Honda Is Paying the Price for Falling for Biden-Era Climate Policies. Let’s Spare Others the Same Fate.

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

The importance of codifying into law the guarantee of affordable, reliable energy for all Americans is driven home by the current turmoil surrounding Honda, which “reported its first annual loss since becoming a publicly traded company in Japan seven decades ago,” as reported by the New York Times back in May.

Why did a company considered one of the most stable in the world suddenly suffer such a catastrophic about-face? In large part because it relied on Biden administration policies designed to funnel industries into a future where fossil fuels would be completely phased out.

Honda decided to gamble its prospects on the Biden era fantasy, but when Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the new administration quickly changed course, canceling policies that were based on climate change hysteria and resetting the economic course of the U.S. and, by natural progression, much of the world.

As described in a follow-up Times story last month, just five years ago, Toshihiro Mibe, Honda’s chief executive, “pledged that by 2040, the Japanese automaker — long celebrated for its mastery of internal-combustion engines — would spend tens of billions of dollars to phase them out in favor of electric vehicles.”

But consumer demand for EVs began to wane – not because of free market factors, but because consumers had been manipulated by government policies that either limited their choices or penalized them for going against the government grain. Putting all its eggs into the EV basket, Honda was caught flat-footed when government policies changed.

“Honda’s troubles reflect a broader reckoning across the automotive industry,” according to the Times. “In some ways, the company has become a poster child for legacy carmakers, from Volkswagen to Ford Motor, that wagered billions on a rapid shift to an electric future, only to be caught flat-footed when consumer demand cooled.”

Again, let’s say this slowly so everyone can follow: Consumer demand didn’t cool because fickle buyers couldn’t make up their minds between internal combustion engines and EVs. Deep into its story, the Times finally acknowledges the real reason for the briefly growing popularity of EVs in the first place: “The Biden administration added momentum by offering billions in subsidies and consumer tax credits.”

There we go. More than anything, the promise of billions in government subsidies convinced many consumers, automakers and other industries to go full-steam-ahead into a future where fossil fuels would be a distant memory.

Then what happened?

“In the United States, Honda’s largest automobile market, the Trump administration’s elimination of federal tax credits for electric vehicles has sapped demand, contributing to the automaker’s first annual net loss in its seven-decade history as a public company. It has since abandoned its goal of going all-electric by 2040,” according to the Times, finally nailing the determining factor of Honda’s fall – government policies that can fluctuate wildly from one administration to another.

Offering a real chance to bring certainty and confidence to the energy market – and avoid the kinds of wild industry swings that happened to Honda and others – is the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES) introduced last year by Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio). ARC-ES would guarantee that our most effective, affordable and reliable energy sources, such as natural gas, would always remain an important part of the U.S. energy mix – a certainty that would provide a steadying ballast for corporate decision-makers.

Despite seeing its influence wane at the federal level, the radical left climate movement has hardly given up. As noted here before, after reading the tea leaves from the Trump administration, the left has taken its battle to the states. Fortunately, the believers in affordable and traditional energy are also working at the state level, with Louisiana becoming the first state to codify ARC-ES into law, and other states considering similar legislation. As Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry said, state policy will be “to ensure our electricity is affordable, reliable, and clean energy security for our state.”

While battles are being waged at both the state and federal levels, what needs to be remembered is that the government policy has real and lasting consequences. And as the Democratic Party is rapidly being coopted by socialists in primary after primary, average Americans have more reason than ever to fear that government will – someday soon – mandate which energy resources are
acceptable, and which are not.

As we see with the case of Honda, private companies that plan their futures based on subsidies and mandates can face disaster when those policies – whether for or against – are suddenly reversed.

That’s why it’s crucial to bring stability to the political landscape – stability that can only be effective when all energy resources are allowed to be part of the mix, rising or falling on merit, not politics.

While embedding the principles of ARC-ES into agency rulemaking would be a good start, codifying them into law at both the state and federal levels while Congress, the White House and most states are under Republican control would make energy security much more reliable for industry planners.

While American industry deserves assurances that their long-term planning can confidently include affordable, reliable energy sources without those choices being mandated away by the next set of climate fanatics who might find themselves in office, consumers are at more risk than anyone of having their lives upended by the whims of radical left government policy. Let’s remove that risk and codify the guarantee of energy security for every American.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.7 13 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
106 Comments
July 19, 2026 6:38 pm

So…no mention of Trump’s tariffs that have added between $2K and $6K to the price of the cars depending on the Honda model?

This is what ChatGPT has to say

How much of Honda’s financial downturn can be attributed to costs associated with entering the EV markets?

