American Manufacturers Are Reshoring, And The Big Beautiful Bill Helped
'President Trump gave manufacturers the foundation, competitiveness and certainty to invest.'Trump hits foreign drug manufacturers in HUGE announcement
The cost of generic drugs will likely change drastically after the latest tariff announcement from President Donald Trump.
The president said in a post on Truth Social that he would allow generic drug imports to have zero tariffs for two years, then face two large hikes afterward.
'The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States.'
Trump said the tariffs were designed to encourage drug companies to move their manufacturing operations back to the U.S.
"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter," he wrote.
"The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States," Trump added.
Generic drugs account for 90% of the prescriptions in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration, and half of generic drugs are manufactured in India. China, on the other hand, is the source for 95% of imported ibuprofen and 70% of imported acetaminophen.
White House spokesman Kush Desai cited other efforts from the administration to reshore manufacturing in comments to CBS News.
"The President's resounding success securing firm reshoring plans from global drugmakers as part of our most-favored-nations deals and Section 232 tariff program for branded drugs is proof that this administration has a track record of success to get critical manufacturing back into the United States," Desai said in an email.
RELATED: The hidden danger in Trump’s drug-price plan
Experts indicated to CBS News that manufacturers were likely to pass on the tariff costs to consumers but that the already low prices meant the cost increases could be modest.
However, some manufacturers may choose to pull out of the U.S. market altogether and cause drug shortages.
"Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump concluded.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Stellantis’ China gamble could reshape America’s auto industry forever
Chinese cars are a security risk.
That's the message Washington has been sending the American consumer: Cheaper vehicles aren't worth exposing sensitive data to theft. Hence the massive tariffs aimed at China.
The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.
But while America was focused on keeping brands like BYD and NIO out of local dealerships, the global auto industry quietly found another way in.
And Stellantis just made that strategy official.
Ties that bind
The parent company of Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat has embraced deeper partnerships with Chinese automakers and suppliers as part of its global restructuring effort. New CEO Antonio Filosa is betting the company's future on partnerships, software integration, shared manufacturing, AI systems, and Chinese EV technology.
That should concern every American consumer, every UAW worker, every supplier, and every policymaker. The issue is no longer simply about cars built in China. It's about China becoming embedded inside the future of the American auto industry itself.
Stellantis recently announced a roughly $1.17 billion partnership with China's Dongfeng Group to build new-energy vehicles at a Wuhan manufacturing plant beginning in 2027. The agreement includes future Peugeot and Jeep models for China and other global markets.
But that's only part of the story.
FaST and furious
At its recent Investor Day presentation, Stellantis unveiled its "FaSTLAne 2030" strategy, a $70 billion restructuring plan featuring 60 new models, expanded AI integration, autonomous-driving development, and manufacturing partnerships stretching across China, Europe, India, and North America.
The message from Filosa was unmistakable: Partnerships will be "embedded" in Stellantis' future strategy.
That should have set off alarms in Washington.
Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno (R) has been leading the effort to block Chinese vehicles and components from gaining a foothold in the United States because of concerns over technology and supply-chain dependence. Yet while lawmakers debate tariffs, one of America's best-known automakers is openly moving deeper into partnerships with China.
For years, Americans were told tariffs would stop China from gaining influence over the U.S. auto market. But tariffs mainly target finished vehicles imported directly from China. They do little to prevent American or European automakers from incorporating Chinese-developed batteries, software, electronics, and EV platforms into vehicles sold under Western brands.
Beneath the badge
Consumers may soon be driving vehicles wearing Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, or Ram badges while much of the underlying technology comes from Chinese partnerships: batteries, semiconductors, AI systems, autonomous-driving technology, and connected-car software.
To control these is to control the modern automotive supply chain. China already dominates large portions of that ecosystem, and many legacy automakers increasingly appear to believe they cannot compete globally in EVs without Chinese involvement.
For the UAW and the industrial Midwest, the implications are enormous.
For decades, organized labor fought outsourcing to lower-cost countries. But the shift toward electric vehicles creates a different challenge. EVs generally require fewer moving parts than traditional internal-combustion vehicles, reducing demand for engines, transmissions, and many of the suppliers that support them. If battery production, electronics, and software also migrate overseas, the economic consequences could ripple through the entire manufacturing base.
