May 12th, 2026 | Unifor President Lana Payne on USMCA talks; Mazda delays EV by 2 years

Welcome to Daily Drive.

For Tuesday, May 12, 2026, I'm Kellan Walker in Las Vegas.

Today on the show, Mazda delays its first dedicated EV by two years.

GM cuts hundreds of IT workers as it looks to reduce cost, and South Korea explores using

Hyundai robots for its shrinking military.

Plus, Uniform President Lana Payne joins the show to talk about what Canadian auto workers

want from USMCA negotiations.

Canada cannot become the Australia of the North, which it just can't.

We've had an auto industry for over 100 years.

We have to do everything we can in this set of negotiations to protect it.

Let's run through all the news you need to know to keep up in the auto industry.

Mazda is hitting the brakes on its big EV push.

The automaker just delayed its first dedicated electric vehicle by two years to 2029.

It also slashed its EV investment nearly in half to $7.52 billion.

The new plan?

Go big on hybrids.

Mazda is adding three new gasoline electric models by 2030 and leaning on EVs built in

China with partner Chang'an to ship to Europe and other markets.

Bottom line, Mazda now expects EVs to make up just 15% of its sales by 2030.

That's down from an earlier forecast of 25 to 40%.

Back here in the States, EV investment woes and stagnant US sales are pushing General

Motors to look for ways to cut costs.

GM is cutting 500 to 600 information technology workers globally as it restructures the department.

Bloomberg News reports management started notifying employees Monday morning.

GM has taken $8.7 billion in write downs tied to its EV business and already trimmed hundreds

of salaried workers last October.

The automaker says the reductions are part of an effort to transform its IT operations.

And South Korea is exploring a partnership with Hyundai Motor to deploy robots for surveillance,

reconnaissance, and logistics as its military shrinks.

The country's standing forces have dropped 20% in the past six years to 450,000.

And they projected to fall to 350,000 by 2040.

That's thanks to a record low birth rate.

The Korea Economic Daily reports potential deployments could include Boston Dynamics

four-legged spot robot, the four-wheeled mo-bed droid, and exible shoulder exoskeletons.

And those are today's headlines.

You can find more details on all those stories at AutoNews.com.

This week, we at Automotive News are publishing a package of stories looking at how tariffs

are reshaping North American trade.

Joining me now to talk about it is John Irwin, who helped put that package together.

John, welcome to Daily Drive.

Thanks for having me on.

All right, John.

So why haven't we seen more production actually move to the US despite all the tariff pressure?

Long story short, it's because it's just going to take time.

Whatever moves automakers end up making, it just takes a good amount of time for that to actually happen.

These are companies that plan product cycles out 567 years ahead of time.

And even with tariff pressures costing companies billions of dollars,

it's not typically something that they can really move around very quickly.

We have seen some automakers when they're able to increase production in the US so that maybe

they're less reliant on importing that same vehicle if they supplement their US production with

foreign production.

We've seen tweaks around the edges like that that some automakers have been able to pull off.

But overall, it's something that's just going to take time.

And automakers need clarity as well.

That's something that still more than a year since auto tariffs have come into effect

and all the other major tariffs that they've been dealing with have come into effect.

It's still something where companies don't feel like they have a lot of clarity on where things

stand long term, where tariffs might settle.

We've seen some court decisions, obviously the Supreme Court one being front and center there

that have maybe said, okay, where are tariffs going to land?

It's hard to say long term.

Obviously USMCA negotiations are looming this year.

And that'll be the big one, I think, as far as getting automakers in North America a little

more clarity on, okay, what are the trade rules here going to look like long term?

Right now, it's still kind of up in the air.

So yeah, automakers need a little more clarity as far as making those decisions.

And when they do make the decisions, it's going to take time yet to your point.

There's not been a lot of change.

S&P Global Mobility estimates that this year about 55, 56% of the overall US

new vehicle market will be comprised of vehicles that were made in the US.

That's up slightly from 54% in 2024.

I've seen a little bit of an increase in vehicles from Mexico as well, slight decrease

from Asia, but it's not a huge difference from the past couple of years.

So yeah, if there's going to be any big significant moves, it's going to take time

over the course of years and not something that we'll see happen overnight.

Well, we're about to hear from Unifor President Lana Payne about what Canadian auto workers want

from the USMCA review coming up in July.

