A dedicated EV is a car that was designed specifically to be electric, not just converted from a gas car. That can make it work better and be easier to build efficiently.
A hybrid uses a gas engine and an electric motor together. The electric part can help the gas engine and sometimes let the car move using electricity for short stretches.
General Motors is a big car company. Here, they’re talking about cutting some IT jobs to reduce costs while dealing with challenges in their electric-vehicle plans.
A write-down is an accounting “downward adjustment” when a company decides an investment or asset isn’t going to be worth as much as they thought. It’s basically a financial recognition of losses or lower future value.
USMCA is a trade deal between the US, Canada, and Mexico. The agreement gets reviewed, and changes to it could affect what car parts and cars can be made where.
A US content requirement is a rule that says some of a car’s parts (or value) must come from the United States. That can change where automakers choose to build cars and buy parts.
Bilateral deals are agreements between just two countries. The idea mentioned here is that instead of one big North American deal, the US could negotiate separate deals with other countries.
USMCA is a trade agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Automotive “talks” means negotiators are trying to change rules that affect car and parts pricing and where they have to be made.
Tariffs are taxes on imported products. If cars or parts are taxed when they cross a border, they can get more expensive and companies may change where they build things.
Rules of origin are the standards that decide where a product is considered to be made. For cars, that can change whether the vehicle gets special trade benefits or faces higher costs.
They’re talking about how many cars are being brought in from outside North America. In trade talks, the size of imports helps show how big the pressure is on local factories and jobs.
A rapid response mechanism is a fast way to respond when labor rights issues come up in trade. Here, it’s being discussed as a way to help workers access protections related to organizing and unions.
Concept
onshore more of the work in North America
Onshoring means moving production jobs back to North America instead of making them elsewhere. In car supply chains, it usually means more local parts and assembly.
Concept
China-EV deal
A “China-EV deal” is a negotiation about electric vehicles between the US and China. It usually affects taxes and rules for EVs and their parts.
LIVE
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.
About this episode
Mazda pushes back its first dedicated EV by two years to 2029 and “Go big on hybrids,” while GM posts major EV-related write-downs. The conversation then shifts to North American trade: tariff pressure and USMCA uncertainty are reshaping automakers’ planning, but production moves slowly because companies plan product cycles far in advance. With the USMCA review coming in July, Unifor President Lana Payne argues the top priority is removing Section 232 auto tariffs and tightening rules of origin to keep more work onshore.
Unifor President Lana Payne discusses what Canadian auto workers want from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement renegotiations, including its push for a “sell in North America, build in North America” rule. Mazda delays its first dedicated electric vehicle by two years and slashes its EV investment nearly in half, pivoting to hybrids. Plus, a look at Automotive News’ series on the state of trade in 2026.