A substantial part of Honda’s recent financial pressure is related to its EV transition—but it is not the dominant reason for the company’s recent downturn. The larger contributors have been tariffs, currency movements, softer global demand, and increased competitive pressure (particularly in China). The EV transition has added significant costs, but those costs are largely investments rather than operating losses.
Here’s how the factors break down.
EV investmentHonda has been spending heavily to catch up in battery-electric vehicles after focusing for many years on hybrids.
Major expenditures include:

  • Construction of an EV production hub in Ohio.
  • A multi-billion-dollar battery joint venture with LG Energy Solution.
  • Development of Honda’s own EV platform and software.
  • New battery technologies and next-generation manufacturing.
  • Reorganizing factories and supply chains.

These investments amount to tens of billions of dollars over this decade. However, much of this spending is capital expenditure that appears on the balance sheet and is depreciated over many years, rather than immediately reducing annual profits.
TariffsThe 2025 U.S. tariffs have had a much more immediate effect on earnings because they directly increase manufacturing costs and reduce margins on vehicles sold today.
Honda estimated that tariff-related costs would amount to several billion dollars over the financial year if the tariffs remained in place.
ChinaChina has arguably been an even larger problem.
Honda’s sales in China have fallen sharply as domestic manufacturers such as:

  • BYD
  • Geely
  • Chery
  • XPeng

have gained market share with competitive EVs.
China was once one of Honda’s most profitable markets, so declining sales there have had a significant impact on earnings.
Exchange ratesHonda also earns revenue in many currencies while reporting in Japanese yen.
Changes in exchange rates—especially movements in the U.S. dollar and Chinese yuan—can materially affect reported profits.
So how much is EV investment responsible?While it’s impossible to assign an exact percentage because the effects overlap, a reasonable qualitative assessment is:
FactorApproximate contribution to recent earnings pressureTariffsHighChina sales declineHighEV investmentModerateCurrency movementsModerateGeneral market conditionsModerate
The key distinction is that EV spending is largely discretionary investment for future competitiveness, whereas tariffs and weaker sales have an immediate impact on current profits.
In fact, Honda remains financially healthy by global automotive standards. It continues to generate strong operating cash flow from its profitable businesses in hybrids, motorcycles, power equipment, and conventional vehicles. The company is investing aggressively in EVs because management believes it needs to remain competitive over the next decade, not because its existing business has become unprofitable.
Ironically, one criticism often leveled at Honda by investors has been that it entered the dedicated EV market later than competitors. Some analysts argue that the current investment burden is the result of having to accelerate spending now, after several years in which rivals such as Tesla and BYD had already established significant leads.

KevinM
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 19, 2026 6:56 pm

tariffs that have added between $2K and $6K
About 10 years ago I could have trusted a quick Google check on that number. I’ll try now, but I shudder at the thought of the politics I’m about to endure.

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
July 19, 2026 6:59 pm

Sayeth Google AI: “U.S. tariffs on Honda include a 25% tax on imported vehicles and specific auto parts. These levies have significantly hurt Honda’s profits and led the automaker to cancel planned electric vehicle (EV) models in Ohio.”

The Google AI answer makes no sense in a way easily detectable to a literate human – Why would tariffs on vehicles made OUTSIDE USA encourage the closure of a factory that makes cars INSIDE USA?

It’s simultaneously disappointing and unsurprising.

Reply to  KevinM
July 19, 2026 7:43 pm

The parts sourced from outside the US are subject to the tariffs but the cars themselves (to a large extent) are assembled in the US.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 4:45 am

So the most significant portion of the vehicle cost has no tariff. Your AI answer found articles from climate change idiots which it used to construct its answer. That’s why AI using the internet for it’s knowledge base is useless.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 4:56 am

The value of the imported parts of the US assembled vehicle is far from trivial. Maybe nearly half of the bill of materials for some. And Trump has imposed import tariffs on those imports.

At the end of the day, US citizens are paying considerably more for many of their car choices because of those tariffs but its not restricted to cars. Many of the US goods have been impacted.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 5:16 am

Read my reply below. A bag of parts is worth a lot less than an assembled vehicle.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 5:24 am

I did read it. Read ChatGPT’s extensive response. It represents a tax on perhaps nearly half of the bill of materials and that’s far from trivial and could easily be in the range $2k to $6K depending on model.

Bryan A
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 5:37 am

Trumps desired solution would be to move the “Parts Manufacturing” for those imported, tariffed parts onshore thereby eliminating the tariffs and the cost goes down.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 20, 2026 2:30 pm

That’s what the tariff is supposed to ultimately achieve. But meanwhile US consumers pay the price. Literally.

Bryan A
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 3:49 pm

Well, He can’t control what Honda chooses to do can he. He can only make the business transition favorable by making the Onshore business environment more favorable

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 5:38 am

In fact, if you want to argue your case, here are ChatGPT’s estimated figures.

