Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry?



When it comes to tariffs on foreign cars, President Trump seems to have a simple philosophy: “The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here."

This bold strategy is already showing results, with foreign automakers investing billions of dollars in American production. But it's also raising costs for automakers and consumers.

When automakers build plants in the US, they create jobs not only in manufacturing but also in related industries like steel, logistics, and technology.

So what does this mean for the cars we drive, the jobs we create, and the prices we pay? Let’s dive into the details and unpack why this story matters to every American — and why you’ll want to understand the full impact.

Tariffs as a catalyst for US investment

Trump’s tariff strategy is straightforward: Make it more expensive to import vehicles, and automakers will have no choice but to build factories in the United States.

It’s a high-stakes chess move, and early signs suggest it’s working. General Motors recently announced a $4 billion investment in three U.S. plants, including a shift of some SUV production from Mexico to American soil.

Hyundai, too, made headlines in March with a $21 billion commitment, which includes a new U.S. steel plant. Trump didn’t mince words when he credited these moves to his tariff policies. “They wouldn’t have invested 10 cents if we didn’t have tariffs,” he said, pointing to the ripple effect on industries like American steel, which is seeing a resurgence.

RELATED: Revving up America: Trump’s Nippon Steel deal puts the pedal to the metal

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images

These investments are more than just numbers — they translate into jobs, economic growth, and a renewed sense of pride in American manufacturing. For communities hit hard by decades of outsourcing, the prospect of new factories is a beacon of hope. But the story isn’t all rosy. Automakers are feeling the pinch, and some of those costs are trickling down to consumers. The question is: Will the long-term gains outweigh the short-term pain?

The auto industry’s pushback

Not everyone is cheering Trump’s tariff plans. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis have been vocal about their concerns, urging the White House to roll back the 25% tariffs imposed on imported autos. They argue that these tariffs drive up costs, making it harder to compete in a global market.

Adding fuel to the fire, automakers are frustrated by a recent deal that reduces tariffs on British car imports but leaves Canadian and Mexican production facing the full 25% levy. This discrepancy has created tension, as North American supply chains are deeply integrated, with parts and vehicles crossing borders multiple times before reaching showrooms.

Mexico, however, has secured a partial reprieve. Cars assembled in Mexico and exported to the U.S. will face an average tariff of 15%, thanks to reductions tied to the value of U.S. content in those vehicles. This compromise shows the complexity of Trump’s tariff strategy — it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, and automakers are navigating a maze of regulations to keep costs down. Still, the pressure is on, and companies are being forced to rethink their global production strategies.

The cost of tariffs: Who pays the price?

Tariffs are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they’re spurring investment in U.S. factories; on the other, they’re driving up costs for automakers and, ultimately, consumers.

Ford Motor recently raised prices on some models, citing tariff-related costs that are expected to shave $1.5 billion off its adjusted earnings.

General Motors is grappling with an even bigger hit, estimating its tariff exposure at $4 billion to $5 billion, with roughly $2 billion tied to affordable Chevrolet and Buick models imported from South Korea.

Subaru of America has also hiked prices, a move that reflects the broader industry trend.

For car buyers, this could mean sticker shock at dealerships. Higher production costs often lead to pricier vehicles, especially for entry-level models that rely on imported components.

The average American family shopping for a reliable sedan or SUV might feel the squeeze, particularly as inflation and supply-chain challenges already strain household budgets.

But there’s a silver lining: As automakers shift production to the U.S., new jobs and economic opportunities could offset some of these costs over time. The trade-off is real, and it’s worth exploring how this balance will play out.

It’s also important to note that there are over 2.5 million cars that are ready to sell that are pre-tariffed. So there are some deals out there if you shop around.

Why tariffs matter to you

You might be wondering: Why should I care about tariffs if I’m not in the auto industry?

The answer lies in the broader impact. Tariffs don’t just affect car prices — they shape the economy, influence job creation, and even touch on national pride. When automakers build plants in the U.S., they create jobs not only in manufacturing but also in related industries like steel, logistics, and technology. These are the kinds of jobs that sustain communities, from small towns in the Midwest to bustling industrial hubs.