America's automotive economy extends far beyond assembly plants. It includes steel suppliers, logistics companies, plastics manufacturers, tool-and-die shops, engineering firms, rail networks, repair facilities, dealerships, and thousands of small businesses. When supply chains move, entire local economies move with them.
RELATED: America's salvage yards are on fire — and drivers are the ones getting burned
If you can't beat 'em ...
Stellantis' own strategy reflects that trend.
By the end of the decade, the company wants half its global production running on just three platforms. Its new STLA One architecture will support more than 30 models while integrating advanced software, steer-by-wire systems, AI capabilities, and connected cockpit technologies.
At the same time, Stellantis plans to cut more than 800,000 units of manufacturing capacity in Europe while aggressively restructuring operations around efficiency and lower costs.
Even more revealing is its expanding relationship with Leapmotor, the Chinese EV company in which Stellantis already owns a controlling stake through a joint venture. What began as a distribution agreement has expanded into manufacturing cooperation and joint sourcing designed to improve "cost competitiveness."
Rolling computers
The auto industry has seen this pattern before.
Detroit once dominated global manufacturing before outsourcing and offshoring reshaped the landscape. Today's version isn't just about where vehicles are assembled. Modern cars are rolling computers connected to cellular networks, cloud services, cameras, microphones, GPS systems, and over-the-air software updates.
That is why national security concerns now collide directly with automotive policy.
The Biden administration imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EV imports and proposed restrictions on connected vehicle technology because of concerns over data collection and infrastructure security. Those concerns are legitimate. Modern vehicles collect extraordinary amounts of information, including location data, driving behavior, communications, and other personal information.
Now, imagine foreign-developed software integrated into millions of connected vehicles operating across the United States.
That concern helps explain why Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components represents a major escalation in the debate over America's automotive future.
His message is straightforward: Chinese companies should not gain a strategic foothold inside the U.S. auto industry.
China syndrome
President Trump spent years warning about unfair Chinese trade practices and the hollowing out of American manufacturing. His tariffs forced companies to rethink supply chains and brought China's influence into the political spotlight.
Yet despite those efforts, many automakers continued moving deeper into China's EV ecosystem because executives saw lower costs, faster development, and access to advanced battery technology.
Stellantis is hardly alone. Ford has partnered with CATL. Volkswagen expanded its ties with Xpeng. General Motors continues to rely on Chinese-linked battery supply chains, and Tesla maintains an enormous manufacturing footprint in China.
The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.
If America loses control of automotive batteries, semiconductors, software platforms, AI systems, and electronics manufacturing, the consequences could extend far beyond the auto business. This remains one of the country's largest manufacturing sectors and one of its biggest sources of middle-class industrial employment.
Consumers were promised that the EV transition would spark a manufacturing renaissance. Instead, America risks becoming increasingly dependent on foreign-controlled supply chains for many of the most important technologies inside next-generation vehicles.
The next generation of cars may still wear familiar American badges while relying heavily on Chinese-developed batteries, software, and technology underneath the sheet metal.
That's the issue Washington is finally beginning to confront.
The real battle is no longer about where vehicles are assembled. It's about who controls the technology inside them, who owns the supply chains behind them, and whether America still intends to build the next generation of vehicles itself.
Against auto tariffs for China? So was Europe ... and it's not going well
On a recent episode of "The Drive," my co-host Karl Brauer and I discussed one of the most contentious issues in the automotive industry today: tariffs.
It's one of those topics everybody seems to have an opinion about.
President Trump's tariff strategy is ultimately aimed at creating incentives for companies to build products in the United States rather than elsewhere.
For many people in the anti-tariff camp, the argument against them is straightforward. Tariffs raise prices, distort markets, and protect industries that should simply learn to compete. In the automotive world, the response is often some version of: "American automakers need to compete with China."
To which Karl offered a simple response: Europe tried that.
Closing time
The results haven't been encouraging, to say the least.
Over the past several years, Chinese automakers have rapidly expanded across Europe, capturing market share with aggressively priced vehicles while many traditional European manufacturers struggle to keep up. Volkswagen recently announced plans to close a plant in Germany for the first time in the company's 88-year history.