On a retail $30K honda manufactured in the US, what is your estimate for the complete bill of materials alone?

That’s a good question, and it’s one that automotive analysts have studied extensively. We can’t know Honda’s exact numbers, but we can make a reasonable estimate from industry cost structures.
A US$30,000 retail Honda (for example, an Accord, CR-V, or Civic Touring) typically has roughly the following economics:
Item Approximate Cost
Dealer margin $2,000–2,500
Marketing & incentives $800–1,500
Shipping & logistics $500–800
Manufacturer gross profit $2,000–3,500
R&D amortization $1,000–2,000
Warranty provision $500–800
Manufacturing labour $1,500–2,500
Factory overhead & depreciation $2,000–3,000

Bill of Materials (parts only)$15,000–18,000
So for a $30,000 MSRP Honda, I’d estimate:

Complete bill of materials (parts only): approximately US$16,500, with a plausible range of US$15,000–18,000.

What makes up the BOM?A typical breakdown of a $16,500 BOM might look like:
Component Cost
Body & chassis $3,200
Engine & transmission $3,500
Suspension, steering & brakes $1,500
Interior $2,000
Electronics & ECUs $2,000
Wiring harnesses $600
Wheels & tyres $900
Glass & lighting $800
Paint & exterior trim $700
HVAC $700
Miscellaneous fasteners, fluids, seals, etc. $600

Total: ≈ $16,500
Relating this to tariffsUsing the earlier estimate that around 40–60% of the BOM by value is imported into the U.S., the imported portion of a $16,500 BOM would be approximately:

  • Low estimate (40%): $6,600
  • Mid estimate (50%): $8,250
  • High estimate (60%): $9,900

This also explains why a 25% tariff doesn’t translate into a 25% increase in the retail price. For example, if $8,250 of the BOM were subject to a 25% tariff, the direct additional cost would be about $2,060. Once absorbed by suppliers, Honda, distributors, and dealers—or offset by sourcing changes and efficiency gains—the increase seen by the consumer is typically much smaller than the headline tariff rate.
The exact impact depends on which components are tariffed (not all imports necessarily are), the applicable tariff rates, and whether suppliers or Honda absorb part of the additional cost.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 9:51 am

ChatGPT’s cost figures are wrong. No company will tell you what the actual costs are. The one public figure is the destination charge. This is a federally mandated charge based on the average price of shipping a vehicle from the assembly plant to the dealer. All buyers in the US pay the same destination charge for the same vehicle even if they live next door to the assembly plant. The average destination charge in 2025 was $1551. Component parts are bought in huge quantities without individual packaging so the prices are much lower than what you would pay for the parts.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 2:09 pm

And ChatGPT categorised that as shipping and logistics and put a price of $500-800 on it for the $30K example car.

What do you estimate the BOM is and why?

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 6:42 am

Chat GP lies you can’t trust anything it says.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 7:46 am

ChatGPT’s LLM training uses Wikipedia as a trusted data source.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 7:43 am

ChatGPT and Google AI use Wikipedia as a trusted data source for LLM training.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 7:41 am

Honda has been shifting their supply chain to US sources since they opened their US production plants. Google AI seems to have missed that point.

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 4:33 pm

Exceptions for automotive parts were made at the behest of Ford and GM. Tariffs had little impact on automotive

Reply to  JTraynor
July 20, 2026 4:47 pm

Demonstrate it with some sort of reference if you think that’s true.

For example from here we have

How Will Tariffs Affect Car Buying? If new cars become too expensive, used cars will become more attractive. However, if demand spikes, used car prices may also increase. Here’s more information: 
New cars: Shoppers can expect the tariffs to increase car prices by as much as $6,000 on vehicles priced under $40,000. Higher car prices mean higher car taxes, financing, car insurance, and other ownership costs. This price pressure will make cars less affordable for consumers. 

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 7:21 pm

Ford 10K published February 11, 2026

Vehicle sales up 2023 to 2024 to 2025. No mention of tariffs. No mention of reduced sales from people holding on to their cars longer or buying used instead of new.

U.S. sales
2.0 million in 2023
2.1 million in 2024
2.2 million in 2025

Industry sales
16.1 to 16.4 to 16.7 million from 2023 to 2025

No indication tariffs had any effect on sales.

(EV sales dropped from 98,000 to 84,000 from 2024 to 2025 yet hybrids increased from 187,000 to 228,000.)

Full disclosure. I’m a CPA. CFO type. Manufacturing. I trust SEC docs more than speculative economic perspectives. I know how SEC docs are constructed. I know that playing fast and loose with data is a big no-no. Speculative statements are used carefully and center primarily around risks factors faced by the company.