Moreover, Trump’s tariff push is part of a larger conversation about America’s place in the global economy. By incentivizing domestic production, the administration aims to reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing, a move that resonates with many Americans who want to see “Made in the USA” mean something again.

But it’s not without risks. Higher tariffs could strain trade relationships with allies like Canada and Mexico, and they might invite retaliatory tariffs on American exports. The stakes are high, and the outcome will shape the auto industry — and the economy — for years to come.

The road ahead: What to watch for

As Trump hints at raising tariffs soon, all eyes are on how automakers will respond.

Will they increase U.S. investments, as GM and Hyundai have done, or will they find ways to absorb or pass on the costs? The Detroit Big Three are already under pressure to compete with foreign automakers, which may have more flexibility in navigating global supply chains. Meanwhile, consumers will be watching their wallets, weighing the benefits of American-made vehicles against the reality of higher prices.

Another key factor is the global response. Countries like Mexico and Canada, integral to the North American auto industry, may push back against U.S. tariffs, potentially escalating trade tensions.

At the same time, the steel industry, a beneficiary of Trump’s policies, could see further growth as demand for American-made materials rises. It’s a complex web of cause and effect, and the next few months will be critical in determining whether Trump’s gamble pays off.

Why you should share this story

This isn’t just an auto industry story — it’s an American story. Whether you’re a car enthusiast, a worker in a manufacturing town, or just someone who cares about the economy, Trump’s tariff strategy affects you. It’s about jobs, innovation, and the future of American industry. Stay informed about policies that could reshape the way we buy and drive cars.

So what’s the bottom line? Trump’s tariff push is a bold move to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., and it’s already yielding results with billions in new investments. But it comes with challenges — higher costs for automakers and consumers, trade tensions, and an uncertain road ahead. By reading this far, you’ve gotten a front-row seat to one of the most consequential economic debates of our time.

So let's keep the conversation going. What do you think about Trump’s tariff strategy? Will it drive American innovation, or is it a risky bet? The answers are still unfolding, and you won’t want to miss what happens next.

GM head touts EV-only future — while pouring $1 billion into gas engines



Americans aren't buying them and Trump wants to take away their $7,500 tax credit — but General Motors CEO Mary Barra still thinks electric vehicles are the future.

Never mind the $888 million her own company just poured into gas-powered V-8 engines — Barra seems to think they'll go the way of the dinosaurs sooner rather than later.

Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

"I see a path to all EV," she announced at the Wall Street Journal's Future of Everything conference late last month. "I do believe we'll get there because I think the vehicles are better.”

Barra's commitment to phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 has made GM one of the frontrunners in the EV race.

Consumer doubts

Meanwhile, actual consumers still bring up the rear. A recent AAA survey reveals that 63% of Americans are skeptical about EVs, citing high costs, higher insurance premiums, and inadequate charging infrastructure.

Then, there's that almost billon-dollar investment in gas-guzzlers. Something tells us Barra's not exactly putting her money where her mouth is.

Can she have it both ways? As some automakers resist the all-EV push and others cling to outdated mandates, the auto industry is at a crossroads. Let’s unpack the contradictory strategy, consumer hesitancy, and the brands charting their own paths in this high-stakes debate.

This could impact the economy, your driving choices, and where you spend your money..

RELATED: Introducing 'Quick Fix': Practical answers to all your car questions

Blaze Media

The rubber meets the road

Barra has positioned GM as an EV leader, boasting, “We have more EVs in the market right now than anyone else in this country.” GM’s lineup includes nine electric models, such as the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Cadillac Escalade IQ, and GMC Hummer EV, with four more planned.

The Equinox EV, priced around $35,000, aims to make EVs accessible to everyone. To support this, GM has invested $35 billion through 2025 in EV and autonomous vehicle development, including a battery cells factory outside Nashville.

