The Ford Super Duty is a big truck made by Ford that can carry heavy loads and tow trailers. People use it for work because it is very strong and reliable.
The Cadillac XT5 is a fancy SUV that is comfortable and has lots of modern features. People like it because it looks nice and is good for families or people who want a smooth ride.
Stellantis is a big car company made when two big car companies, FCA and PSA Group, joined together. They make lots of different cars under many brand names.
The Dodge Charger is a big car that can go really fast and has a strong engine. People like it because it looks cool and can be used for everyday driving or special purposes like police cars.
The Dodge Challenger is a sporty car that looks like cars from the past and can go very fast. People like it because it’s fun to drive and has a cool, old-fashioned style.
The Jeep Cherokee is a small SUV that can drive on rough roads and is comfortable inside. People choose it because it can handle tough places but is also good for everyday driving.
The Dodge Charger Six Pack is a fast and powerful car with a special engine setup that helps it go really fast. It's a muscle car, which means it's built for speed and looks cool.
A retail sales goal is a number that a car company wants to reach for selling cars to people like you and me. It shows how many cars they hope to sell in a certain time.
There are different levels of companies that make parts for cars: some sell directly to car makers, others sell to those companies, and some provide basic materials.
LIVE
Welcome to Daily Drive for Thursday, February 26, 2026.
I'm Jake Neer in Detroit in for Kellan Walker.
Today on the show, Stalantis UAW workers
face a painful first, no profit sharing checks.
Learlands, what it calls the biggest seating
conquest in history, and GM pivots to gas-powered vehicles
for mobile service.
Plus, Hanningman's Chauncey Mayfield
talks about what the Supreme Court tariff ruling really
means for automakers and suppliers navigating
refunds and uncertainty.
For the supply chain, one of the most important things
is predictability.
People can price risk, they can't price unpredictability.
in North America last year, posting a negative 3.1% margin.
Tariffs and falling sales were major factors.
The average payout for UAW workers at the Detroit
3 dropped nearly 40% to about $6,200.
Ford workers will get around $6,780 down from over 10,000.
GM employees can expect up to 10,500, a 28% decline.
Stalantis says decisive actions taken in 2025
will support profitable growth in 2026.
We'll have more on this story in a minute
with our own Vince Bond Jr.
Lear has scored a historic conquest by landing
Ford's next-generation Super Duty seating contract.
The win displaces Forvea, which supplied the program
for two generations over a decade.
Lear CEO Ray Scott called it, quote,
the largest conquest win in our history,
and I'd argue seating's history.
The Super Duty win extends Lear's hot streak
after also capturing GM's full-size truck
and SUV seating at Orian Assembly.
The loss is a painful blow for Forvea,
which posted over $2 billion in losses last year.
And GM is rolling out gasoline-powered crossovers
for its mobile service program
after canceling the electric bright drop van.
Starting this quarter, dealers can upfit the Chevy Equinox,
GMC Terrain, and Cadillac X-T5 for Mobile Service Plus,
cutting upfront costs by at least half
compared to the bright drop's $150,000 price tag.
Dealers pushed for the change,
citing concerns about the electric van's cost,
range, and size for navigating urban areas.
The move comes as GM targets significant growth
in mobile service, especially for fleet customers.
And those are today's headlines.
You can find more details on all of those stories at autonews.com.
Joining me now to talk more about Stellantis' first loss
as a company named Stellantis,
and the fact that UAW workers will get nothing
in profit-sharing checks
is automotive news Stellantis reporter Vince Bond Jr.
Vince, welcome back to Daily Drive.
Thank you.
All right, so Vince, the company's workers
each received more than $3,700 in profit-sharing last year,
total of more than $47,000 each as their share of profits
generated since FCA merged with PSA Group
to form Stellantis back in 2021.
How did we get here?
Well, looking back, it was several things.
And so if you remember, the charger, the Challenger,
the Jeep Cherokee, all those vehicles were dropped several years ago.
And so this profit-sharing check we're seeing this year
is sort of, I guess, almost like a culmination
of stuff that's happened in the last couple of years.
And so volume was down.
The charger came back last year as an EV
and volume was low for that model.
So now they're having the gas model come out this year.
So that should recover some sales.
The Jeep Cherokee, that was discontinued in 2023.
That was in a really important midsize market.
They are finally back in stores now.
They're starting to get into stores now.