I also was fully engaged in tariff analysis as they were coming out. I had to be. We manufacture in Mexico as well as U.S. and purchase electronic components from Chinese sources. Maybe I should write something on tariffs myself since I lived it first hand.

Reply to  JTraynor
July 20, 2026 7:42 pm

Maybe I should write something on tariffs myself since I lived it first hand.

Tariffs apply to Canada and Mexico and as I understand it, quite a few of the automotive parts are imported from Canada and Mexico. And for Asian cars many from Japan, China and so on.

If what you say is true, then you ought to be able to put dollar figures against the increases in prices. And there are some by definition.

You cant look at sales and reason tariffs had no monetary impact because the sales impact against the US company Ford will have been reduced due to greater monetary impact against brands that were impacted by the tariffs more. ie Greater against imports.

Hence sales that might have gone to, say, Asian brands, stayed with the US modesl…as you’d expect from the tariffs. That’s what they were designed to do.

So as far as I’m concerned, to dispute the dollar value increases due to tariffs, you’re going to need to do better than that.

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 8:02 pm

It doesn’t matter what the dollar price is. I could do a thorough analysis of the financials and figure it out but why? It’s not in the results. I knew it wouldn’t be because that industry got exceptions. Automotive in the U.S. is very well connected in DC.

The tariffs weren’t as impactful as many have been lead to believe. Companies are now looking to source electronics from places other than China. Vietnam as an example.

The greatest impact came when EV sales dropped. For example, factories in Mexico that manufacture harnesses got hammered when EV sales did not meet expectation.

The negative financial results reported by large automakers are aligned with impairments taken for large investment in plant, equipment and intangibles, when a review of potential sales did not justify the amount booked in PPE. It’s a required annual exercise per GAAP.

That’s the real world.

Reply to  JTraynor
July 20, 2026 9:52 pm

It doesn’t matter what the dollar price is. 

In what world doesn’t price matter? So do you agree that $2K to $6K would be about right against the Honda range in response to increases due to tariffs on imported parts?


JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:09 am

Now you’re just being silly.

1) you asked “why no mention of Trump tariffs?” establishing the fact that he resides rent free in your head.

2) I said “Trump tariffs were not mentioned because their impact was immaterial”

3) you went on about the price of this and the price of that and how people weren’t going to be able to afford cars anymore, or something.

4) I replied that this was not the case and presented information from Ford’s SEC 10K filing which showed that auto sales continued to rise in the U.S., not just for Ford but for all others

5) then you went on about Asian cars or something

6) I brought up again that the auto industry got exceptions from the tariffs

6a) I also said clearly that there was no reason to present price data because it didn’t matter. The tariffs were not materially impacting price.

6b) I also noted that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) require impairment tests, which is what was done and led to large write-downs of assets. Big losses for Ford and Honda as expected sales of EVs cannot support the cost to make them.

7) now your deflecting back to you ChatGP thing or whatever it was you used to mine information from Motor Trend or Car & Driver or the like

8) so … if auto sales did not decline during this period the tariffs did not affect sales of cars. Thus there is no need to mention it in the above.

This is now where you reply with something about how Trump is driving up the cost of air pressure making people have to file for bankruptcy.

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 8:29 pm

BTW. No tariffs on Mexico with a few exceptions on certain metals because Mexico has tariffs on certain U.S. metals, put there in the Biden years.

Have to do better than what? Goodness. Who are you?

You want people to believe that tariffs lead to lower sales figures according to a bunch of speculative data. But, the actual unit sales show otherwise. Not just for Ford but for total sales in the US. If tariffs increased the price, which I contend they didn’t because the automakers got exemptions (I guess I’ll have to dig up that email from Customs and Border Protection noting this) then it didn’t show in actual sales.

It’s like believing in climate computer models regardless if the actual results tell a different story.

Reply to  JTraynor
July 20, 2026 10:04 pm

I guess I’ll have to dig up that email from Customs and Border Protection noting this

You do that, Meanwhile if you look at the actual exemption list published by the Whitehouse and ask ChatGPT to analyse it to find automotive exemptions for parts, there are none.

Attached is the exemption list for tariffs for the US. Are there any exemptions relating to automotive parts?

(obviously I attached it and it responded)

Yes, but with an important caveat.
After reviewing the Annex, I do not see a broad exemption for automotive parts (i.e. the HTSUS Chapter 87 vehicle parts such as those under heading 8708). In fact, Chapter 87 tariff classifications do not appear to be included in the exemption list.
What I do see are:

  • Numerous raw materials used by the automotive industry, including graphite, rare earths, lithium compounds, cobalt, nickel, copper, aluminum ores, magnesium compounds, etc., which are exempt. These are primarily intended to ensure manufacturers can obtain critical industrial inputs.
  • Many industrial chemicals and specialty materials used across multiple industries, including automotive manufacturing.
  • A large number of aircraft-specific parts and components. Many otherwise generic products (alternators, starter motors, hinges, rubber seals, etc.) are exempt only when for aircraft use, not for automobiles.

