My daughter recently went shopping for something that shouldn't have been particularly exotic: a big American SUV with three rows, room for a growing family, and a diesel engine.

She had been driving a Ford Expedition but wasn't happy with the fuel economy or some of the problems she had experienced. Her husband drives a diesel Ram, so she already understood the advantages of diesel torque and range. With two children and hopes for more, she still wanted the space of a true full-size SUV.

Our dealer told us that used diesel Suburbans don't tend to sit around for long. A quick look at owner forums suggests our experience wasn't unique.

A diesel Chevrolet Suburban seemed like the obvious answer.

Then she tried to find one.

Our local dealer didn't have one. Other dealers didn't seem to have them either. Rather than settle for what she could find on a lot, she ordered exactly what she wanted: a Suburban RST with GM's 3.0-liter Duramax turbo-diesel.

After driving it, I understand why people who own these things don't seem eager to give them up.

Econo-size

The Duramax produces 305 horsepower and 495 lb-ft of torque. Chevrolet rates the diesel Suburban at up to 21 mpg city and 26 highway, with as much as 728 miles of EPA-estimated highway range on a tank. My daughter's real-world experience has been about 24 mpg combined.

Think about that for a moment. This is a Suburban.

It's a huge, three-row, body-on-frame SUV capable of hauling a large family and all their stuff, yet she is seeing fuel economy that wouldn't have seemed unusual in a much smaller crossover not long ago.

Her RST came in at about $83,000 after options, and three months later she loves it. So does her husband, who keeps finding reasons to drive it.

The experience got me wondering why there aren't more vehicles like it.

Look around the full-size SUV market in 2026, and you'll find plenty of powerful engines. Ford's Expedition offers a twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter gasoline V6 making as much as 440 horsepower and 510 lb-ft of torque. Jeep's Grand Wagoneer uses a 3.0-liter twin-turbo gasoline inline-six producing 420 horsepower and 468 lb-ft.

What you mostly won't find is diesel.

General Motors is the notable exception. Chevrolet offers the Duramax in the Tahoe and Suburban, while GMC offers the same basic diesel powertrain in the Yukon and Yukon XL. Ford doesn't offer a diesel Expedition. Jeep doesn't offer one in the Grand Wagoneer.

Missing in action

That's strange because diesel makes an enormous amount of sense in exactly this kind of vehicle.

You don't buy a Suburban because you're looking for sports-car acceleration. You buy it because you need space, range, towing capability and the ability to move a lot of people and equipment without stopping constantly for fuel. Diesel's low-end torque and efficiency are particularly well suited to that job.

The numbers bear that out. Ford rates most four-wheel-drive Expeditions at 15 mpg city and 22 highway. Chevrolet's diesel Suburban can reach 21/26, depending on configuration.

Yet try finding one.

Our dealer told us that used diesel Suburbans don't tend to sit around for long. A quick look at owner forums suggests our experience wasn't unique. Buyers describe searching across multiple states, waiting months for orders, or traveling hundreds of miles when the diesel configuration they wanted finally appeared.

New ones haven't always been easy to find, either. For 2026, GM placed significant production constraints on the 3.0-liter Duramax used in the Tahoe and Suburban. According to GM Authority, the diesel was temporarily unavailable on LT and High Country trims, while RST, Z71 and Premier production was limited to 20% of planned volume.

Andy Cross/Getty Images

Right for the job

What's striking is that the Duramax makes such a compelling case for itself in a vehicle this large. Diesel Suburbans have offered dramatically better fuel economy than their V8 counterparts since the current generation arrived, while delivering the low-end torque that suits a big, heavy SUV.

I understand why owners might be reluctant to give them up.

I have my own version of this problem. I own a low-mileage 2016 Porsche Cayenne diesel that I custom-ordered. People regularly ask me to sell it.

I'm not selling it.

There was a period when American buyers could choose diesel versions of all kinds of SUVs and luxury vehicles. Many disappeared as emissions regulations tightened, Volkswagen's Dieselgate scandal poisoned the technology's reputation, and manufacturers shifted their investment toward electric vehicles and hybrids.