That's going to be a mainstream volume player for them this year.
And then, of course, the Challenger,
I mean, that's not even around anymore.
So I guess they'll just have the charger in its place.
And so you look at those models that are lost
and look at that volume decrease over years.
It just takes a toll.
Then at the same time, dealers back in 2024,
they were warning slanners that vehicles were overpriced
and they were just piling up on lots.
And so slanners had to rebound by putting in
hefty incentives to move those cars.
And of course, incentives aren't free.
You've got to pay for that.
And so slanners had to put the bill on those incentives.
And now we're seeing the culmination of those as well.
So it's a big factor.
I mean, incentives, the tariffs that came in last year,
less vehicles to sell.
And so really this year, we might start seeing some improvement
just because they have more models coming into the market.
There's certainly a theme that we've been hearing
with any Stellantis bad news.
It's that a lot of these decisions that led to this
were made under our previous CEO Carlos Tavares.
We've got a new CEO now,
Rosie Day's ahead under all of the things
that he's trying to do to turn things around.
Looking ahead, Stellantis has several new products
heading showrooms right now, like you said,
the Cherokee, the Charger Six Pack.
Based on what you've heard from dealers in the company,
how realistic is this optimism
about turning things around in 2026?
So this year, they set a retail sales goal
of having a 25% bounce.
That's pretty ambitious.
I'm not sure if they'll get there,
but there are several models that are on the market now
that should push them in that direction.
Hemi is back in the 1500.
They're looking to move around 100,000 of those this year.
That could take a chunk out of that sales goal
they're trying to get.
The gas version of the Charger, that should turn some heads
and move some volume for that brand.
And the Cherokee, of course, is going to be a mainstream player.
The starting point is going to be in the upper 30s.
So if they can build those base models and get those out there,
they should do some pretty good sales overall.
All right, Vince.
Well, looking at your reporting over the next several months,
I guess we'll find out.
You're always on top of it.
Everything's Stellantis for us here at Automotive News.
Thanks again for joining us here on Daily Drive.
Thank you.
Coming up, Attorney Chauncey Mayfield
breaks down the Supreme Court tariff ruling
and explains why the auto industry supply chain
is still waiting for clarity on refunds.
That's next on Daily Drive.
Including the Commerce Department ban.
He also explains why the threat from Chinese automakers
might be overblown.
Coming in and getting a foothold is only the beginning,
but from there until you establish yourself
as a kind of an Americanized brand,
I think that will take decades.
I'm Molly Boygon.
Join me on Shift, available this Sunday,
wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome back to Daily Drive.
I'm Jake Neer.
Last week, the Supreme Court struck down
President Trump's reciprocal tariffs,
but the ruling doesn't affect the Section 232 tariffs
on vehicles, parts, and metals.
Still, suppliers throughout the automotive supply chain
may be owed refunds,
and the process for getting that money back remains unclear.
Chauncey Mayfield is a partner and leader
of the Commercial Transactions Practice Group
at Honigman in Detroit.
He joined our own Molly Boygon to explain
what the ruling means for the industry
and what comes next.
Chauncey Mayfield II,
partner and leader of Commercial Transactions
at Honigman's Commercial Transactions Practice Group
in Detroit.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
So, you know, a big decision came down
from the U.S. Supreme Court last week,
a 6-3 decision that said that President Donald Trump
overstepped his authority in issuing a certain set of tariffs
under a 1977 law.
How does this Supreme Court decision impact the auto industry?
Well, the first thing it does is it allows parties
to stop paying on those tariffs.
So, that's the very first thing.
So, in terms of the impact of the automotive industry,
as of Monday morning, they stopped collecting those tariffs.
So, now those tariffs are not going to be paid any longer.
Now, immediately following the decision,
of course, we had the 122 tariffs that Donald Trump put back on,
but some of those tariffs under that statute
are lesser than, could be greater than the IEPA tariffs.
So, it's a little bit more certainty for the supply chain,
at least for the next five months,
until we figure out what's going to happen with those tariffs.
And so, the tariffs that were struck down
by the Supreme Court were not the Section 232 tariffs
on vehicles, parts, metals, imports.
Those were implemented under a different law.
But my understanding is that sub-suppliers
or material suppliers from other countries
may have paid some of those IEPA tariffs.
Is that your sense as well?
I mean, is that really where this decision kind of gets
to the heart of some auto industry companies?