In contrast, last December, GM announced it would sell its stake in the Ultium Cells plant in Lansing, Michigan, to LG Energy Solution. Partnerships with EVgo and Pilot Company aim to expand fast-charging stations, with Barra asserting, “Charging is just going to continue to get better.” GM has dropped the “Ultium” brand name for EV batteries.

Hedging bets

Yet, GM’s actions tell a different story. In a surprising move, the company announced an $888 million investment in its Tonawanda Propulsion plant, outside of Buffalo, New York, to produce the sixth generation of V-8 engines for full-size trucks and SUVs.

These engines promise stronger performance, better fuel economy, and lower emissions through new combustion and thermal management innovations.

This follows a $579 million investment in January 2023 to upgrade the Flint Engine plant for the same V-8 engines, marking Tonawanda as the second facility to produce them.

Barra defended the move, saying, “Our significant investments in GM’s Tonawanda Propulsion plant show our commitment to strengthening American manufacturing and supporting jobs in the U.S.” She added that the Buffalo plant, operational for 87 years, will deliver “world-class trucks and SUVs to our customers for years to come.”

This dual strategy raises questions. Is GM truly committed to an all-electric future, or is Barra hedging her bets to meet consumer demand for gas-powered vehicles?

Consumers might argue she’s trying to have it both ways — pushing a government-favored EV agenda while quietly acknowledging that Americans still want gas trucks and SUVs. Barra’s claim of “choice” feels like a nod to market freedom, but it’s hard to ignore the influence of past presidential administrations’ heavy-handed EV mandates.

If GM is serious about consumer choice, why not let the market — not bureaucrats — set the pace?

'No' to top-down mandates

Americans aren’t buying the EV hype. AAA’s latest survey shows only 16% of U.S. adults are “very likely” or “likely” to buy an EV as their next car, the lowest interest since 2019. Meanwhile, 63% are “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to go electric, up from 51% last year.

Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering, noted, “While the automotive industry is committed to long-term electrification and providing a diverse range of models, underlying consumer hesitation remains.”

The reasons are clear: high battery repair costs (62%) and purchase price (59%) top the list. AAA’s "Your Driving Costs 2024" analysis confirms EVs’ higher upfront costs, despite long-term savings. Additionally, 57% see EVs as unsuitable for long-distance travel, 56% cite insufficient public charging stations, and 55% fear range anxiety. Safety concerns trouble 31%, 27% struggle with home charging (especially in apartments), and 12% worry about losing tax credits.

These numbers reflect a market rejecting top-down mandates. Consumers aren’t anti-EV — they’re anti-being told what to buy when the infrastructure and affordability aren’t there. Barra’s EV push aligns with policies mandated by past administrations, but her V-8 investment suggests she knows the market isn’t ready to abandon gas. This contradiction exposes a flaw in centrally planned transitions: You can’t force consumers to want what doesn’t work for them.

Hybrid theory

While GM straddles both worlds, other automakers are rejecting the all-EV narrative.

Toyota has been vocal about its skepticism, focusing on hybrids like the Prius, which deliver fuel efficiency without charging hassles. Toyota’s investment in hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks positions it as a pioneer in alternatives to battery EVs.

RELATED: Toyota, Jeep, and the big emissions scam

Camerique/Getty Images

Mazda, with its MX-30 EV, prioritizes gas engine improvements and hybrids, citing battery production costs and environmental concerns.

Subaru, offering the Solterra EV, emphasizes hybrids and awaits better charging infrastructure.

Hyundai is navigating the shifting auto landscape with a pragmatic strategy that prioritizes consumer demand over government mandates, a move drivers can applaud. The company’s $7.6 billion Metaplant in Georgia is now expanding to include hybrids, with Kia models joining the lineup in 2026.

Hyundai’s focus on hybrids, like the 2026 Palisade, reflects growing demand for fuel-efficient options that don’t rely on sparse charging infrastructure. Meanwhile, Hyundai continues to produce gas-powered vehicles, recognizing that internal combustion engines still dominate consumer preferences in many markets.