Still good

But the Suburban is a reminder that diesel didn't suddenly stop being good at what diesel engines do.

In a large, heavy vehicle that may carry a family, tow a trailer, and travel hundreds of highway miles at a time, the basic proposition remains compelling: lots of torque, long range, and surprisingly good fuel economy.

This isn't an argument that everyone should buy a diesel. Plenty of buyers will prefer gasoline engines, hybrids, or EVs, and they should buy whatever works best for them.

But my daughter's experience raises a different question.

If a diesel powertrain works this well in a vehicle as big as a Suburban — and buyers are apparently willing to search for one when dealers don't have them — why have so many manufacturers abandoned the choice?

The auto industry spends an enormous amount of time predicting what consumers will want next.

Sometimes it might be worth paying attention to what they're already trying to buy.

Europe says your new car should watch you. Will America be next?

Imagine buying a brand-new car and discovering it comes with a camera pointed at your face every time you drive.

Not the road. You.

Most drivers never realized their vehicles were quietly building behavioral profiles.

As of this week, that's no longer optional across the European Union. Every new passenger car and van registered in the EU must include an interior camera as part of an Advanced Driver Distraction Warning system. The technology activates at about 12 mph, tracking your eyes, head position, and attention. If it decides you're distracted or drowsy, it issues a warning.

Officials say it's about saving lives.

Camera-ready

No one disputes that distracted driving is a serious problem. The question is whether constant driver monitoring is the only solution — or whether it creates infrastructure that could eventually be used for much more than safety.

According to the European Commission, the system is designed as a closed-loop safety feature. It analyzes driver behavior inside the vehicle and issues warnings when it detects distraction or drowsiness. Officials say it does not record video or transmit footage outside the vehicle.

The more important question is what happens next.

Once every new vehicle is required to have an interior camera, the hardware is already in place. Expanding what that hardware can do no longer requires redesigning millions of vehicles. It only requires new regulations, updated software, or new policies governing how the data can be used.

Safety regulations have added new technology to our vehicles for decades. Seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, backup cameras, automatic emergency braking, and forward-collision warning systems all became standard because they delivered measurable safety benefits.

An interior camera is different because it monitors the driver rather than the roadway.

Big picture

Europe may be moving first, but the United States isn't far behind. The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop rules requiring advanced impaired-driving prevention technology in future vehicles. While NHTSA has acknowledged that passive detection systems are not yet ready for widespread deployment, in-cabin monitoring remains one of the technologies under consideration.

In other words, this conversation is already happening here.

What makes that more concerning is how much information modern vehicles already generate. Over the past several years, investigations revealed that automakers, including General Motors and Honda, shared driving behavior data — including hard braking, rapid acceleration, speeding events, and time-of-day driving patterns — with data brokers. Those brokers, in turn, supplied information used by insurance companies to help determine premiums.

Most drivers never realized their vehicles were quietly building behavioral profiles.

Now add an interior camera capable of detecting whether you've looked at your navigation screen, reached for your coffee, glanced at a child in the back seat, or appeared drowsy after a long shift.

Americans have also watched roadside surveillance expand dramatically. Modern license plate reader systems now identify far more than license plates, using AI to recognize vehicle make, model, color, distinctive features, bumper stickers, roof racks, and travel patterns. Combined with connected-car telematics and interior cameras, those systems create an increasingly detailed picture of where you go, how you drive, and what you're doing behind the wheel.

United Archives/Getty Images

Who pays?

Let's not ignore the economic incentive behind all of this surveillance.

Every mandate creates winners. Camera manufacturers gain a guaranteed market. Software companies secure long-term licensing contracts. Automakers pass compliance costs on to consumers through higher vehicle prices. And the data generated by these systems may become valuable in ways nobody can fully predict today.

Consumers pay for all of it.

They pay more for the vehicle while giving up another measure of privacy inside what has traditionally been one of the last personal spaces they control.

Highway robbery

Supporters argue these systems only issue warnings, and today that's true.

But history suggests technology rarely remains limited to its original purpose once the infrastructure exists. Software evolves and regulations change. Data that wasn't considered valuable yesterday often becomes indispensable tomorrow.