Correct, correct.
So, it's important to note that the tariffs are not going away.
They haven't gone away.
It's just these specific tariffs under this emergency statute
has been deemed unconstitutional.
But there are still the tariffs
number in the supply chain have paid, right?
Because the automotive industry is naturally,
it's global cross-border.
And so, a lot of different constituents
will be with Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 suppliers
are still buying goods from overseas
and importing those goods up the supply chain.
And so, how should companies proceed
now that the decision has come down from the court?
And in particular, I'm wondering if companies
that paid those IEPA tariffs should anticipate demands
from customers looking to basically claw back
some of their own losses because of those tariffs.
Do you anticipate that happening?
I do anticipate.
It's going to be kind of really case by case,
depending on the contractual framework
that any type of customer and supplier entered into.
I do expect though that a number of those contracts
would have provisions relating to,
if you get a refund on these tariffs,
you have to refund us back for those tariffs.
And that makes sense.
We're only going to, if there were price increases given,
they were given specifically for the tariffs
that were in place during that time.
Now, the confusion that's going to come up right now
and where the uncertainty is,
is relating to those tariff refunds.
Immediately after the decision came down,
on Monday, a number of companies,
especially those involved in the Supreme Court litigation,
filed lawsuits with the International,
the Court of International Trade,
to start the refund process.
I do believe that the courts are going to put forth
some sort of refund process,
but that's unknown right now.
So right now, companies are probably kind of in a wait-and-see approach
as to when that process of the refunds will come out.
And once that is clarified,
I do expect to see people pushing suppliers to get it.
And it could result in some disputes among companies
about those issues and when the money's going to come back.
Right.
So if I understand you correctly,
the importers that paid the tariffs
are still awaiting instructions from the government
on how they may actually get refunds.
And therefore, if their customers are still waiting on refunds
that may be obligated to them according to some contractual agreement,
they may have to wait a little bit longer
because that money actually has not started to flow yet from the government.
Right. That money has not flown yet.
And I'm curious about if this Supreme Court decision
and what you mentioned about the fact that companies
may have negotiated potential tariff costs and refunds
into contracts for this trance of tariffs.
If that type of thing is also present for companies
that are paying the Section 232 tariffs,
in other words, my understanding is that the Section 232 tariffs
are not up for review in the court, first of all.
Is that right?
They're not being currently challenged now.
Okay.
And so, but anyway, if they were,
is it likely that automaker suppliers, companies up and down the value chain,
would have also established contractual provisions
in the event of a refund for Section 232?
Or is that something that's specific to this IEPI tariff
that was applied, the sort of reciprocal tariffs applied by country?
Yeah. I think the biggest distinction to make is in the 232 tariffs,
those are more sectorial and more limited into the goods that apply to the tariff.
So we have to remember that those 232 tariffs, they were in place previously.
And so some of the customer suppliers have probably built those into
already the pricing of those tariffs.
And to the extent that those when they came back on again, similarly, yes,
there's probably provisions dealing with the pricing,
but those are more long term to be seen opposed to these IEPI tariffs.
Because you have to remember for the supply chain,
one of the most important things is predictability.
People can price risk, they can't price unpredictability.
And one of the things when you have a supply chain of long term supply contracts,
this fixed pricing contracts, when you have this instability in the tariffs,
especially what happened with IEPI, it really does throw a bit of a wrench
into how people are sourcing decisions and contracts in the life.
And so you mentioned also that President Trump responded to the ruling
by imposing a 10% global tariff under a different law, Section 122,
and then said he'd raise it to 15%.
Do you think that the 122 tariffs imposed in the wake of the Supreme Court decision
are on sturdier legal ground than the IEPI tariffs,
or are they also potentially subject to challenge?
You know, that is one of the things that I know a number of trade attorneys,
including ours, are looking into.
I think that to the extent they could be challenged, they will be challenged,
very similar to this.
So I wouldn't go out and say that they are not legally enforceable
as a matter of all right now, or they will be.
But I do believe that they will be challenged,
and people will test to see if they could be struck down
for the same or similar reasons of the IEPI tariffs.
There's also now, it's a lot to keep track of,
but there's also now new Section 301 investigations into different trading partners.
Do you have a sense of how long the government may take
to complete those investigations and make a decision,
and would the decision in that case be the imposition of additional tariffs,
or what is the outcome of an investigation in that situation?