Other major automakers have announced layoffs, restructuring efforts, and production cuts as competition intensifies.
Every time someone argues that tariffs are unnecessary because domestic manufacturers should simply compete with Chinese imports on an open playing field, it's worth looking across the Atlantic and asking a simple question:
How is that working out for Europe?
The answer is complicated, but it's difficult to ignore the warning signs.
Manufacturing matters
Supporters of tariffs aren't simply arguing for higher prices or protectionism for its own sake. They're arguing that manufacturing matters. Jobs matter. Industrial capacity matters. And once those things disappear, they're not easily rebuilt.
That's especially true in the automotive industry, where factories support entire ecosystems of suppliers, contractors, transportation networks, and skilled workers.
We're already seeing evidence of what domestic investment can accomplish here in the United States.
Hyundai's growing manufacturing presence in Georgia has become one of the most significant automotive investments in the country. Combined with suppliers and battery production facilities, the project is expected to support thousands of jobs. For many workers in the region, those positions represent opportunities that simply didn't exist before.
The same pattern is playing out across the South. Automakers including Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Nissan, Ford, General Motors, and others continue expanding their U.S. production footprints.
These projects don't just create assembly jobs. They support entire communities, generating opportunities for local businesses, contractors, suppliers, and workers throughout the region.
RELATED: Gone in 60 seconds: How high-tech thieves can steal your car
Price check
Critics often warn that tariffs will dramatically increase vehicle prices. The reality is more nuanced.
Modern vehicles are assembled from components sourced around the world. The impact of tariffs depends on where those components are produced, where final assembly takes place, and how manufacturers choose to absorb or pass along those costs.
For many mainstream vehicles, the effect may be relatively modest. Luxury brands such as Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolls-Royce, and Porsche face a different situation because they are unlikely to move production to the United States.
But let's be honest: Buyers spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an exotic sports car aren't facing the same concerns as a family shopping for a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Ford Explorer.
The larger question is whether America wants to maintain a strong manufacturing base.
President Trump's tariff strategy is ultimately aimed at creating incentives for companies to build products in the United States rather than elsewhere. Whether you support that approach or not, the objective is clear: encourage investment, create jobs, and strengthen domestic production.
Data breach
There's another factor that rarely receives enough attention in these discussions: data security.
Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of information, including location data, driving habits, communications, and vehicle performance metrics. As Chinese automakers continue expanding globally, policymakers have increasingly raised concerns about who controls that data and where it ultimately ends up.
Whether those concerns prove justified or not, they are becoming part of the broader conversation surrounding automotive trade policy.
Tariffs aren't a magic solution. They won't instantly rebuild America's industrial base or solve every challenge facing the auto industry.
But the debate shouldn't be reduced to whether tariffs might add a few hundred dollars to the price of a vehicle.
The bigger question is what happens when domestic manufacturers lose market share, close factories, eliminate jobs, and become increasingly dependent on foreign competitors.
Before America dismisses tariffs as outdated or unnecessary, it may be worth paying close attention to the experience of those countries who've already made that bet.
Steelworkers need a future, not another merger war
Roxanne Brown, the head of the United Steelworkers, must recognize the reality of her members and consider the recent history of the steel industry. If she remembers what happened when steel mills closed and factory towns devolved into ghost towns, she must distinguish herself from her predecessor, David McCall, whose intransigence during his tenure was neither shrewd nor productive. To set her union on a renewed path forward, Brown must distance herself from McCall’s troubling legacy and avoid jeopardizing the very workers she claims to represent.
Brown has reportedly rejected U.S. Steel’s initial contract offer, setting the stage for the next round of negotiations beginning July. If talks go south again this summer, workers could face lost wages, disrupted health benefits, and uncertainty over retirement security. Their families would feel the pressure through tighter household budgets, delayed bills, strained child care and health care decisions, and the emotional toll that comes with prolonged economic uncertainty.
Steelworkers deserve leadership focused on jobs, wages, benefits, and retirement security — not reputation management or corporate alliances.
In steel towns and surrounding communities, the impact would ripple through local businesses, schools, churches, charities, and public services that depend on steady paychecks and a stable industrial base. A lockout would not just pause production; it would threaten livelihoods, family stability, and the economic backbone of communities built around American steel.