What are automakers bracing for?

A little bit of everything.

They're trying to, they're game planning for as many scenarios as they can to that point

about there being a lot of uncertainty.

There's a wide range of outcomes here with the USMCA.

If you look at what automakers would like to happen, if it were up to most of them,

they would say, let's keep the USMCA in place and largely as is, maybe with some tweaks around

the edges, but as it exists right now, that's basically the takeaway that the government has

received from automakers and the feedback that it's gotten.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of scenarios where the US might be asking for

significant changes.

Something that's been floated as a possibility from the US, for example, is a US content

requirement. So in addition to having 75% of the value of a vehicle having to be sourced in

North America, in addition to that, some percentage would have to be sourced from

within the US itself.

That's something that's going to get a lot of pushback from Canada and Mexico.

But that would obviously have huge impacts on where automakers might decide to invest,

what vehicles they're going to build in the market, that sort of thing.

It's just a lot of different outcomes there.

And then Trump has also floated in the past, leaving the agreement entirely,

maybe going with bilateral deals instead.

That's something that automakers have pushed hard against.

But it's something that they're probably going to need to plan for,

game plan for at least, whether that's a negotiating tactic by Trump,

whether it's something that's being seriously considered or not,

sort of still up in the air.

But it's certainly a possibility.

So yeah, anything from USMCA clean extension through USMCA getting blown up,

something that automakers are going to need to kind of game plan for.

And then there's also the possibility, when are we going to see a resolution here?

The review is this year in July, but they don't have to necessarily

agree to anything that year.

It could become a period of annual reviews, the negotiations can continue on beyond July.

So it might be a very long stretch of time before we get any sort of clarity here.

So automakers sort of bracing for that and bracing for a wide range of scenarios here.

Perfect.

John Irwin, thank you so much for joining me.

Thanks so much.

You can find our full package of stories on the state of trade in North America at autonews.com.

The US-Mexico-Canada agreement review is coming up in July,

and all three countries are gearing up for what could be contentious negotiations.

For Canadian auto workers, the stakes are high.

Section 232 tariffs on autos have created uncertainty

and threatened investment in Canada's auto sector.

Lana Payne is president of Unifor, Canada's largest auto worker union.

She joins David Kennedy of Automotive Use Canada to discuss

what the union wants from USMCA negotiations.

Lana, thanks for being here.

As we tee up USMCA talks with the United States,

I'm just hoping you can spell out Unifor's wish list to start me off here.

What do you want to see on the automotive file?

Obviously, our first priority is to get the tariffs removed that have been applied

through the Section 232 on autos, but on all sectors in the Canadian economy.

That has to be a priority because any discussion on things like rules of origin

or all of these other items that will likely become part of the negotiation around auto

are kind of useless and futile until we get to a place where we're discussing

and having those tariffs removed.

So that's our number one priority.

Our second priority is to advocate for the position that we've talked about

for over a year now.

And that is if you sell in North America, you build in North America,

and to try to get the US to focus on where the real problem here.

The problem is not Canada.

The problem is we have regional auto industries around the world.

And in the case of where we live, it's North America.

And in that region, we need to be able to have an agreement that treats working people fair

in all three countries.

But also that focuses on this very big problem we have.

And that is we are importing 5 million cars, which is about 22% of the market,

probably a little higher.

In the US, it's 22%.

So they're importing 3.5 million cars that are not built in North America.

And that becomes a really big problem because that number continues to grow.

And so you can't enhance or have a more robust supply chain, have a more robust

manufacturing sector in auto and otherwise if you're not doing something about the free riders.

And so the importers in my mind are the free riders and it's become a bigger problem.

And that is really where we need to focus in the Kuzma talks.

And nobody has given me, I would say, a reason why we should not go down this path.

If we truly want to protect the Canadian auto industry, these are the kinds of discussions

that we need to be having at the table.

And it's in the Americans interest to solve this problem too.

Because obviously, 5 million cars is 20 assembly plants worth of work.

That is where we need to be focusing.

How do we bring more of that work to North America, not just sharing up a shrinking pie,

which is what we would be doing if we're only focusing on the North American manufacturing base.

Right. And obviously you mentioned Section 232 for auto, that's really the problem here we know.

The review is more encompassed in the wider review here.

