What's in Trump's move to ease US automotive tariffs
Trump's latest orders mark the latest softening of his multi-layered tariff assault on trading partners as he seeks to negotiate deals aimed at lowering other countries' trade barriers to U.S. exports.
Earlier this month, Trump's administration exempted smartphones, computers and other electronics largely made in China from triple digit tariffs at least temporarily.
Here's what's in Trump's latest proclamation and executive order on autos tariffs.
ENDS AUTOS TARIFF 'STACKING'
Trump has ordered that autos and auto parts subject to his new 25% Section 232 autos tariffs will no longer be also subject to other 25% tariffs that he has imposed on steel and aluminum or on Canadian and Mexican goods related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
But the order specifies that other tariffs, including Trump's duties on Chinese goods that have reached 145%, would still apply, as would the longstanding 2.5% "Most Favored Nation" tariff rate for automotive imports.
CREDIT FOR U.S. VEHICLE ASSEMBLY
The Trump administration also will offer automakers a credit of 3.75% of the total Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price value of all vehicles assembled in the U.S. from April 3, 2025 through April 30, 2026, that can be applied to an equal amount of duty-free parts imports - except from China.
For each $50,000 vehicle built in the U.S., an automaker would be able to import $1,875 worth of parts duty free.
The vehicle credit drops to 2.5% for the second year to April 30, 2027, then disappears altogether as an incentive for automakers to return parts production to the U.S.
The percentages reflect the duty owed when a 25% tariff is applied to 15% of the value of a U.S.-assembled vehicle in the first year and 10% in the second year.
Vehicles assembled in Canada and Mexico are not eligible for the credit.
RATIONALE
Trump's order said the revised tariffs "will more quickly reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing and importation of automobiles and automobile parts (and) strengthen United States vehicle assembly operations by encouraging companies to expand domestic production capacity."
It said this was critical from a national security standpoint because it would allow more automotive research and development by American-owned automotive manufacturers into "cutting edge technologies that are essential to the United States defense industrial base and our military superiority."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Many say Elon Musk 'wants to be the US President' – but there's reason he can't
Elon Musk has announced that his new America Party has been "formed" in what appears to be a dig at former ally-turned-foe Donald Trump, sparking speculation that he could be looking to run for presidency himself Elon Musk has declared that his new America Party has been "formed", seemingly taking a swipe at his one-time ally, now adversary, Donald Trump. The tech mogul floated the idea of creating a new political force on X on America's Independence Day (July 4), asking followers if he should establish a party to rival Democrats and Republicans, despite having financially supported the GOP in the previous election with a hefty sum. The poll results showed a significant 65.4% of the 1.2 million respondents backing the formation of a new America Party, although the actual number of American citizens among them remains uncertain. The next day on July 5, Elon Musk, 54, took to X to proclaim: "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" He lambasted the current political system, saying: "When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." Speculation has since erupted on X over whether Musk harbours presidential ambitions. One user emphatically posted: "ELON MUSK HAS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED THE FORMATION OF 'AMERICA PARTY.' Its Time for President Elon." Another queried the X community: "If Elon Musk ran for president, would you vote for him?" A third sceptically remarked: "Elon Musk really thinks he can be president." Yet, there's a significant hurdle in his path. Why can't Elon Musk be US President? Elon Musk, the tech mogul behind Tesla and SpaceX, is barred from running for US President due to constitutional restrictions. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution stipulates that only a natural-born citizen can hold the presidential office, which excludes South African-born Musk despite his US citizenship. What does Trump think about the issue? Donald Trump has weighed in on the topic, dismissing any possibility of Musk taking over the presidency. Speaking in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2024, Trump addressed rumours about Musk's growing political clout. "President Trump has ceded the presidency to Elon Musk? No, no, that's not happening," Trump declared. "But no, he's not going to be president, that I can tell you. And I'm safe. You know why he can't be? He wasn't born in this country," he continued. Musk himself has consistently dismissed the idea of pursuing a political career, citing both the constitutional barrier and his lack of interest in holding office. "My grandfather was American, but I was born in Africa, so I cannot be president," Musk acknowledged last year. "But I actually don't want to be president. I want to build rockets and cars. "I believe we want to be a spacefaring civilisation, and that's where my focus will remain."