We've already watched driving data migrate from vehicles to data brokers and, in some cases, insurance companies. We've also watched roadside camera networks expand well beyond their original mission. Neither happened overnight; both expanded gradually.

Every responsible driver wants safer roads. My concern is what happens after every new vehicle comes equipped with hardware designed to watch the person behind the wheel.

For more than a century, the automobile has represented personal freedom. When driving increasingly means being observed, analyzed, and potentially scored, the relationship between drivers and their vehicles begins to change.

Europe has already decided that every new car should watch its driver. Americans should decide whether they're comfortable heading down the same road before it quietly becomes the default here as well.

GM slams brakes on electric trucks as reality crashes the EV party

For years, Americans have been told the future of driving is settled. Electric vehicles would take over, gas engines would fade away, and anyone questioning the timeline was “anti-progress.” That narrative just took a direct hit, and it came from General Motors.

GM isn’t tweaking its EV strategy. It’s hitting pause, hard.

Charging times still don’t compete with a five-minute fill-up at a gas station.

The company has indefinitely delayed the next-generation refresh of its electric trucks and SUVs. No new deadline. No confident road map. Just a quiet admission that the plan isn’t working the way Washington, or the automakers themselves, promised.

Translation: The market isn’t cooperating.

Truck stop

After pouring billions into electrification, GM is now sitting on $7.6 billion in EV-related losses from 2025 alone, including a massive write-down tied to scrapped production plans and battery commitments. At the same time, EV sales dropped 43% in the fourth quarter after government incentives dried up. Turns out, when the subsidies disappear, so does a big chunk of the demand.

And while EV inventory piles up, GM is doing something far less glamorous but far more telling: It’s going all in on gas-powered trucks. Silverado. Sierra. The vehicles politicians love to demonize are the same ones keeping the lights on.

Because that’s what Americans are actually buying.

This is the part policymakers don’t want to admit. You can regulate, subsidize, and mandate all you want, but you cannot force consumers to embrace a product that doesn’t meet their needs.

Electric trucks still come with trade-offs that matter in the real world, not in a press release. They’re expensive. Range drops when you tow. Charging infrastructure is inconsistent at best, nonexistent at worst, especially outside major metro areas. And charging times still don’t compete with a five-minute fill-up at a gas station.

And now the bill for ignoring that reality is coming due.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Hero to Zero

GM’s flagship EV facility, Factory Zero, has already seen shutdowns and workforce cuts. Production volumes for high-profile electric models remain underwhelming. And instead of ramping up, GM is scaling back, delaying programs that were once central to its “all-electric future.”

Let’s call this what it is, a strategic retreat.

Not because EV technology is useless. Not because innovation has stalled. But because the timeline was never grounded in how people actually live, drive, and spend their money.

For years, the auto industry was pushed into a corner to build EVs at scale or face regulatory consequences. So they did. They spent. They bet big.

But consumers didn’t get the memo.

Now, the same companies that were racing to meet political deadlines are pivoting back to profitability, back to demand, and back to common sense.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth for the architects of this agenda: Affordability matters more than ideology.

Money talks

When EVs cost more, when infrastructure lags behind, and when performance doesn’t match expectations, consumers don’t “adapt.” They wait. They keep their current vehicles longer. Or they buy what works, which right now is still overwhelmingly internal combustion.

GM’s move isn’t an isolated event. It’s part of a broader industry correction that’s been building for months. Automakers are quietly scaling back, delaying investments, and reassessing timelines that were never realistic to begin with.

The electric future isn’t canceled. But it’s no longer on a government-imposed fast track. It’s being dragged back to reality, where consumers, not regulators, decide what succeeds.

And right now, the verdict is clear. If EVs want to succeed, they better start putting buyers in the driver's seat.

Stellantis just blew $26 billion on bad EV bet

Stellantis is facing a financial reckoning that should send a warning across the global auto industry.

After betting that the electric vehicle transition would move faster than consumers were ready to follow, the company is now reporting a staggering $26.3 billion net loss for 2025 — driven largely by roughly $30 billion in write-downs tied to scaling back parts of its EV strategy.