But for Canada, how important is getting Section 232 ironed out to these overall discussions?

Is it worth having this review for Canada without fixing what's gone on in 232?

Yeah, I mean, the reality is we have to deal with this.

We have seen a very large segment of our industrial base that has been impacted.

The uncertainty, the attack on investment, I would say that we have lost.

And once you're out of an investment cycle, we all know that means you better make it into the

next one. This is part of the problem. It's not even what's happening today.

It is also what will happen tomorrow and next year if we're unable to resolve this.

And Canada cannot become the Australia of the North, which it just can't.

We've had an auto industry for over 100 years.

We have to do everything we can in this set of negotiations to protect it.

And protect it so that we are actually protecting the foundation of an industrial

economy in Canada, because the auto industry is so linked to all of these other elements,

whether it is the steel industry, the aluminum industry in Canada,

the inputs for the auto industry, all of that is important. Mining, you name it,

it's all connected in the supply base. But also, I would say to you, the benefit and the ecosystem

that gets created around the auto sector, whether it is the engineering work that occurs,

the software work that occurs, that also is very important for the broader advanced

manufacturing sector in Canada. We are a nation of builders. We can't have,

I would say to you, it is so critical to have a strong manufacturing sector,

because that is also part of how you maintain and protect your own sovereignty and your own

national interests. Once that capacity is gone, it's a very, very big problem.

A lot at stake right now, but also, I believe there is a pathway through this,

and Canada is smart about what we need to do. We've negotiated many deals, and I'm happy to

be part of the advisory committee now with the prime minister and with our trade minister to

work our way through this. And it'll be all hands on deck, because that's what we're going to need.

There is a lot at risk right now. And as we've already seen over the past few weeks,

the temperature in the rooms going up a little bit, we're seeing some more rhetoric fly.

Beyond that, in your conversations with both officials in Canada and the U.S.,

are you seeing appetite for a deal? What I see is the conditions right now of what these tariffs

have done to the United States and to Canada. The U.S. manufacturing sector has been hurt

dramatically by the tariffs that they've put on Canadian goods, whether or inputs,

whether it's aluminum or steel or whatever the case may be. Obviously,

the closer you get to a deadline, the more important it is to focus in. I mean,

this is true of union negotiations the same way as it is of negotiating trade agreements.

I believe when you listen right now, you're going to get, because it's almost like the

pre-negotiating stage, there'll be a lot of posturing. That is to be expected. And

what I would say to Canadians is don't be too fussed by that. We have a job to do at the

bargaining table, and hopefully we're successful there. I do believe the U.S. needs an agreement

with us. We are their number one customer, and we have created leverage for ourselves as well.

Outside of the leverage that we naturally would have, you hear it often from James and Greer,

they are not happy with the fact that American chardonnay, booze, have been removed from many of

the shelves in Canada. That gives us a leverage point in negotiations. And we have others. We

have lots of strength here based on the fact that energy is, if you look at the energy markets and

the fact that Canadian energy is needed in the United States, if you look at aluminum, despite

the fact that there's a tariff on it, my gosh, does the U.S. need our aluminum right now?

Despite what the president will say, the whole situation in Iran has created, I would say,

even more conditions that are favorable to Canada to be able to get to a place where we're

getting a trade deal. The other thing I would say, though, is that it's very unlikely that this is

going to be sorted by July 1. And so it's really important for us to put this in perspective.

I had no expectations that this would be done by July 1. So I don't want people to feel disappointed

that that's the case. We just carry on. And we put our heads down. We negotiate as much as we can.

And then in the reality, if we get to a place where a deal isn't possible, we'll have to deal with

that outcome at that time. Yeah. And you mentioned Canada being the U.S.'s best customers. Certainly

when it comes to auto, there's no argument. There's no other market for D3 pickup trucks,

for instance. Canada's the one that buys those, really, almost exclusively.

So are you seeing the companies who you represent or members working at the companies who you

represent step up a little bit more and make that argument in the United States?

Yeah. I mean, obviously, many of them have been doing some of this, what I would say,

behind the scenes. In other words, not in op-eds and all of that. But certainly you

have seen Jim Farley speak very clearly, the CEO of Ford Motor Company, about needing

a Kuzma USMCA, depending on what country you're in. We use different acronyms.