Unlike GM’s Barra, who pushes an all-EV future while investing in gas engines, Hyundai’s approach avoids hypocrisy by openly embracing a mix of EVs, hybrids, and gas vehicles. This flexibility shields Hyundai from policy swings — like potential tariff hikes or the loss of EV subsidies — while giving drivers the freedom to choose what fits their lives, not what bureaucrats dictate.

Stellantis, parent of Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler, balances plug-in hybrids like the Jeep Wrangler 4XE with gas vehicles, catering to diverse consumer needs.

These brands are listening to the market, not bureaucrats. By offering hybrids and gas options, they’re giving consumers what they want — freedom to choose — while GM’s $888 million V-8 investment suggests even Barra knows gas isn’t going away soon. In addition, GM currently does not offer a hybrid powertrain in its vehicles.

This resistance to EV mandates reflects buyers' common sense: Let the market, not the government, decide what drives America.

The road to freedom?

Barra’s vision for 2035 is ambitious, but her actions betray uncertainty. GM’s EV efforts for affordable models, batteries, and charging partnerships are serious, but the $1.4 billion combined investment in V-8 engines for Tonawanda and Flint shows she’s not ready to abandon gas.

AAA’s survey proves consumers aren’t convinced, and brands like Toyota, Stellantis, Mazda, Hyundai, and others are betting on hybrids to bridge the gap. Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

If you’re eyeing an EV, the lineup is diverse, but AAA’s data urges caution. Can you charge reliably? Can you afford the cost? Does the range work for your life? If not, you’re among the 63% holding back — and that’s your right.

You're in the driver's seat; where you go should be up to you — not bureaucrats.

Auto industry makes a ‘big U-turn’ and cuts the cord on electric vehicles



Electric vehicles were the transportation of the future, until they weren’t.

General Motors has given up on its plan to put $300 million toward electric vehicle motor production and instead is nearly tripling that by putting $888 million into the latest V-8 engines — which not too long ago BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere believed were a thing of the past.

“The story is that GM is now investing in V-8 engines as it backpedals on EVs,” Burguiere tells journalist and automotive expert Lauren Fix. “Now, I bought a car that was supposed to be the last V-8 in this line from GM, thinking to myself, ‘Oh, well I’m going to have the last one, and it would be great to have that.’”

“She did what I call the big U-turn,” Fix says of GM’s CEO, Mary Barra. “She was in some Wall Street Journal conference the other day saying, ‘Oh, electric cars are the future. I still believe in them 100%.’”


“But on the other side, she put $888 million into a plant here in Buffalo, New York — the Tonawanda Engine facility, which is one of the original engine plants — and a total of $1.4 million into the Flint Engine plant to build V-8s, which they’re having issues with,” Fix explains.

“So, I think they need to figure out their V-8s and maybe reduce their electric vehicle footprint because while they’re continuing four more products coming out — as I’ve been saying ... this is a disaster,” she continues.

“I’ve been seeing — and tell me if this is just what I’m seeing on the internet, if this is real — I’m seeing cars with MSRPs of $60,000 being offered at lots, brand new, for $35,000 and $40,000 because they cannot get rid of them,” Stu says.

“That is 100% correct,” Fix says.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Self-Driving Taxis Steer Clear Of LA Migrant Riots

'Abundance of caution'

Revving up America: Trump’s Nippon Steel deal puts the pedal to the metal



While Barack Obama and his liberal cronies were busy eulogizing American manufacturing back in 2012, President Donald J. Trump was plotting the return of the automotive industry in America.

Last week, Trump delivered a masterstroke by greenlighting Nippon Steel’s $28 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel.

Nippon’s investment ensures a steady supply of high-quality steel, critical for carmakers who have been battered by supply chain chaos under Biden.

The terms of the deal, which Trump referred to as a "partnership," guarantee a U.S. CEO and a U.S.-majority board, according to Republican Senator David McCormick of Pennsylvania, home to U.S. Steel's main office.

This isn’t just a win for steelworkers — it’s a turbocharged boost for the auto industry, taxpayers, and the forgotten men and women of the Rust Belt.