As recently as 2023, some workers received nearly $14,000 in profit-sharing payouts. This year, they received nothing.

For a company that was profitable just a year earlier, the reversal is dramatic. Stellantis’ experience highlights the risks of building product strategies around aggressive electrification timelines shaped by government policy and optimistic forecasts rather than actual consumer demand.

Stellantis, the Amsterdam-based automaker formed in 2021, oversees 14 brands, including Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Chrysler, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Peugeot, and Citroën. With that kind of global footprint, its strategic decisions ripple across workers, suppliers, investors — and ultimately car buyers.

Electric slide

The company’s 2025 financial results show how quickly those bets can unravel. Net revenue totaled $181.1 billion, down 2% from the previous year. But the real damage appears on the bottom line: a $26.3 billion net loss replacing what had been a $6.5 billion profit the year before. Free cash flow turned negative by roughly $4.9 billion. Dividends were suspended, and profit-sharing checks for UAW workers disappeared.

As recently as 2023, some workers received nearly $14,000 in profit-sharing payouts. This year, they received nothing. When automakers absorb losses of this scale, the financial pressure eventually spreads through the entire system — from employees and suppliers to vehicle pricing and investment decisions.

Chief Executive Officer Antonio Filosa acknowledged the miscalculation directly, saying the results reflect “the cost of over-estimating the pace of the energy transition.” That unusually candid admission reflects a broader reality across the auto sector: Automakers, regulators, and investors collectively assumed EV adoption would accelerate faster than consumers, charging infrastructure, affordability, and political support would allow.

'Dare' or truth

The roots of the problem trace back to Stellantis’ “Dare Forward 2030” strategy under former CEO Carlos Tavares. The company set ambitious goals: 100% EV sales in Europe and 50% EV sales in the United States by 2030. To reach those targets, Stellantis invested billions in EV platforms, battery supply chains, and factory conversions.

Those investments were encouraged — and in some cases effectively required — by government mandates and regulatory timelines. But the strategy assumed that consumers would move to EVs at roughly the same pace as policymakers hoped.

That assumption proved overly optimistic.

EV adoption has grown, but not at the pace many projections predicted during the peak of electric vehicle enthusiasm. High vehicle prices, uneven charging infrastructure, rising insurance costs, and concerns about resale value have slowed adoption. As those concerns mounted, both Europe and the United States began easing some regulatory pressure tied to EV mandates.

When policy expectations change, automakers are left adjusting billions of dollars in investments that were made under very different assumptions.

Misery loves company

Stellantis was not alone in this miscalculation. Across the industry, automakers have announced more than $55 billion in EV-related write-offs. Reporting from the Financial Times estimates the broader financial toll of scaling back electrification plans — including restructuring costs and canceled programs — has reached roughly $65 billion. Ford alone has taken about $19 billion in charges connected to its EV reset, while General Motors and Volkswagen have also booked major write-downs.

Even in that context, Stellantis’ losses stand out. The company recorded about $25.9 billion in one-time charges, including nearly $20 billion tied directly to electric-vehicle programs, along with roughly $4.8 billion in warranty costs and other restructuring expenses. Those charges reflect a broad reset of the company’s strategy as Stellantis scrapped certain electric and plug-in hybrid models, revised production plans, and shifted investment back toward internal combustion and hybrid vehicles.

Buyers wanted

For consumers, these strategic resets matter because powertrain choices shape vehicle availability and pricing.

In North America, one of the clearest signals of Stellantis’ shift is the return of the 5.7-liter HEMI V8 engine. That move reflects continued demand for traditional powertrains, especially in high-margin truck and performance segments where buyers prioritize capability, reliability, and price over electrification targets.

In Europe, Stellantis is folding diesel and mild-hybrid gasoline options back into several models. Instead of betting exclusively on battery electric vehicles, the company is moving toward a broader powertrain strategy that includes EVs, hybrids, gasoline, and diesel options.

That shift reflects what many consumers have been saying throughout the transition: They want choices that fit their budgets, driving habits, and infrastructure realities.

Chicago Tribune/Getty Images

Smooth travels ahead?