For example:

  • Starter motors (HTSUS 8511.40.00) are exempt only under an Aircraft scope limitation.
  • Alternators (HTSUS 8501.61.xx) are likewise exempt only for aircraft.
  • Rubber seals are exempt only when not for automotive goods of Chapter 87.
  • Hinges are specifically listed as exempt when not designed for motor vehicles. These entries explicitly exclude automotive applications.

In other words, the Annex appears to have been drafted to:

  1. Exempt upstream industrial inputs (minerals, metals, chemicals).
  2. Exempt many aerospace-related products.
  3. Not provide a general exemption for automotive components.

This is consistent with the broader U.S. policy of maintaining tariffs on imported automotive parts while relieving tariffs on many of the critical raw materials needed by U.S. manufacturers.
If your interest is specifically Honda or other U.S.-assembled vehicles, I can also compare this Annex against the automotive tariff proclamations to determine which imported parts used in U.S.-built cars would still attract tariffs and which upstream materials have been exempted. That comparison can give a good estimate of how much of a typical vehicle’s bill of materials remains exposed to tariffs.

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:12 am

You’re clearly missing the point. Your lost in the weeds.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:45 am

I would not risk asking ChatGPT for any analysis since I cannot control of verify the information sources it uses.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 21, 2026 2:41 pm

I manually looked through the list myself too. You could do the same to verifyif you cared. I chose to use AI in case I’d missed something.

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 11:34 am

Those in the USMCA are exempt from tariffs. That’s most of Canada and Mexico. Point still stands. Tariffs did not materially affect sales of autos.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  KevinM
July 19, 2026 10:46 pm

You answered your own question — “and specific auto parts”. Why do you think they imported them, if not to use them?

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 2:54 am

Your numbers are off by a factor of 10. Most Hondas sold domestically in the US are assembled at plants in the United States. Tariffs modestly increased steel costs and supply chain costs for parts sourced in places like China, but that did not reflect a 1:1 increase in the price of the car at the point of sale. For a $30,000 Honda automobile made and sold in the United States, tariffs were responsible for about a $200-$400 price increase. That’s about the cost of a needless option such as a spoiler, mudflaps, or pinstriping.

Other auto makers primarily building automobiles abroad for export to the United States would have faced higher tariff impacts.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that billions spent on EV development and production were merely investments. That would have been the case if EV‘s were the wave of the immediate future. However, many auto manufacturers have been in the news of late as they wrote off billions of dollars, shut down production, and laid off workers because of the failed Biden era EV policies.

Also noticed that ChatGPT was vague when it asserted that EV‘s were a small part of Honda’s financial misfortunes. It mentioned tariffs among a number of other factors, but it provided no numbers to indicate proportion. I suspect that ChatGPT was trained to like EVs, so its answers are vague and biased. This is a good example of why one can’t just simply ask any AI system a question and then gullibly accept its answer as true.

Reply to  pflashgordon
July 20, 2026 3:27 am

Your numbers are off by a factor of 10. 

They’re not my numbers, they’re ChatGPT’s numbers. If you think they’re different, then how about providing something more concrete than pure speculation?

Spoiler TLDR: Based on the subsequent response below, $2K to $6K increase seems entirely reasonable to me.

Here is ChatGPTs response to your speculation

What proportion of materials used to build an average Honda manufactured in the US, are imported?

The honest answer is that no one outside Honda knows the exact figure, and it varies considerably by model. Honda does not publish a bill of materials showing the origin of every component. However, there are some useful data points that allow a reasonable estimate.
The regulatory benchmark: “American Automobile Labeling Act”Every new vehicle sold in the U.S. carries a label showing the percentage of U.S./Canadian parts content (these are combined under the law, so they are not separated).
Recent Honda models typically report:
ModelU.S./Canada parts content
Accord (Ohio)~60–70%
Pilot (Alabama)~60–70%
Odyssey (Alabama)~60–70%
Ridgeline (Alabama)~60–70%
CR-V (Ohio/Indiana)~55–65%
This means that roughly 30–45% of the parts value is sourced from outside the U.S. and Canada.
But that doesn’t mean 30–45% is importedThat figure combines the U.S. and Canada into one category.
If you’re specifically asking:

What proportion of materials in a Honda assembled in the United States are imported into the United States?