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
The SNP need a new people-first strategy to win in 2026
Then it all fell apart, culminating in the humiliating defeat in 2024's Westminster election, where 517,622 voters didn't vote for the SNP again! The post-2022 SNP autopsy has been dissected at length in these pages ever since. In 2014, the young people voted overwhelmingly for a new sovereign Scotland – 11 years on, why are we not seeing this independence-minded generation breaking through into the ranks of the SNP at all levels? Do the SNP believe Swinney can lead and win an election, despite how he has proven ineffective in every election he has led so far? I am not convinced that the Holyrood polling picture will play out as Professor John Curtice thinks. There is still at lot more SNP voter churn to come, as many independence voters just don't see the SNP as a vibrant independence party anymore, but an establishment party. There is very little that differentiates them from Tories or Labour when in power over a long period, other than being politically slightly left of centre. The SNP governance message is not resonating with the voters, coupled with the Unionist media beating down or underplaying SNP welfare policies around child poverty or no strikes in the NHS. Even when the SNP compare their performance against that of England or the Labour-run Welsh assembly, it gets very little traction. The Unionist parties and the English-owned media keep beating the SNP up over the ferry fiasco, drug deaths, SNP finances scandal, women rights debacle and NHS performance, even though better than elsewhere in the UK, to undermine the governance message now that independence is off the menu, even though more than 50% of Scots want independence. We have seen even at council level in Scotland that the Unionist parties will work together to prevent the SNP having power, Reform – who are mostly disillusioned Tories – will be no friends to the SNP either. Independence is a progressive movement that needs to be moving forward, the SNP leadership need to wake up to this fact and embrace a Scottish sovereignty convention as a matter of urgency. Why? If Keir Starmer called the SNP's bluff tomorrow (he is known for a U-turn or two!) allowing a second referendum in eight to 10 weeks' time, no chance of another year of divisive politics, the SNP and the country just wouldn't be prepared. For many undecided voters, balancing the risk of leaving the status quo and the unknown of a new place in the world is made more difficult without a clear plan and a lack of engagement – even the SNP's 13 'independence' papers/PDFs on the website didn't gain any traction with Scots because they were transactional and poorly publicised. The main way to build momentum for a new sovereign Scotland is to engage with and publicise by talking to the people face to face in public community meetings across all of Scotland, presenting a positive future not only to the converted but to the undecided. This is where a convention wins over a single political party which the country has lost confidence in, especially among independence voters. The plan confirms that we have nailed down what matters most to Scots, the NHS, welfare system, cost of living, energy poverty, pensions, jobs, currency, trade, borders/free movement as many have family ties across the UK, etc. Scots will want to know before removing the Unionist handcuffs and chains that we have a declaration of sovereignty to hand, there is consensus on or an agreed constitution ready and waiting, we have a hand-over plan for the transfer of the reserved UK Government departments – note the Scottish Government has not been particularly agile in setting up welfare systems handed over from the UK to date, never mind something as important as a treasury or defence. Oh, by the way, after 300+ years since elected parliamentarians (not the Scottish voters in a referendum) last signed away our sovereignty, I think we should think again before giving it away again, this time to the EU. In the first instance, Scotland should adopt the Norwegian model of participating in the European Economic Area (EEA) and retaining our sovereignty. A Wilson Stirlingshire YOUR article last week on the SNP's so-called 'strategy' heading into 2026 was an obituary. One that accidentally told the truth: the party has no concrete plan for achieving independence, no clear direction on key issues, no courage to challenge the status quo and no shame in its lack of progress. More than a year into Swinney's leadership and we're still waiting for a vision. Not because he's strategising but because he's afraid. Afraid to lead, to challenge Westminster, to risk anything that might spark a constitutional crisis. The clock is ticking, and we can no longer afford to wait. The situation is dire and immediate action is necessary. What are the rest of us doing? Nothing. Typing. Moaning. Waiting. The comment threads under every article are full of tired excuses and nervous loyalty. 'Be patient.' 'Trust the process.' 'Don't criticise – start your party.' That's not activism. That's servitude with hashtags. This isn't a movement anymore. It's a funeral procession, dragging the corpse of 2014 behind it as if it still holds significance. And the saddest part? Nobody wants to admit what's needed. Because here's the truth: you don't get independence by being well-behaved. You don't win freedom through stage-managed conferences, safe speeches and avoiding controversy. You win it by pushing the line. By risking consequences. By standing up when you're told to sit down – and refusing. Where's the fire? The resistance? Who among our so-called leaders is willing to go to jail? Who's willing to break ranks? Who's willing to shut down the system that denies us? No one. Could you compare that to the figures we remember? Ian Paisley didn't care if you hated him. Michael Collins didn't ask for permission. Gerry Adams – like it or not – gave speeches that made empires nervous. They stood on a hill, willing to die there. Now look at John Swinney. Will anyone remember him? Of course not. Because he's not willing to die on a hill – he's not even willing to climb one. His legacy is 'managed decline with a smile'. And here's the worst part: there's no one waiting in the wings to replace him. The absence of a strong, courageous leader is glaring, and it's high time someone steps up because nobody in modern Scottish politics is willing to do the unspeakable. To