Despite the enormous write-downs, there are early signs of stabilization. During the second half of 2025, after Filosa began unwinding elements of the prior strategy, Stellantis reported approximately $93.3 billion in revenue for the July-December period, a 10% increase year over year. Vehicle shipments rose 11% during that timeframe.

The company still reported an adjusted operating loss of roughly $1.6 billion during that period, but improved shipment volumes suggest the recalibrated strategy may be gaining traction.

The crisis did not develop overnight. It grew from several assumptions: that EV demand would rise steadily, that battery costs would fall fast enough to make EVs profitable, and that regulatory pressure would remain constant.

Instead, the transition has proven far more uneven. EV sales remain heavily dependent on subsidies, battery supply chains still rely heavily on China, and charging infrastructure remains inconsistent across many markets. When incentives shrink or economic conditions tighten, EV demand can slow quickly.

Workers feel the pain

For workers, the consequences are immediate. Because Stellantis posted a loss, UAW employees will not receive profit-sharing payouts this year. Across the Detroit Three, the average payout is about $6,200 — roughly 40% lower than prior averages near $10,000. For Stellantis workers, the payout is zero.

The broader lesson is not that electric vehicles have no role in the future. They do, and EV technology will continue to evolve.

But the assumption that internal combustion engines would disappear rapidly now looks unrealistic. Consumers ultimately determine the pace of change, and their priorities remain clear: price, reliability, convenience, charging access, and resale value.

Filosa has framed Stellantis’ reset around restoring “freedom to choose” across electric, hybrid, gasoline, and diesel technologies. That message reflects a shift toward building vehicles that align with real-world consumer demand rather than political timelines.

The cost of the earlier miscalculation is now measured in tens of billions of dollars. Whether the reset ultimately strengthens Stellantis or simply marks the beginning of a smaller product lineup will depend on how effectively the company balances innovation with consumer priorities.

In the end, the lesson is simple. Automakers can design new technologies and governments can set policy goals, but consumers still decide what succeeds in the marketplace.

Goodbye, car radio? Big Tech’s plans to control what you listen to behind the wheel.

First, it was AM radio — now it’s FM too.

Imagine starting your car and realizing that what you can — or can’t — hear has already been decided for you. The same tech giants that censor your posts, curate your newsfeeds, and impact your online experience now want to control what plays through your vehicle dashboard.

Congress must act to guarantee that all broadcast radio remains standard equipment in vehicles, ensuring that free access to information doesn’t become a premium feature.

Tesla recently confirmed it will remove FM radio from its base Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. Just days later, General Motors doubled down on plans to eliminate Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, opting instead for proprietary systems designed with Big Tech partners.

Individually, these sound like technical upgrades. But together, they represent a fundamental shift: handing over more control of your car to corporations. We’ve seen this before in our social media feeds, search results, and app stores. Now, the same algorithms and corporate interests that decide what you see and hear online are coming for your radio dial.

Walled garden

For generations, the car radio has been the great equalizer — free, local, and open to all. It delivers news, weather alerts, and community updates instantly, no subscription or data plan required.

Even today, the majority of drivers still prefer to listen to terrestrial radio while in the car.

But as vehicles become software platforms — with their own digital ecosystems — automakers are rewriting the rules.

By removing AM and FM radio and blocking third-party apps like CarPlay and Android Auto, they funnel drivers into closed environments where they alone decide what content is available.

Safety first

This is about safety as well. When the power goes out, when cell towers fail, and when internet connections drop, broadcast radio keeps transmitting. It remains the backbone of America’s Emergency Alert System — reaching 272 million listeners every week.

FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and emergency managers nationwide all rely on AM radio as critical communications infrastructure. In fact, seven former FEMA administrators from both parties have urged Congress to safeguard AM radio, citing its unmatched reliability and essential role in the success of the National Public Warning System.

But the stakes go beyond emergencies. Broadcast radio remains democracy’s most accessible platform. Local news stations serve communities too small for cable bureaus or newsrooms. Faith-based programming reaches congregations across denominations. Foreign-language broadcasts connect immigrant communities. Agricultural reports guide farmers making real-time decisions. High school football gets the same airtime as professional sports. These aren’t premium features available to subscribers.