the answer is somewhat higher because Canadian-made parts are imported into the U.S., even though they count as “domestic” under the labeling rules.
A reasonable estimateFor a typical Honda assembled in Ohio or Alabama:

  • 40–55% of the value of components is likely manufactured in the United States.
  • 10–20% comes from Canada or Mexico.
  • 25–40% comes from overseas, particularly:
  • Japan
  • China
  • South Korea
  • Thailand
  • Vietnam
  • Malaysia

So, in terms of imports crossing into the U.S., it’s reasonable to estimate that around 40–60% of the components by value are imported, although a significant portion of those imports come from Canada and Mexico rather than overseas.
Why so much is importedModern vehicles are incredibly global products. Even a Honda built in Ohio typically contains imported:

  • semiconductors,
  • lithium-ion battery cells (or battery materials),
  • sensors,
  • cameras,
  • infotainment displays,
  • wiring harnesses,
  • rare-earth magnets,
  • aluminum castings,
  • specialized bearings,
  • electric motors (on hybrids and EVs),
  • electronic control modules.

Some of these components simply aren’t manufactured in large volumes in the U.S., or Honda sources them from suppliers with established facilities overseas.
The value versus the weightIt’s also important to distinguish value from mass:

  • By weight, well over half the car (steel, aluminum, glass, plastics) is often sourced from North America because transporting bulky materials long distances is expensive.
  • By value, imported components account for a much larger share because high-tech electronics and precision components are expensive despite being relatively light.

Bottom lineFor an average Honda manufactured in the U.S.:

  • By value: approximately 40–60% of the components are imported into the U.S., with roughly half of those imports coming from Canada and Mexico and the remainder from overseas.
  • By weight: the imported share is likely considerably lower, perhaps 20–35%, because the heaviest materials are typically sourced closer to the assembly plant.

This illustrates why tariffs on imported parts can meaningfully increase the cost of a “Made in America” vehicle: even domestic assembly relies on a globally integrated supply chain.

AWG
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 3:46 am

They’re not my numbers, they’re ChatGPT’s numbers. If you think they’re different, then how about providing something more concrete than pure speculation?”

So replace “ChatGPT’s numbers” with “pulled out of my ass” and basically you have reformulated the “I’m sticking to the Narrative and too lazy to verify — you prove my thesis wrong” or shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

There is always a disclaimer on AI chatbots that “AI generated content may be incorrect” and the better ones will cite their sources, and if you follow up, much of the time you get your numbers from propagandists and Narrative weavers. Think: “reddit”, “CNN” and “Mother Jones”.

What is far more disturbing, and one of the major arguments against the proliferation of AI LLMs, is the fact that a huge segment of the gullible population will accept AI output as of greater authority than The Word of God and they completely stop, if they ever started, applying critical thinking to whatever they are reading.

And I am not going to argue with AI slop from a chatbot that hallucinates and gets its training data from retards and its guidance algorithms from the highest bidder. I can spin up my own AI chat and tailor my own experience.

Reply to  AWG
July 20, 2026 3:53 am

That’s why its important to post the question used to get the answer. As you can see, my question was simple and designed to not influence the response in any way.

But at any rate, its obvious that many parts of complex “locally assembled” products are imported these days. The global supply chain with just in time manufacturing is prevalent and there’s plenty of evidence for that.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 6:46 am

I say again Chat GP lies, so it’s output cannot be trusted.

Reply to  Matthew Bergin
July 20, 2026 7:00 am

The media lies, especially when there’s money involved. ChatGPT is no worse and at least gives an answer with no inherent bias beyond anything in the training data.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 7:22 am

The fact that Chat GP lies, makes any answer you will get suspect and thereby worthless with out being confirmed by another none AI source. You can’t trust a liar.

Reply to  Matthew Bergin
July 20, 2026 2:13 pm

A lie has intention behind it. Media lies because it paints the picture its paid to paint. AI slavishly answers based on training data with no inherent bias.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 8:15 am

The problem is the LLM training sources. Any subject with a political aspect will be a highly tilted to the left by ChatGPT or Google AI.

Did ChatGPT include the sources?

Would these sources add a political tilt to ChatGPT’s reponses?

Reply to  isthatright
July 20, 2026 2:47 pm

Do you mean any LLM response that you don’t like has left leaning political bias?

It’s almost as if the purpose and impact of tariffs isn’t understood by the right leaning political supporters.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:48 am

Include the source data and I can agree.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Matthew Bergin
July 21, 2026 7:48 am

Chat GTP does not lie.
It is based on the evidentiary standard of the preponderance of the evidence.
If it finds a relevant something 100 times and a opposing but relevant something 10 times, guess which it chooses.