Results, not dogma

Let’s get one thing straight: This deal was dead on arrival under Joe Biden, who caved to union bosses whining about “foreign takeovers” while ignoring the rank-and-file steelworkers who support Nippon’s plan.

Trump voiced skepticism during the campaign, but Nippon sweetened the pot with an $8 billion investment hike since November — a move that screams confidence in America’s future.

Trump flipped his stance because he’s focused on results, not dogma — and no wonder. The deal brings a massive cash infusion for U.S. Steel, new plants, upgraded facilities, and a training center that’ll keep American steel competitive for decades.

RELATED: EV mandate killed in 'biggest day of deregulation in American history'

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Lifeline for carmakers

This deal is also a lifeline for the auto industry, which I’ve spent my career championing. First, Nippon’s investment ensures a steady supply of high-quality steel, critical for carmakers who have been battered by supply chain chaos under Biden. No more waiting on overpriced imports or subpar alternatives.

Second, it stabilizes jobs in steel-heavy states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — key auto manufacturing hubs and political swing states — keeping assembly lines humming.

Third, Nippon’s tech upgrades mean stronger, lighter steel alloys, perfect for building safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles without the “green” nonsense that jacks up costs for consumers. As the Detroit News noted, automakers are cheering this deal because it secures their supply chain and keeps production domestic.

Political grand slam

This deal is also a political grand slam. Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — swing states that handed Trump his mandate — stand to gain thousands of jobs. One Pennsylvania official estimated 11,000 jobs saved and 14,000 created, from construction to permanent steel gigs.

Goodbye, green grifters

U.S. Steel’s stock has spiked over 20% since the announcement, signaling market confidence in Trump’s vision. He’s already planning a rally to tout this win, showing America’s open for business and not beholden to union bosses or green grifters.

RELATED: Meet the dealership owner turned senator out to save the auto industry

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The left will cry about “selling out” to Japan, but let’s be real: Nippon is not some shadowy conglomerate. It’s a world-class steelmaker investing in America’s future, not stripping it for parts. This isn’t the steel industry of the mid-20th century. It’s high tech, high wage, and high impact. Trump’s deal ensures our steel and auto industries aren’t just surviving but thriving, free from the clutches of “green” pipe dreams that produce nothing but red ink.

As a car enthusiast, I’m thrilled to see President Trump steer us back to greatness. This deal means more jobs, better cars, and a stronger America. The art of the deal is alive and well, and the Nippon Steel partnership proves it. So to the naysayers still clutching their pearls: Buckle up. Trump’s just getting started, and the Rust Belt is riding shotgun.

Another One Bites the Dust: Vermont Slams Brakes on EV Mandate as Sales Lag

Vermont's state government abruptly halted enforcement of its electric vehicle mandate law, making it the latest state to back off such a law as consumers continue to prefer gas-powered cars. Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R.) issued an executive order Tuesday directing the state's Agency of Natural Resources to pause enforcement of the plan. Under the now-paused law, beginning later this year, automakers would have been forced to ensure EVs were a certain share of total car sales, a percentage that would incrementally increase every year until 2035, when a complete mandate would take effect.

The post Another One Bites the Dust: Vermont Slams Brakes on EV Mandate as Sales Lag appeared first on .

‘Explain How’: Feds Demand Answers From Tesla Over Austin ‘Robotaxi’ Launch

'People don't shoot lasers out of their eyes to drive'

AM radio still saves lives — but will automakers listen?



Your new car has all the usual shiny new entertainment tech, but you're in the mood for an old favorite. You skip past the buttons for satellite radio and Bluetooth connectivity to tune in to your ever-reliable source of news, sports, and even lifesaving alerts in a crisis.

That's when it hits you: There's no AM radio.

Think back to the 1960s, when seatbelts weren’t standard. Automakers fought mandates then, too, calling them costly and unnecessary — until lives saved proved them wrong.

As I've reported here before, carmakers like Tesla, Ford, and BMW have been quietly dropping in-vehicle AM radios for years, claiming it's no longer practical or financially viable to include it.