They’re free, open, and available to anyone with a radio — until automakers decide they’re not.

Gary Leonard/Getty Images

Gatekeeper playbook

We know what happens when platforms consolidate control over content distribution. Algorithms replace editorial judgment. Subscription tiers determine access.

Content that doesn’t serve corporate interests gets deprioritized or excluded entirely. Tesla’s FM removal isn’t an isolated decision. GM’s CarPlay elimination isn’t a technical preference. These are coordinated moves toward a future where your dashboard operates like your smartphone — except you can’t choose a different car as easily as you can switch apps.

The difference is critical: When you’re behind the wheel, access to information isn’t just about convenience. It’s about safety, civic engagement, and the free flow of ideas in a democratic society.

Congress to the rescue?

The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act would require automakers to include AM radio in all new vehicles at no extra cost. With support from more than 315 House members and 61 senators, it’s one of the most bipartisan efforts in Washington today. Yet, as Tesla and GM’s announcements show, time is running out.

Congress must act to guarantee that all broadcast radio remains standard equipment in vehicles, ensuring that free, over-the-air access to information doesn’t become a premium feature. The automotive industry will argue this is about “consumer choice” and “technical optimization.” Don’t be fooled. It’s about controlling a captive audience and deciding what tens of millions of Americans will hear every day. Lawmakers need to pass the bill. And the public needs to push back.

Call your representatives and tell them to support the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. Make your voice heard before automakers take it away.

EV sales are sinking — which automakers will go down with the ship?

The electric vehicle market is hitting a critical tipping point — and the mainstream media won’t talk about it.

In a no-holds-barred episode of “Car Coach Reports,” we sat down with two of the sharpest minds in the industry: Anton Wahlman, a veteran financial analyst and columnist for Seeking Alpha, and Karl Brauer, a respected automotive expert known for his data-driven insights on iSeeCars and YouTube.

Together, we pull back the curtain on what’s really happening in the EV world.

Here’s the reality: The federal EV tax credit — up to $7,500 per vehicle — expires September 30, giving automakers under 90 days to move more than 140,000 EVs currently sitting on dealer lots. That’s more than a 100-day supply of inventory, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. And while some companies are positioned to adapt, others are dangerously overcommitted.

We break down which brands might survive the coming EV shakeout — Toyota, Ford, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Tesla, and others — and which ones are at risk of collapse once the subsidies disappear. The entire industry is being reshaped by political decisions, not consumer demand. It’s a wake-up call for car buyers and a challenge for automakers.

This isn’t about being for or against EVs — it’s about exposing the truth with no agenda.

Don’t miss this essential conversation — especially if you’re shopping for a new vehicle or wondering what comes next for the automotive world.

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.

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.

Is the auto industry headed for a crash?

Plant closures in Europe. Layoffs in America. Plunging sales everywhere.

The auto industry is in trouble — and we could all end up suffering the consequences.

EV woes have hit Ford as well. Later this month, the carmaker will suspend operations at its F-150 Lightning EV plant for the rest of year.

Let's start with Volkswagen. The company stands proud as the biggest carmaker in Europe, and it has never closed a factory in its home country of Germany.

Until now.

Punch buggy blues

At the end of October, the company asked workers to take a 10% pay cut as part of an ongoing campaign to cut costs across the VW Group. Industry insiders fear that domestic plant closures — the first in the company's 87-year history — could be next, with up to three German factories shutting down, costing more than 100,000 jobs.

“Management is absolutely serious about all this. This is not saber-rattling in the collective bargaining round,” warned Volkswagen works council head Daniela Cavallo in a speech to employees.

These cuts would reduce the number of domestic plants to seven and cut the workforce by a third.

The plants that do stay open would also endure cost-cutting measures, according to a separate report, with downsizing and wage freezes on the table.

VW aims to save about €10 billion (roughly $10.8 billion USD) by 2026.

Thomas Schaefer, the head of the Volkswagen brand, has previously noted that German factories are operating at between 25% and 50% above targeted costs. This is largely due to Europe’s high energy costs, which German carmakers say are four times higher than in China and the United States.

