to bundling the Chevrolet Silverado electric vehicle, the GMC Sierra EV, the Cadillac Escalade IQ and the GMC Hummer EV pickup and SUV.
Other plants receiving investments include Fairfax Assembly in Kansas City, Kansas and Spring Hill Manufacturing in Spring Hill, Tennessee.
'We believe the future of transportation will be driven by American innovation and manufacturing expertise,' said Mary Barra, GM chair and CEO, in a statement. 'Today's announcement demonstrates our ongoing commitment to build vehicles in the U.S and to support American jobs. We're focused on giving customers choice and offering a broad range of vehicles they love.'
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the leaders of the Michigan Legislature praised the move, saying in a statement that GM and Michigan have a long history.
'I am grateful to GM for bringing more auto manufacturing back home to Michigan, protecting thousands of good-paying, union auto jobs,' Whitmer said in a statement. 'Over the last few years, GM has grown their footprint in their home state, and I am proud that the state of Michigan has been a strong partner in helping them 'build, baby, build!''
Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) thanked President Donald Trump for GM's investment.
'This is exactly what we said would happen when he unveiled his bold tariff strategy,' Hall said. 'While other politicians were paying out billions to build EV plants with small job totals, President Trump took the smarter path to bring back gas-powered production that will put more people to work and do it without handouts. President Trump took a strong stand to bring factories back to American shores and punish companies that shed American jobs to move their operations overseas. That plan is working.'
In its announcement, GM gave no indication that the tariff strategy being implemented by the Trump administration was a factor in its decision to make the investments.
Regardless, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said the multi-billion-dollar investment would mean thousands of new auto jobs for the state.
'I am delighted by this news,' Brinks said in a statement. 'Our hardworking and dedicated workforce, vibrant neighborhoods where people want to put down roots, and major advancements in economic policy make our state the natural place to make such a transformative investment.'
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
Associated Press
29 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
CNBC
34 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."
Axios
35 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents
Democrats in Congress have largely closed ranks around Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) — but centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) is panning what he calls their "politics as theater." Why it matters: Golden represents a district President Trump won last year and is always walking a careful line between supporting his party and maintaining his independence. On this, he is steering hard away from the party line. "I think that it's never good when a senator or member of Congress gets roughed up by law enforcement," he said in an interview with Axios at the Capitol. But, he added, "I don't think politics as theater is what our job is here." What happened: Padilla was forcibly removed by law enforcement as he tried to confront Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem during a press conference at the Los Angeles FBI Headquarters on Thursday. Officers detained Padilla, held him on the ground and handcuffed him, though the senator was later allowed to meet with Noem. The incident came after McIver was indicted for allegedly assaulting law enforcement during a scuffle with DHS officers outside an ICE facility in her home state last month, which she denies. What he's saying: "Storming into the FBI headquarters and trying to break up a press conference and rushing on a [cabinet] secretary is not really the job of an elected official," Golden said. Of McIver he said: "Where I come from, if you shove a police officer, you're probably getting arrested." Still, he added: "I am not in any way saying that means law enforcement should be slamming people around." The other side: "Everyone is entitled to their respective opinions … For me, the video I saw was clear," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios when asked about Golden's comments. "He was at his place of work. He works in that building. He went to the press conference, ... he identified himself as a U.S. senator and then they manhandle him to the ground and arrest him," Garcia said. "I think it's crystal clear that that is unacceptable and an incredible overreach and quite dangerous ... and I think the American public is as outraged as the Congress." What to watch: Some Democrats are already talking about investigating the Padilla incident. "We only saw clips of it, so I'd like to find out everything that happened and how that occurred," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. "He was very roughly handled, and it seemed like he was just trying to interject and attend the [press] conference. So, yeah, I think we need to take a good hard look at it."