Right. So from what I understand, the 122 tariffs allow for a 150-day period,
and the 301, the investigations are likely going to try to be completed
on or before the end of that time period,
so there's not a break in the tariffs, in the tariff collections.
And so I do believe that during that time period,
they are going to be doing investigations.
You have to be seeing what the outcome of those investigations will be,
but when those investigations do come out,
at least the administration is signaling that there will be additional tariffs,
and with the additional tariffs, there may be challenges to those tariffs again.
Got it. And then I also read somewhere that the Supreme Court decision
may be likely to halt or delay consideration of the section 232 relaxation for steel and aluminum.
So again, lots of moving parts here, but this is one of the tariffs imposed around the same time
as the completed vehicles and parts tariffs, and there is a tariff imposed on the import
of steel and aluminum. So is the government reconsidering the rate of tariff for steel
and aluminum? And do you agree with the contention that the Supreme Court decision
striking down the IEPA tariffs would make the government less likely to reduce the tariff rate
on steel and aluminum? I know it's out there. I haven't studied that specific aspect.
What I will say is from what I understand, the Supreme Court decision IEPA is completely
separate than 232. You've got to keep these two things separated because the Supreme Court only
related to IEPA, it did not touch 232. If somebody was going to challenge 232,
it would have to be done separately. And I know that the Supreme Court is not
reviewing any challenge to section 232. Are you aware of any meaningful challenge
even beyond the court and in some lower court to section 232 that may have an impact on the
auto industry? I am not at the moment, but I think it's one of those. I mean, it's a very,
you have to remember that the supply chain is very global, a lot of different moving pieces.
People are trying to, I wouldn't say reshore, but they're looking at their supply chains in
ways to reduce the tariffs. But again, tariffs have always been here and for the foreseeable
future will always be here. It's just going to be about one, the amount of those tariffs
to the predictability of what those tariffs will be. Because they've always been here,
but what really threw the supply chain into shock was the unpredictability and the movement
of those tariffs. Because you have to remember, parties enter into long term fixed price
supply agreements over years, not contemplating a new and changed tariffs. That being said,
people have started to try to contract around the tariffs to put forth discussions that may occur
if tariffs are imposed. But again, that's going to be on a case by case basis,
depending on the relationship, the goods at issue with the different customers and buyers at point.
So if I hear you correctly, the companies have started to make decisions around reshoring supply
chains. And it's not like you can make these changes overnight. And therefore,
they're sort of staying the course, is that what you're saying? That companies that
we're already investing in reshoring American manufacturing are going to just continue doing
that even regardless of the IEPA decision? I think so. And I think so. So tariffs is one input and
of course a ton of different costs that parties have to look at. And if a company made a decision
to onshore their supply chain, I'm not. I could not say that it's definitely because of tariffs
and tariffs alone. There's probably a number of companies that decided prior to the IEPA
tariffs to onshore and whether or not they were speeding it up or slowing it down depending on
IEPA. But it is definitely consideration into it. But you have to remember that onshoreing
or facility is a lot of different things that are going to be taken into consideration,
a lot of different inputs. And that is a cost to be considered. But that may or may not be the weighing
cost that makes a go or no go when it comes to that type of decision.
Chauncey Meefield II, partner and leader of commercial transactions at Haunningman's
Commercial Transactions Practice Group in Detroit. Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
That's Daily Drive for today. I'm Jake Nier and for Kellen Walker.
Thanks to our own Vince Bond Jr. and John Irwin for their reporting for today's podcast.
We also had reporting from Kurt Nagel of our sibling publication, Cranes Detroit Business.
You can get the latest news on supplier contracts, profit sharing, and everything
happening in the auto industry at AutoNews.com. Come back tomorrow for a conversation with
Kyler Owens of Wide Whale about its latest Voice of the Customer report.
For the automotive nerds around, there's so much great data to extract out of that and there's a
lot of dealers for a long time.
About this episode
Stellantis faces a challenging year with no profit-sharing checks for UAW workers due to a $2.2 billion loss in North America, driven by tariffs, falling sales, and discontinued models. Learland secures a major seating contract with Ford, marking a significant industry shift. GM shifts to gas-powered vehicles for mobile service, abandoning its electric van plan. Legal expert Chauncey Mayfield explains the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, highlighting ongoing uncertainty about refund processes for automotive suppliers and the broader impact on the supply chain's predictability.