McCall's reckless efforts to tank the Nippon-U.S. Steel merger led to a revolt among steelworkers, and his alliance with competitor Cleveland-Cliffs’ CEO Lourenco Goncalves showed he prioritizes his own reputation and corporate alliances over his members. In the next round of contract talks, McCall should not be allowed anywhere near the negotiating table from the union side.
For decades, steelworkers have been heavily affected by market swings and fluctuating steel production demands. 2026 has been a welcome relief of slow but steady growth, aided by investments like those from Nippon, shifts toward modernization, and economic tailwinds, but history shows this tide can turn anytime.
When the steel industry turns down, it faces facility idling, facility closures, layoffs, and industry upheaval. Despite recent upturn, this volatility has contributed to a public perception that blue-collar jobs like those of steelworkers are unstable, making the upcoming contract negotiations in July that much more significant.
The past tells us quite a bit about what could be ahead for steelworkers. Last year’s high-profile Nippon-U.S. Steel merger carried major consequences for American steel production and steelworkers’ jobs. Yet as the deal progressed through the approval process, McCall chose to advance his own interests rather than champion union members’ security and prosperity, revealing deeply troubling behavior.
In 2023, when the merger was proposed, U.S. mills produced about 89.7 million net tons of raw steel, supporting 70,000 workers in iron and steel manufacturing. The deal promised substantial benefits to American steelworkers, including: $2.7 billion in capital investments exclusively dedicated to USW facilities; a 10-year commitment to maintain steel production levels at existing facilities, protecting union jobs; a $5,000 signing bonus for union workers and eligible nonunion employees below the senior-manager level upon deal closure; and written, enforceable commitments to honor existing union contracts and labor agreements.
RELATED: The AI bubble is about to pop. Here’s how to prepare yourself.
Despite clear support among many rank-and-file members for the merger’s approval, McCall staked out firm personal opposition that did not reflect union workers’ input. In a February 2024 phone interview, McCall stated bluntly: “I want to kill this deal.”
McCall also took advantage of the Biden administration’s likely politically partisan, election-driven opposition to the merger. A lawsuit alleged that Biden sought to kill the deal to “curry favor with the USW leadership in [Pennsylvania] in his bid for re-election ... motivated by ‘purely political reasons.’”
Perhaps most damning is that McCall’s opposition clashed with the interests of steelworkers.
This is a pivotal time for the future of the American steel industry. The industry can only thrive if USW and the companies that employ its members can reach a commonsense agreement that both protects workers and allows companies to continue operating.
Brown must capitalize on this unique opportunity to move the union past the destructiveness of McCall’s leadership by participating in good faith in the upcoming negotiations and avoiding prolonging the contract talks at the expense of her members’ well-being. America’s steelworkers deserve better than their fate still being in the shadows of David McCall.
Jerome Powell is out — for good reason. Here are 4 of his top blunders.
Kevin Warsh, the primary intermediary between the Federal Reserve and Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, was confirmed on Tuesday to a 14-year term as Federal Reserve governor and confirmed on Wednesday as Jerome Powell's successor as chairman of the U.S. central bank.
Powell, who was first nominated to the Federal Board of Governors by former President Barack Obama and whose term as chair ends on Friday, wished Warsh well. However, he also provided his replacement with something more valuable than a nice sentiment: examples of what not to do, or at least, what to avoid doing.
Powell has, after all, dropped the ball on numerous occasions — sometimes with catastrophic consequences for the country. Here are just four examples.
1. Don't worry, it's 'transitory.'
Powell stated on March 4, 2021, in the second year of the pandemic, that inflation might increase but that it would likely be "transitory" and not enough for the central bank to raise record-low interest rates — a decision some suspect was geared toward pleasing then-President Joe Biden and thereby securing Powell's reappointment.
'Most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell's blunder.'
MarketWatch's Greg Robb noted that Powell's wrong-headed "transitory" view of inflation — one that would define his eight years as Fed chair — precluded the Fed from raising interest rates until 2022 while the Fed was also buying up bonds "and swelling its balance sheet."