That this is important to Ford Motor Company. It's important to the auto industry. And that we

should focus on where our bigger problems are, for example, China. And I'm in agreement on a lot

of those things, I would say, is we have to work together here. He's been very clear from the beginning

that we needed an ability to get an agreement around autos and that Kuzma. If we had to tinker

around edges to do things, we had a whole priority list before we got into this trade war around how

we saw Kuzma could be improved. For example, the rapid response mechanism, which I'm sure you're

aware of, which basically lays out an ability to protect things like freedom of association and

unionization, which was available to Mexican workers. Our position is that this should be

available in all of North America. There may come a time, for example, and this is where I would be

propositional, where workers in the Southern United States or other US states where there are

right to work laws, that they may also feel that their rights are being infringed, their freedom

of association is being infringed, and therefore should be able to have access to the rapid response

mechanism. So that was one of our priorities. Obviously, talking about rules of origin so

that you could increase and onshore more of the work in North America was very important.

But all of that is in column B, I would say to you right now. The main priority is getting the

tariffs removed, having the side letter respected, and then looking at what else can we do together

to improve the auto industry for North America.

And just one final question. Obviously, the one other thing that's happened over the past few

months is China, where they brought a pretty big policy change from Ottawa that probably hasn't

made things simpler in these discussions. So just take me through what that's done in the

buildup to these talks and where you expect it to go on the China-EV deal.

I'm totally expecting the US to have this as an irritant, I think is the word that they've been

using the same way that having a wine off the shelves here in Canada is an irritant for them.

The problem we have, of course, is that our experience with China is that they have a massive

overcapacity in their part of the world in terms of auto production. They want to dominate the

global auto industry. That is their goal. And they will not make an ounce of profit

until they get there, until they can control the market. They're okay to take a loss for

the rest of time, and they're able to do that for all of the reasons that we know.

So this is a very problematic area, and I do expect that the US will raise this. I expect the

issue of forced labor to be also something that gets discussed, all of those things for sure.

Because the reality is, we're not increasing our supply chain base in the auto industry with

adding China to the ability to just send cars into Canada and sell them here without actually

having to manufacture anything here, which is why we've been very clear China is a problem,

but so are all these other countries that import virtually for free, while the rest of us are

trying to build things in North America and employ Canadians and Americans and Mexicans.

That is how do we, as three countries, secure that, improve on that, and deal with this other

problem over here. And I believe we're going to have to get there, and China is just kind of

sitting back quietly right now. The US is in some ways driving many nations to China,

and Canada has done this China deal allowing the importation of China-built EVs.

We've seen around the world, if you look at some of their companies,

they don't actually build up supply chains. What they do is they build the cars in China,

they send them in a box to a factory wherever that factory is, and they're assembled from a

down kit and very little work is involved. That cannot be the future of the auto industry in

Canada or North America. We will all be losers if that's the future.

Uniform President Lana Payne spoke with David Kennedy of Automotive News Canada.

Check out all of our reporting on the state of trade at AutoNews.com.

That's Daily Drive for today. I'm Kellan Walker. Thanks to Automotive News executive producer

Jake Nier, as well as our own John Irwin and Hans Grimel for their reporting for today's podcast.

You can get the latest news on USMCA negotiations, automakers, EV strategies,

and everything happening in the auto industry at AutoNews.com. Come back tomorrow for another

perspective on North American trade talks with Flavio Volpe, President of the Automotive

Parts Manufacturers Association. Anybody making cars in the US or Canada knows that they need to

see an end to these tariffs. And so the president, after potentially losing the house, is still being

on the wrong side of American automotive manufacturing. I don't know that that's a tenable position.

We'd love to hear from you. Let us know as you think of the show and the topics we cover today.

Send us an email at dailydrive at autonews.com or leave us a voicemail at 313-444-2774.

And if you enjoyed the podcast, remember to like, leave a review, and subscribe so you never miss an episode.

May 12th, 2026 | Unifor President Lana Payne on USMCA talks; Mazda delays EV by 2 years

About this episode

dedicated EV

hybrids

Chang'an

General Motors

write downs

USMCA review

US content requirement

bilateral deals

USMCA talks

tariffs

Section 232

rules of origin

importing 5 million cars

rapid response mechanism

onshore more of the work in North America

China-EV deal

Request an Explanation

Want to learn more?

Help improve this episode

More from Automotive News Daily Drive