But don't turn that dial just yet.

Poor reception

The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act is heading toward a Senate vote after clearing the Commerce Committee back on February 5. With bipartisan support and an endorsement from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, this bill could ensure that AM radio stays in every new car.

But why is this even a fight?

It starts with cost. Adding an AM receiver might only run a few dollars per vehicle, but multiply that by millions of cars and it’s a hit to the bottom line.

Then there’s the tech angle — electric vehicles dominate the future (for now), and AM signals can get scrambled by the electromagnetic hum of EV batteries and motors, creating annoying static.

Plus, with dashboards turning into touchscreens and younger buyers streaming music or podcasts via Bluetooth, they argue that AM is outdated and unnecessary.

Automakers would rather upsell you on satellite radio subscriptions or internet-connected infotainment systems — options that pad their profits but leave you without an AM signal when you want or need it.

The trouble is that rural roads and disaster zones don’t care about your Wi-Fi plan, and that’s where AM comes in.

Last resort

I’ve been tracking this on Congress.gov. Senate Bill 315 moved out of committee for a floor vote this month. It’s described as a push “to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rule ensuring access to AM broadcast stations in passenger motor vehicles.”

If passed, it would mandate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require automakers to include AM radio in all vehicles sold in the U.S. — at no extra cost. Until that rule kicks in, any cars without it must be clearly labeled.

The National Association of Broadcasters cheered the progress, pointing to disasters like the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricane Helene, where AM’s reach delivered evacuation orders and recovery info when cell networks crumbled. Over 125 groups, from the American Farm Bureau to the AARP, back it, citing safety and community access.

Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) of the Commerce Committee teamed up across the aisle, saying, “Today’s vote broadcasts a clear message to car manufacturers that AM radio is an essential tool for millions. From emergency response to entertainment and news, it’s a lifeline we must protect.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr added, “I saw it firsthand after Hurricane Helene — people relied on AM for lifesaving updates when everything else was down. Unlike streaming apps that need a signal or a subscription, AM is free, far-reaching, and works when nothing else does.”

Audio seatbelt

This bill is bigger than just radios — it’s about innovation, safety, and government’s role in the auto industry. Think back to the 1960s when seatbelts weren’t standard. Automakers fought mandates then, too, calling them costly and unnecessary — until lives saved proved them wrong. Today, AM radio is the seatbelt of communication: low-tech, sure, but a proven lifesaver.

If it passes the Senate, it could set a precedent for regulators to prioritize public good over corporate trends, maybe even nudging carmakers to rethink other cuts — like physical buttons that were swapped for slow screens.

It’s a signal that tech’s march forward doesn’t have to leave reliability behind, especially as disasters make resilient tools more crucial than ever.

Static from lobbyists

Unfortunately, this bill has some hurdles to get over. Automakers aren’t accepting this quietly; they’ve got deep pockets and powerful lobbyists, and groups like the Alliance for Automotive Innovation could lean on senators to water it down or kill it. They might argue it’s unfair to force a feature not every buyer wants or that EVs need exemptions for technical reasons.

Then there’s the Senate itself — gridlock is normal, and with budget battles and post-election-year posturing, a floor vote could easily be delayed. Even supporters admit it’s faced delays before; earlier versions never passed in Congress despite broad support. The difference now? High-profile disasters and bipartisan unity might just tip the scales.

AM remains the backbone of the Emergency Alert System, a resilient lifeline delivering local news, diverse voices, and critical info when it counts. Now that this bill’s racing through, it’s a sign that it could soon be law — unless the opposition shifts gears.

Fine-print fiasco: More carmakers charging subscription fees for once-free features



Hey, automakers: Enough with the upsells!

According to a new survey, most drivers are fed up with being asked to pay subscription fees for features such as heated seats or remote start that are already built into their cars.

Automakers argue that it’s about safety or innovation, but locking horsepower behind a $1,200 Mercedes paywall feels more like a shakedown.