Compounding this problem are increased competition from Chinese brands and a lack of demand for electric cars.

Volkswagen hasn’t commented on the report, and it hasn’t announced plant closures or layoffs yet.

Previously, Volkswagen had considered buying Audi's struggling EV plant in Brussels. Those plans changed, and with no other suitable buyers on the horizon, the plant may close its doors for good.

The outlook isn't much sunnier stateside, either.

GM feels the heat

General Motors is laying off some 1,000 software workers globally, 600 of whom are employed at its tech center in Warren, Michigan.

In a memo to workers obtained by Automotive News, GM said the cuts were to enable it to “move faster, pivot when needed, and prioritize investing in what will have the greatest impact.”

This is certainly a pivot from the last several years, in which GM has been expanding its software team to help with its electrification and autonomous efforts. The company had predicted that those services could generate $25 billion in revenue by 2030.

While General Motors has claimed that these cuts target "software and service" employees, that's not exactly true. The layoffs come from GM's Ultium division, which is the sub-EV company GM created to differentiate it from its gasoline engine department.

I can confirm that Ultium has let go a number of thermal engineers without warning. Thermal engineers, as you might guess, are crucial to thermal management: keeping EV batteries, power electronic systems, and motors from overheating.

Is this a sign that GM is no longer all-in on electric and is drastically reducing R&D on future EVs?

Sure looks like it.

Ford's loser Lightning

EV woes have hit Ford as well. Later this month, the carmaker will suspend operations at its F-150 Lightning EV plant for the rest of year.

The highly touted electric pickup loses the company $40,000 on each vehicle sold. Hardly sustainable, especially given that Ford's Q3 net income is down 26%, and cost issues have caused it to drop its full-year adjusted earnings projection to around $10 billion.

Mercedes: Bust in class

The luxury car market isn't what it used to be, either.

Mercedes Benz has cut production on its S-Class line in response to declining sales: down 13% in China, 19% in the U.S., and 27% in Europe. The high-end vehicles have been rolling off the company's cutting-edge Factory 56 assembly line in Germany since 2020 — always in at least two shifts.

Now, for the first time since Mercedes opened what it touts as the most modern car factory in the world, one shift will suffice.

The plant also builds the electric EQS as well as Maybach and AMG models. Mercedes will refresh the S-Class next year, so demand could pick back up with a new model.

Ram tough

Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares has been heaping scorn on his previous U.S. management team and no wonder: Third-quarter sales in North America were a disaster, falling 20%, and down 17% for the year.

That's bad news for iconic American brands Jeep, RAM, Dodge, and Chrysler — and it has investors heading for the exits.

But times are tough all over for the car conglomerate. Sales in Europe fell 17%, with even Maserati relegated to the slow lane with a stunning 60% drop.

Business isn't much better in China, India, and Asia Pacific, where sales fell 30%.

Border run

And in a move that is sure to infuriate the UAW, Tavares plans to move production of Ram's full-size 1500 pickup truck from the U.S. to its Saltillo, Mexico, plant, which already produces Ram heavy-duty pickups and vans.

While Mexico offers lower labor costs, no doubt the move is also to prevent the UAW from choking off production during any future strike. We think that’s the same reason Ford moved part of its heavy-duty truck production to Canada. It’s a game of chess, and both Ford and Stellantis are working to escape checkmate.

For more on the ongoing car industry crisis, check out my video below:

Drive carefully — your car is watching

It's coming from inside the car!

I've told you about the AI-enabled cameras that can tell if you're speeding — or on your phone. Now, car manufacturers are joining the assault on your privacy.

'Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law. We will hold them accountable.'

Take Ford, for example. The iconic American company recently filed a not-so-American patent for technology that would allow a car to snitch on drivers.

Entitled "Systems and Methods for Detecting Speeding Violations" — not quite as catchy as "Built Ford Tough" — the patent filing details a system that would use vehicles' cameras and sensors to detect speeding motorists and report them to authorities.