resist. To provoke. To act. To fight. That's why we're stuck. Not because we lack a mandate. Not because of Westminster. But because nobody in power – or even most of the movement – is willing to pay the price for the future they claim to believe in. It's time for a new approach, a new mindset, a new wave of activism. We need a fresh perspective and a new generation of leaders who are ready to take the necessary steps for change. When considering leaders like Adams or Paisley, we see individuals who embody a fierce commitment to their ideals and community. They don't merely manage situations; they actively fight for change. Their drive stems from a deep passion for their beliefs, demonstrating an unwavering determination to challenge the status quo. In contrast, some leaders miss the mark, like Swinney, who tends to focus on maintaining peace rather than advocating for necessary action. While managing conflict is essential, authentic leadership requires a willingness to confront challenges boldly. Leaders like Adams and Paisley rally their followers with powerful narratives and a clear vision, igniting passion within their communities. We need leaders who are not afraid to take a stand and inspire others to follow. Effective leadership is about instigating transformation, not just maintaining order. By fostering a sense of urgency and purpose, dynamic leaders ensure that their voices resonate. Swinney's approach often lacks the decisiveness needed to mobilise support for meaningful change. In contrast, passionate leaders create loyalty and motivation among their followers, inspiring them to pursue justice and social progress. It's this clarity of purpose and action that ultimately paves the way for a lasting and impactful legacy. James Murphy Bute CRACKS in the graphite core of the Torness nuclear reactor in East Lothian, Scotland's last remaining nuclear power station, have risen to 585, the highest number ever, igniting fears of a nuclear meltdown and calls to shut it down. During a March inspection, the 585 cracks were found in the bricks in Reactor 1's central core area, which are key components for cooling and keeping the reactor from melting down. Torness is run by EDF, France's national energy company. It was scheduled to shut down in 2023 but in 2016, EDF extended its life to 2030. The Ferret obtained documents released under FOI from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), that the parlous state of the graphite core posed a 'significant challenge' to keep the plant operating safely over the next five years. EDF insists that Torness is safe (and ONR seems to trust EDF). But EDF has every incentive to keep the plant humming along, generating profits for the French state. Scotland's other nuclear power station at Hunterston B in North Ayrshire was shut down in January 2022, a year earlier than planned, following the discovery of 586 cracks in its two reactors. If Hunterston B was deemed too dangerous to continue operating, why isn't Torness? The nuclear industry, through its lobby group Britain Remade, is trying to reverse Scotland's ban on new nuclear power. It's getting help from English Labour MPs in Scotland. The scandal-hit Douglas Alexander, Lothian East MP, is pimping for the industry. Scotland possesses enormous renewable energy resources, as well as oil and gas. We don't want or need uneconomic and unsafe nuclear and should strongly resist English Labour's attempts to force it on to us. Leah Gunn Barrett Edinburgh JUST a wee reminder that the Tour de France has begun, and more readers than you can imagine are cycling fans. And you can hang a kilt on the story, Borderer Oscar Onley is taking part. This exceptional athlete came third in the Tour de Suisse recently and was second in the Tour of Britain! Jings crivvens, twa kilts!, there's another Jock in Le Tour, Edinburgh's Sean Flynn is a teammate of Oscar Onley. C'mon, The National, we're not all into ball games and gee gees, more cycling coverage, please! Malcolm Bruce Edinburgh
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Maga influencer and de facto national security adviser Laura Loomer holds outsized sway on Trump
After years of claiming to be the vanguard of a new 'America First' isolationist movement rebelling against the neoconservative policies of the George W Bush administration that led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Maga's online influencers are cheering for another war in the Middle East. And not just any war: they are applauding Donald Trump's high-risk decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, a move that was considered a war too far even by the Bush administration. Maga's quick flip-flop has made it clear that Maga was never really anti-war. Maga is about xenophobia, not isolationism, and its support for Trump's decision to bomb a Muslim country fits in with its support for his draconian campaign against immigrants. But above all, Maga is about fealty to Trump. That formula certainly helps explain why Laura Loomer, who has emerged as the most prominent Maga America First influencer in the early days of Trump's second term, has given her full support to his Iran strike. In early April, Loomer, a 32-year-old pro-Trump online influencer widely seen as a rightwing conspiracy theorist, met with Trump and gave him a list of names of people on the staff of the national security council that she believed were not loyal enough to Trump or at least had professional backgrounds that she considered suspect. Trump fired six staffers. Later, national security adviser Mike Waltz, whom Loomer had criticized for his role in the Signalgate chat leak scandal, was ousted as well. Loomer doesn't have a job in the government, but she has still emerged as one of Trump's most important and most polarizing foreign policy advisers in the early days of his second administration. She has had direct access to Trump and has used it to push for ideological purges inside the administration, instilling fear and anger among national security professionals. In fact, when it comes to the national security side of the Trump administration, Loomer has been something akin to a one-woman Doge. Now the big question is how long her influence with Trump will last, or whether she will soon go out the same way as Elon Musk. Loomer's power in the Trump administration is ill-defined. Her many critics say she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning. But Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump's de facto national security adviser. Press reports recently suggested that Loomer's status in the White House was waning because she had overreached, much like Musk. She has left a trail of bitter Trump aides, while there have also been reports that Trump himself has grown weary of her. But, as if to disprove the reports that she was getting frozen out, Loomer had a private meeting with JD Vance in early June. In a revealing interview on journalist Tara Palmeri's podcast in late April, Loomer said that her White House access came directly from Trump himself, and that she maintained her relationship with the president even as his aides tried to keep her out. 