True, without control of the data sources, its output can’t be trusted.
Verification is everything in my line of work.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 8:09 am

I suggest that you tell ChatGPT to limit its sources to avoid giving you a re-hash of Wikipedia. I would also suggest comparing other AI engines’ resposes.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 9:55 am

But ChapGPT is overestimating the cost of the parts in the vehicle. The auto companies get them for cheap and make their money assembling them into vehicles that are worth a lot of money.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 2:16 pm

Put a figure on it. For example, do you really think the electronics in the $30K car cost less than $2K? Do you even know what electronics are involved in a modern car?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:46 am

All true, but why are labor rates not included?
Seems minimum wage and union rates have been going up.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 4:58 am

The tariffs are imposed on the cost of the parts imported from other countries. Other manufacturers in the US have to pay those same tariffs, so it is not a major extra cost to Honda. Another important factor is that even if 40-60% of the content is imported, the cost of the imported parts is not 40-60% of the vehicle cost. The cost of the vehicle is not the sum of the cost of the parts. There is a significant cost in the assembly of the vehicle and when you take account of the locally sourced parts that means that the tariffs did not add that much cost to the vehicle. And remember the manufacturer’s cost of the vehicle is not the consumer price of the vehicle. The tariffs on paid on what the manufacturer pays for parts, not what you pay at the parts store.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 5:14 am

Other manufacturers in the US have to pay those same tariffs, so it is not a major extra cost to Honda.

Its an extra cost to all the manufacturers (including Honda from the OP) that use imported components and ultimately those costs are passed on to the consumer making the item less affordable and less desirable.

That was the point of imposing the tariffs.

You can also speculate but at the end of the day, Honda’s sales and profits are down and I’m calling BS on the claim its primarily to do with years old Biden era climate policies.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 9:57 am

So Honda lost money because all the other auto companies had the same rise in cost structure? Sounds like Honda has some management issues.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:52 am

That was the point of imposing the tariffs.

Not sure if you stated what you mean.

The tariffs have 2 declared purposes.

  1. Move manufacturing into the US
  2. Address the massive negative balance of trade that is bleeding the US economy.
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 10:42 am

What were the tariffs other countries put on goods imported from the US before Trump came into office?

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 20, 2026 2:28 pm

You tell me. Especially if you’re trying to make excuses for, or justify a policy that costs the US consumer money.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 8:04 am

I suggest that you re-run your queries after telling ChatGPT not to use Wikipedia, Mother Jones, Reddit, the NYT as sources. I have compared the responses from many different AI programs on the same questions. The differences are not trivial.anything with a political aspect will be very different.

On one query, I got back an answer from ChatGPT that was very short and uninformative. The same query to Grok provided a very detailed reply.

Reply to  isthatright
July 20, 2026 2:19 pm

Use whatever AI you prefer but post the question used so we can see you’re not biasing the answer.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 7:28 am

ChatGPT’s LLM is trained on data sources which are highly politically biased. Therefore, it is not surprising that ChatGPT would redirect the blame for Honda’s woes to tariffs. This might sound reasonable if you ignore the fact that most Honda vehicles sold in the US are made in the US and are not subject to tariffs.

Honda’s lossed in the Chinese auto market are a direct result of subsidies paid to Chinese auto makers and their customers by the CCP. It’s hard to turn a profit when the government is subsidizing your competition.

Reply to  isthatright
July 20, 2026 2:38 pm

if you ignore the fact that most Honda vehicles sold in the US are made in the US and are not subject to tariffs.

To build the car in the US, Honda imports parts that aren’t manufactured in the US and they’re subject to the tariffs.

It’s hard to turn a profit when the government is subsidizing your competition.

Do you see the irony in your statement that was made in the same breath as trying to justify the tariffs? In the US case, the government is knobbling the competition.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 1:36 pm

First off, it is an AI whose data sources are unknown.

More important, you posted the information with no insults or demeaning remarks.
This then is a contribution to the discussion.

While the government subsidies and tax credits are universally at the top of the list, these other factors do play in, including tariffs.

As pointed out, tariffs are also not the “control knob.” It is a complex economic system at play.

And the bottom line is, depend on government policies at your own risk.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 20, 2026 2:24 pm

The tariffs are designed to do what they’re doing and that is disincentivise imports and encourage US manufacturing growth. Meanwhile the US consumer pays the price for that policy.

Derg
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 2:58 pm

Ahhh you are from China…now we get it.

Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2026 3:02 pm

I’m Australian and that means I have no dog in this race.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:54 am

I agree with your first sentence.
I disagree with your conclusion.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 21, 2026 2:38 pm

So somehow you understand that the tariffs add cost to imports (to encourage US manufacturing to grow) but at the same time don’t accept that US citizens are paying more for those goods?

