US automakers say Trumps 15% tariff deal with Japan puts them at disadvantage
'We need to review all the details of the agreement, but this is a deal that will charge lower tariffs on Japanese autos with no US content," said Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents the Big 3 American automakers, General Motors, Ford and Jeep-maker Stellantis.
Blunt said in an interview the US companies and workers 'definitely are at a disadvantage" because they face a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum and a 25% tariff on parts and finished vehicles, with some exceptions for products covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that went into effect in 2020.
The domestic automaker reaction reveals the challenge of enforcing policies across the world economy, showing that for all of Trump's promises there can be genuine tradeoffs from policy choices that risk serious blowback in politically important states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, where automaking is both a source of income and of identity.
Trump portrayed the trade framework as a major win after announcing it on Tuesday, saying it would add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the US economy and open the Japanese economy in ways that could close a persistent trade imbalance.
The agreement includes a 15% tariff that replaces the 25% import tax the Republican president had threatened to charge starting on Aug 1. Japan would also put together $550 billion to invest in US projects, the White House said.
The framework with Japan will remove regulations that prevent American vehicles from being sold in that country, the White House has said, adding that it would be possible for vehicles built in Detroit to be shipped directly to Japan and ready to be sold.
But Blunt said that foreign auto producers, including the US, Europe and South Korea, have just a 6% share in Japan, raising scepticism that simply having the open market that the Trump administration says will exist in that country will be sufficient.
'Tough nut to crack, and I'd be very surprised if we see any meaningful market penetration in Japan," Blunt said.
Major Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the trade framework, nor did Autos Drive America or the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, organisations that also represent the industry.
There is the possibility that the Japanese framework would give automakers and other countries grounds for pushing for changes in the Trump administration's tariffs regime.
The president has previously said that flexibility in import tax negotiations is something he values. The USMCA is up for review next year.
Ford, GM and Stellantis do 'have every right to be upset," said Sam Fiorani, vice president at consultancy AutoForecast Solutions.
But 'Honda, Toyota, and Nissan still import vehicles from Mexico and Canada, where the current levels of tariffs can be higher than those applied to Japanese imports. Most of the high-volume models from Japanese brands are already produced in North America." Fiorani noted that among the few exceptions are the Toyota 4Runner, the Mazda CX-5 and the Subaru Forester, but most of the other imports fill niches that are too small to warrant production in the US.
'There will be negotiations between the US and Canada and Mexico, and it will probably result in tariffs no higher than 15%," Fiorani added, 'but nobody seems to be in a hurry to negotiate around the last Trump administration's free trade agreement." (AP) SCY SCY
view comments
First Published:
July 24, 2025, 00:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Volt face
Grim results of EV makers raise a question about viability The future of mobility is electric, and it should have been here by now, considering that Morris & Salom's Electrobat cars were running on Philadelphia's streets in 1894. In 1909, an electric car beat a gasoline car in Boston's busy traffic by 15 minutes. But electric cars are still at the 25% sales mark globally, and like most averages that figure is misleading. When 70% of all electric cars are made in China, and 65% are sold there, the picture looks distinctly ICE-y – short for internal combustion engine – for the rest of the world. Then consider market leader Tesla's woes. Its quarterly revenue has slumped. Half-yearly sales in Europe are down 33%. But more worrying for it is the drying carbon credits market under Trump. So far, Tesla's made billions selling these credits to makers of ICE cars. It earned $2.1bn from them in just the first nine months of 2024. Tesla also has to worry about the phase-out of the $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers in Sept. Carbon and tax credits are nothing but subsidies for the EV business in US and Europe, and the Chinese EV miracle was also built on subsidies. By some accounts, China spent $231bn over a decade to prop up the industry, which now has spare capacity of 3mn cars, leading to cut-throat competition at home and dumping outside. That raises an important question. If EVs have truly come of age, why do they need state support? In 1900, US had only 8,000 cars. By 1915, there were over 2mn. Henry Ford's Model T – launched for $850 in 1908 and priced at just $300 in 1917, thanks to economies of scale – brought the horseless revolution without any state help. It's time electric cars learnt to stand on their own four wheels. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
India Today
44 minutes ago
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
India Today
44 minutes ago
- India Today
Billions in frozen school grants to be released, says Education Department
After weeks of uncertainty, the Trump administration said on Friday that it will release billions in previously frozen federal education grants, reversing a July 1 funding freeze that left educators scrambling across the Education Department confirmed it will begin sending the money to states next week, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget completed a review. The freeze had affected over $6 billion earmarked for programs like English language instruction, adult literacy, and summer enrichment activities — sparking lawsuits and bipartisan agreement ends an unnecessary distraction for school leaders and ensures students won't pay the price for political wrangling,' said a Department spokesperson. The freeze, aimed at aligning spending with White House priorities, had alarmed superintendents and nonprofits nationwide. In Maryland's Harford County, the withheld funds accounted for more than half of the budget for the district's annual summer camp for English learners. 'Without the funds, we couldn't have hired certified teachers or kept our summer programs alive,' one district official week, the administration partially reversed course by releasing $1.3 billion for after-school and summer programmes. The rest of the funding — covering everything from bilingual education to teacher development — will now Republican senators had urged the White House to act, calling the programmes 'longstanding' and 'bipartisan.' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said, 'These programs let parents work while their kids learn. They help adults gain skills and boost local economies.'The Office of Management and Budget had initially argued that some of the affected programmes supported a 'radical left-wing agenda.' But in a sharply worded letter, GOP senators responded, 'We do not believe that is happening with these funds.'Sen. Patty Murray slammed the administration for the delay. 'Because of President Trump, communities across the country were forced to spend their time cutting back on tutoring options and sorting out how many teachers they will have to lay off,' she grants under review included:$2 billion for teacher development and class size reduction$1 billion for academic enrichment, including STEM$890 million for English learners$376 million for migrant education$715 million for adult literacyMajor districts stood to lose millions. Los Angeles Unified received $62 million from these programs in 2022–23. Philadelphia schools got $28 million, and Miami's received over $24 districts also faced big gaps. Schools in Burlington, Vermont; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and Norristown, Pennsylvania received over $300 per student from the same the funds are finally unlocked, educators across the country are breathing a sigh of relief — and refocusing on classrooms instead of courtrooms- EndsWith inputs from Associated PressMust Watch