This is a loud signal to brands like BMW, Ford, and GM. Are drivers done with the constant upsells, or could subscriptions still find a sweet spot? Here’s why consumers aren’t buying it, what automakers are missing, and how it shapes your next ride.

Missed connections

For its 2025 State of Connected Car Apps report, Smartcar (no relation to to Mercedes-Benz-owned Smart brand vehicles) polled over 1,000 drivers across the U.S. and Europe.

The findings: 76% won’t touch automakers’ connected services, free or paid.

Take Ford’s BlueCruise hands-free driving, for example: $495 a year after a 90-day trial. Or Mercedes’ $1,200 annual horsepower boost for EQ electric models. Even Toyota’s $8 monthly remote start fee.

After years of free trials and upsells, drivers surveyed in 2025 hit a tipping point. These features no longer feel optional but predatory. Yet 56% happily use third-party apps like Waze, which deliver real-time traffic data without fees.

Of the 24% who do subscribe, it’s nearly even: 49% pay, 51% get it free with the car. Meanwhile, 40% of drivers don’t even realize these services exist in their vehicles.

Hitting a wall

Automakers expect 96% of new cars to be “connected” by 2030 — Wi-Fi, apps, the works — but with three-quarters opting out, their strategy’s hitting a wall.

The resistance comes down to a few key issues. Subscription fatigue is real. Between streaming services and daily expenses, adding car fees feels like a breaking point. BMW’s 2022 attempt to charge for heated seats sparked outrage, and Smartcar’s data backs it up: 77% see these as pure profit plays, while 69% would switch brands to avoid paywalled features.

Imagine buying a $40,000 car, only to find the full stereo locked behind a $150 annual fee. It’s a hard pass for most.

Value is another sticking point. Cox Automotive’s 2023 survey showed 53% might accept subscriptions if they cut the car’s up-front cost, but back then, only 21% even knew the idea existed. By 2025, awareness has grown, but appeal has shrunk. AutoPacific data reveals EV buyers are slightly more open — 23% would subscribe — compared to 16% for gas cars.

Still, that’s a small group. Drivers want solutions, not revenue streams for manufacturers.

Privacy adds a darker layer. Mozilla’s 2024 report gave all 25 major automakers a failing grade on security standards. Cars track speed, braking, even phone contacts if synced, sharing it with manufacturers, insurers, and third parties.

Data sent to insurers can raise premiums based on hard braking or late-night drives, a reality that GM drivers faced in 2024 when habits were shared with LexisNexis without clear consent. Kaspersky’s 2024 survey found 72% of U.S. drivers reject this tracking, and 71% would opt for older cars to escape it.

Automakers argue that it’s about safety or innovation, but locking horsepower behind a $1,200 Mercedes paywall feels more like a shakedown. That explains the overwhelming pushback.

Cash cow

These companies are chasing big numbers. McKinsey forecasts $300-$400 billion in autonomous driving revenue by 2035, with subscriptions as a cash cow.

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving costs $12,000 up front or $200 monthly, while GM’s Super Cruise is $25 a month after three free years. Over-the-air updates unlock hardware already installed, like BMW’s heated seats. Cox Automotive found 65% like short-term trials, but 49% would keep cars longer if features didn’t vanish behind paywalls later.

There’s a glimmer of hope for manufacturers. Smartcar notes that only 11% are fully against subscriptions. Half would use more if prices dropped, say $5 a month instead of $50. Volvo cut its Care program from $1,800 to $775 for some models after pushback.

Value proposition

Brands like Subaru offer free Starlink safety alerts — crash detection and SOS calls — proving subscriptions can win fans when they prioritize drivers over profits. Navigation that outshines Google Maps or alerts that prevent collisions could shift the tide.

Basics like heated seats or stereo features are a different story. If those are locked, many would walk away. Used cars offer an out: 71% of Kaspersky’s drivers are eyeing older models to sidestep this trend.

The Smartcar report highlights a disconnect: 76% of drivers are drawing a line. Automakers have a chance to pivot, but it’s on them to prove subscriptions aren’t just another fee. Would you pay for these features, or is it a deal-breaker? Your take matters.