The filing includes basic sketches and flowcharts illustrating how this technology senses speed violations, activates cameras to capture images, and transmits data to nearby "pursuit vehicles" or logs it to a server. The captured data, including speed, GPS location, and clear imagery or video, can then be sent to authorities for potential action.

According to Ford, it is developing this technology for police cars. In other words, don't worry: This invasive surveillance tech will be exclusively in the hands of the state.

And I'm sure the company would never think of adapting it so your own car can inform any nearby police that they should pull you over.

Then there's GM.

Did you know the company's so concerned about empowering you to keep your data secure that it just consolidated five different lengthy privacy statements into one disclosure document?

Talk about putting the customer first! Yeah, a massive lawsuit and widespread public backlash have a way of encouraging that.

Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit on behalf of the state against GM, accusing the automaker of installing technology on more than 14 million vehicles to collect data about drivers, which it then sold to insurers and other companies without drivers’ consent.

The suit contends that the data was used to compile “Driving Scores” assessing whether more than 1.8 million Texas drivers had “bad” habits such as speeding, braking too fast, steering too sharply into turns, not using seatbelts, and driving late at night. Insurers could then use the data when deciding whether to raise premiums, cancel policies, or deny coverage.

The technology was allegedly installed on most GM vehicles starting with the 2015 model year. Paxton said GM’s practice was for dealers to make unwitting consumers who had just completed the stressful buying and leasing process believe that enrolling in its OnStar diagnostic products, which collected the data, was mandatory.

“Companies are using invasive technology to violate the rights of our citizens in unthinkable ways,” Paxton said in a statement. “Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law. We will hold them accountable.”

This isn't the first time Texas has stood up for its drivers. In 2019 Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill to ban red-light cameras, two years after KXAN-NBC in Austin, Texas, reported that almost all cities with red-light cameras had illegally issued traffic tickets.

Their investigation also found that drivers paid the city of Austin over $7 million in fines since the cameras were installed, and cities in Texas made over $500 million from the cameras since 2007.

GM CEO says she is committed to Chinese market and will push forward in 'overhyped' electric vehicle sector

General Motors CEO Mary Barra said that the company will push forward with its operations in China despite a whopping loss in the country in the first quarter of 2024.

Barra recently visited China and promised that GM remained committed to the market, which has been a mainstay for the manufacturer since 1997. A $106 million loss in the first quarter in China was just GM's third quarterly loss in the far east in the last 15 years, CNBC reported, but the company announced that it expects the numbers to turn around.

GM CFO Paul Jacobson reportedly told investors that the company expects similar or slightly lower than $446 million in profit, which is what it garnered in China in 2023.

However, 2023 was the lowest year for equity income for GM in China since at least 2012, but this has come at a much smaller market share. GM's percentage of the market has shrunk from nearly 15% down to 8.6% in the last decade, lowering expectations.

Still, 2023's numbers were more than $230 million lower than 2022, despite only losing 1.2% of the market share in that time. Comparatively, GM's income in China stayed relatively the same between 2014 and 2018 despite its market share dropping by about 1%.

At the same time, Barra claimed that GM is going to be charging forward with electrical vehicle production. The CEO told Bloomberg that she planned on making at least one EV model for every GM brand while trying to convince America's middle class that electric cars are right for them.

"I think it was overhyped and now it's probably underhyped, and the truth is somewhere in the middle," Barra said of the EV market. "Growth has slowed, but it's still growing."

If consumers are confused by Barra's recent statements, they wouldn't be wrong. In 2022 she told Bloomberg that GM was purposely taking its time in the EV market, but in 2024 she says she wishes the company hadn't done so.

"If I had a do-over, I would have — even though we were moving , I would have accelerated the pace."

Of course, this is far away from what General Motors announced in October 2023. At that time, the company announced it would be slowing production of EVs after losing $1 billion from the autoworkers' strike, with Jacobson stating that GM would be "moderating the acceleration of EV production" to protect pricing.

Barra also said that the company planned on reducing electric vehicle product spending while simultaneously slowing the launch of several models in order to cut costs. The company also noted that it was abandoning targets to build 100,000 electric vehicles in the second half of 2023 and another 400,000 in the first six months of 2024.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!