'Donald Trump is my biggest ally in the White House,' she said. 'I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I certainly do believe that a lot of the information I have given him has protected him and has prevented disasters from happening,' she added. 'I believe that the information that I provide is valuable. And I believe that it has proven itself to be an asset to President Trump and his apparatus. I don't know why some of the people that work for him don't want that information around him. But I'm not going to let that stop me. I'm going to keep on uncovering information and finding ways to get it to President Trump – and informing President Trump about individuals within his inner circle that are working against his agenda.' Loomer added that 'it all comes down to vetting at the end of the day'. Loomer's close ties to Trump first became big news during the 2024 presidential campaign, when she traveled with the Republican candidate on his campaign plane despite repeated efforts by Trump aides to keep her away. The aides were particularly upset that Loomer traveled with Trump on September 11, since she had earlier gained online infamy after posting a video claiming that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an 'inside job'. To be sure, fears by his aides that Trump was associating with a conspiracy theorist ignored the fact that he relishes in spreading conspiracy theories far and wide. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promoted a conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio; that xenophobic lie became the hallmark of Trump's fall campaign. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Once Trump returned to office, Loomer began to flex her newfound power, and even professional ties to top Trump administration officials weren't enough to protect staffers from being fired after Loomer gave her list of names to Trump. Among those fired at the NSC was Brian Walsh, who had worked on the staff of the Senate intelligence committee for Marco Rubio, now serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, when Rubio was in the Senate. The most stunning purge attributed to Loomer came in April when Trump fired Gen Timothy Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency, along with his top deputy, after they had found their way on to Loomer's list as well. The fact that Loomer could trigger the firing of a senior military officer in charge of the nation's largest intelligence agency finally led to a bipartisan outcry in Washington. A group of Senate Democrats wrote to Trump saying that the firings were 'inexplicable', while Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican senator who is now a leading Trump critic, lamented that experienced military leaders were being ousted while 'amateur isolationists' are in senior policy positions. The moves even troubled Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican senator and Trump loyalist who is the chair of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the Senate armed services committee. Rounds made a point of praising Haugh during a subcommittee hearing soon after his firing and noted that 'men and women capable of leading the National Security Agency … are in short supply. We do not have enough of these types of leaders, and a loss of any one of them without strong justification is disappointing.' But like Musk, Loomer has been so red-hot in the early days of Trump's second term that her fall seems almost inevitable, especially after she began to call out White House actions she didn't like. In May, for example, she publicly criticized Trump's decision to accept a luxury jet from Qatar. When news of the gift was first reported, Loomer posted a statement saying: 'This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true.' She added: 'I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I'm so disappointed.' She later backtracked and became more supportive. But later she was critical of Trump's decision to withdraw the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman to be the head of Nasa, whose nomination she had supported. 'There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with @elonmusk,' Loomer posted as the news first broke. Days later, Isaacman suggested that he also believes that his nomination was withdrawn because of his ties to Musk. Loomer has been careful to try to limit her criticism to Trump's aides, and not to Trump himself. But it is an open question how long that distinction will make a difference for Loomer. During the Palmeri podcast, Loomer said that she is 'not going to be a sycophant and sit there and pretend that every little thing is great'. She added that 'there's a lot of incompetence in the White House. There's a lot of people in positions they shouldn't be in and they embarrass the president on a daily basis.' That is the backdrop for Loomer's strong support for Trump's decision to attack Iran. Perhaps concerned that her earlier criticism was damaging her ties to Trump world, Loomer has been profuse with her praise of Trump's Iran attack, while also defending her America First credentials. In one post, she asked 'How is it not AMERICA FIRST to congratulate those who just made sure Islamists who chant 'DEATH TO AMERICA' … never have an opportunity to have a nuke?' She has even gone on the offensive against other rightwing influencers, including Tucker Carlson, who have dared criticize the Iran strike. 'I am screenshotting everyone's posts and I'm going to deliver them in a package to President Trump so he sees who is truly with him and who isn't,' Loomer posted. 'And I think by now everyone knows I mean it when I say I'm going to deliver something to Trump.' For Maga influencers, staying on Trump's good side seems to matter more than issues of war and peace.