Trump’s ‘kind’ tariffs could bring millions of jobs back home



On April 2 — Liberation Day — President Donald Trump announced sweeping reciprocal tariffs, describing them as “kind” to foreign countries. Why? Because they were half the rate of foreign tariffs.

— (@)

Many were surprised by this. If tariffs are good, then more must be better, right? Why not raise them to match the foreign tariffs?

America has embraced the globalist experiment and paid the price.

Trump’s “kind” tariffs serve a deeper strategic purpose. They provide both a carrot and a stick to foreign suppliers: Foreign countries can lower or eliminate their tariffs, promoting free and fair trade — the carrot — or they will face the wrath of truly reciprocal tariffs in due course — the stick.

These tariffs will create millions of jobs in two main ways. First, reciprocal tariffs will be used as political leverage to open new markets for American exports. Second, tariffs will protect American jobs from the vicious cycle of offshoring and the global “race to the bottom.”

The carrot and the stick

Tariffs are not just a tax but a political tool that can be leveraged to achieve foreign policy objectives. Because America runs a trade deficit with much of the world — buying more than it sells — it wields immense consumer power. And as the saying goes, the buyer is always right.

By imposing tariffs at half the rate of foreign tariffs, Trump has given foreign nations a carrot. They now have the opportunity to reduce their own tariffs and engage in true, one-to-one trade with the United States. Contrary to anti-tariff critics, Trump is promoting fair and free trade, opening up new opportunities for American businesses.

Right now, foreign companies largely have free access to the U.S. market due to America’s historically low tariffs and relatively light regulatory burden. However, American companies face massive tariffs and complex regulations abroad, explicitly designed to keep them out.

Reciprocal tariffs will level the playing field. If foreign producers want access to America’s market — which they do — they must match U.S. tariffs. This will put American businesses on a more even footing, opening up foreign markets.

Take India, for example. India charges net tariff rates of 52% on American goods, effectively pricing U.S. products out of its market, even though Indian companies can sell products in America. Now, India has a choice — lower the tariffs or face Trump’s wrath. If India lowers tariffs, American companies will no longer be priced out of the Indian market, giving them access to over 1.4 billion potential customers and a consumer market worth nearly $15 trillion.

By opening up new markets, Trump’s tariffs can potentially create millions of new jobs — good manufacturing jobs with above-average salaries and benefits.

Some countries, such as the United Kingdom and Thailand, have initiated trade talks to reduce their taxes on American products. Other countries will likely follow suit, provided Trump holds the line.

Tariffs will revive factories

The second way that tariffs will create jobs is by reshoring foreign factories to the United States. For five decades, America has embraced the globalist experiment. During that time, it has lost over six million manufacturing jobs — most of them since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization.

Additionally, America lost another estimated nine million service industry jobs. Why? Manufacturing is an anchor industry upon which service industries depend. Factories are like farms or mines — they bring wealth into a community. Without factories, there are fewer jobs for hairdressers, lawyers, or accountants.

Manufacturing has a job multiplier effect with downstream consequences. In total, America has lost an estimated 15 million jobs due to economic globalism and the trade deficit.

Trump’s reciprocal tariffs will end the vicious offshoring cycle, which pits American workers against slave labor in the developing world — a competition that they cannot possibly win. Instead, foreign producers will reshore their factories and make their products in America.

In fact, it’s already happening. Last month, Hyundai announced a $21 billion investment in the United States, including a new steel plant in Louisiana. Depending on who is counting, up to $5 trillion in new capital investment has already been announced in relation to Liberation Day. This can potentially create millions of new jobs and secure America’s industrial base.

Trump’s tariffs are about more than economics. They send a statement to the world — and the American people — that we will no longer worship the golden calf of “cheap goods” and feckless consumption. Tariffs will secure America’s industrial base, protect our national security, provide jobs for American families, and bring wealth into our struggling communities.

Happy Liberation Day! Let's now look forward to reshoring our factories and reviving the American dream.