Thanks to Powell's mistake — which economist Mohamed El-Erian, former PIMCO chief executive, said was "probably the worst inflation call in the history of the Federal Reserve" — the Fed was consistently on the back foot.
RELATED: Your bank can shut you down overnight — here’s how to protect yourself
Facing the highest inflation Americans had seen in 40 years — inflation that no longer appeared to be "transitory" — Powell ended up raising interest rates 11 times between March 2022 and July 2023, when its benchmark rate reached a range of 5.25% to 5.5%.
Powell told "60 Minutes" in a Feb. 1, 2024, interview:
In hindsight, it would've been better to have tightened policy earlier. I'm happy to say that. Really, it was this. We saw what we thought was that this inflation, which seemed to be mostly limited to the goods sector and to the supply chain story. We thought that the economy was so dynamic that it would fix itself fairly quickly. And we thought that inflation would go away fairly quickly without an intervention by us. That it would be transitory.
Powell leaves office with inflation well above the Fed's 2% target for five consecutive years.
2. Betting against Trump's tariffs, tax cuts
While reluctant initially to raise interest rates when Biden was in office, Powell previously demonstrated an eagerness to raise rates in 2018 when President Donald Trump was in office and the economy was booming.
"Every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates," Trump said at the time. Powell "almost looks like he's happy raising interest rates."
The repeated hikes, which Trump blamed for coinciding stock market turmoil, were supposedly prompted by concerns that the Republican president's tariffs and tax cuts, the latter of which were framed as a $1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, might together contribute to inflation.
Powell stated that "fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative. In this environment, we anticipate that inflation ... will move up this year."
Economist Donald Luskin, chief investment officer for Trand Macrolytics LLC, recently noted that "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump’s tariffs in 2018 and 2019 led to any inflation at all."
Economist and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro wrote last year, "Powell's audition for 'worst Fed chair' began shortly after his February 2018 appointment. Promising President Trump in the Oval Office a supportive posture to secure his nomination, Powell instead aggressively raised rates into the low-inflation, high-growth Trump economy. Powell wrongly believed Trump's tax cuts and tariffs would spark inflation — they didn't."
Powell's bet against Trump's tariffs and tax cuts proved consequential.
"As Powell's Fed hiked interest rates four times in 2018 — despite muted inflation and strong labor market gains — economic momentum slowed sharply," wrote Navarro. "According to the Fed's own September Tealbook, most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell's blunder."
"It would cost the American economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic output and tax revenues," added the trade adviser.
3. Fed renovation scandal
Powell reportedly greenlit luxury renovations to the Fed's Washington, D.C, headquarters that exceeded the original budget by roughly $700 million and is set to cost around $2.5 billion.
Controversy over the renovations — which include a rooftop terrace with gardens, VIP dining rooms, "premium" marble, and water features — came to a head in January, several months after U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte called for an investigation into Powell and his removal as Fed chair.
RELATED: Debit card company promises to pay your bill ... sometimes: 'Buy now, pay maybe'
Powell said in a Jan. 11 statement that "the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multiyear project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings."
An activist Biden-appointed judge quashed the grand jury subpoenas in March.
"Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve," Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, said in response to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg's rulings. "This is wrong, and it is without legal authority."
Last month, the Trump administration dropped the criminal investigation into Powell over his luxury renovation project.
While apparently off the hook, the controversy nevertheless hangs over Powell as another example of costly mismanagement.
4. Bank failures
Powell and his underlings also failed to prevent the March 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the third- and fourth-largest bank failures in American history, respectively.
Powell acknowledged weeks after the bank failures that the Fed's efforts to intervene were too little, too late.
"It does kind of suggest there's a need for ... regulatory and supervisory changes, just because supervision and regulation need to keep up with what's happening," said Powell. "My only interest is that we identify what went wrong here ... make an assessment of what are the right policies to put in place so that doesn't happen again, and then implement those policies."
One of Powell's lieutenants, then-Vice Chair Michael Barr, admitted that the "Federal Reserve supervisors failed to take forceful enough action."
A damning April 28, 2023, report on the Fed's bungled supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank — the conclusions of which Powell ultimately accepted — said that:
- "Federal Reserve supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity";
- "When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough"; and
- "The Board's tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach."
www.theblaze.com