JTraynor
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 4:31 pm

Most Hondas sold in the U.S. are made in the U.S. so little tariff impact. This holds true for Toyota as well. Toyota makes more of the vehicle they sell in the U.S. with parts procured from U.S. manufacturers than Ford or GM. Tariff impact is small. And would be just as impactful on Ford, yet their losses are driven by large impairments taken as EV investments becoming worth much less. It’s an accounting thing.

Reply to  JTraynor
July 20, 2026 4:44 pm

Most Hondas sold in the U.S. are made in the U.S. so little tariff impact.

The Honda’s are assembled in the US but the parts are sourced both from within the US and outside of the US. Up to about half of the value of the parts of the car come from outside the US and so the tariffs apply to about half the cost of the parts of the vehicle.

ResourceGuy
July 19, 2026 6:56 pm

Maybe Honda will learn from Toyota in the minimization strategy for very low volume and loss per unit with token compliance cars so ugly, even a Times reviewer can’t notice it.

Ancient Wrench
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 20, 2026 10:12 pm

And Toyota was roundly criticized for failing to buy into the EV hysteria.

Phillip Chalmers
July 19, 2026 7:15 pm

A reporter from the Washington Post wanting to run the world so that all AMERICANS live in luxury. Who would have thought it?
A maverick novel brand of nation which can only produce creeps as leaders like Clintons, Obamas, Bidens and Trump with the likes of Gore and Harris runners-up?
Get your civil war over and done with, and then get back to us with a more mature and equitable system of government.
How do you give NO stars?

Derg
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
July 20, 2026 1:53 am

Equitable?

Scissor
Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2026 2:41 am

One for me, none for thee.

Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2026 10:58 am

Just how is one (and only) vote for each US citizen of voting age NOT “equitable”?

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
July 20, 2026 3:11 am

What country are you from? Tell us about how well that’s going?

The United States is a constitutional federal republic, so I’d give us 50 stars.

Please explain the meaning of the phrase “mature and equitable system of government.” Provide five examples and explain why they are so perfect. Russia? China? EU? Cuba? Venezuela? Iran? …

AWG
Reply to  pflashgordon
July 20, 2026 3:51 am

I think Phillip is expressing a desire to “marry rich”. Sort of like the Ro Khanna or John Kerry method of success.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
July 20, 2026 5:01 am

I don’t know what country you’re from, but the standard of living of our poor in the US is not that much different from the median in most European countries. I haven’t seen many quality leaders coming out of Europe lately.

July 19, 2026 7:36 pm

EV’S are a dumb idea for most of the US. Sort range with long charging times with batteries deteriorating over time. They create a fire source when flooded, They do not work in the winter.
I never park next to one. I give them lots of extra room on the highway, I do not want my car burned to a crisp.

Bryan A
Reply to  Engineer Retired
July 19, 2026 8:05 pm

Fortunately there’s a “major tell” when an EV is about to undergo self immolation…they get upset and start fuming. Just stay away from those EVs that are upset.

Bryan A
Reply to  Engineer Retired
July 19, 2026 8:07 pm

Then there’s also the impracticality of trying to tow any weight and retain range.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Bryan A
July 19, 2026 10:48 pm

And trying to refuel them when they run out of charge on the road. AAA can’t bring you a gallon of electricity.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
July 20, 2026 5:39 am

But they can bring a rather large Diesel Generator to do the job. Ooooh the irony.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Bryan A
July 20, 2026 6:30 am

Is that what they do? That’s pretty funny. How long does it take to provide a minimum charge to get to the closest charging station?

Bryan A
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
July 20, 2026 9:22 am

That would depend on how far the closest recharge point is but generally an hour to recharge for 200 miles

Reply to  Bryan A
July 20, 2026 7:04 am

Oh you just gave me an idea. I should bid on the big generator at an auction I was just looking at, 125 Kw driven by a big V12 Detroit diesel. The picture of that beastie mounted on a flatbed supercharging a Tesla at the side of the road with the two streams of smoke billowing out of the exhaust at full song producing the wall of sound that only a screaming Jimmy can create would be a meme among memes. It would also get the job done but what a spectacle. 😉😊

AWG
Reply to  Engineer Retired
July 20, 2026 4:00 am

They are a dumb idea until they aren’t.

“There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs” — Thomas Sowelll

We all know the positives and negatives of the EV and would like to preserve the freedom and ability to make a choice.

Lets say that you have the ability to buy or lease a superior built car with provably higher reliability and plenty of desirable luxury geegaws in an EV at half the price of a similarly priced ICE.

Caveats: its made in China.

Does that change your choice for certain flexible use cases?

Price is a huge factor in many people’s decision matrix. One of the more interesting things is that price overrides even basic survival instincts as more and more US companies switch from using US based AI systems to the far cheaper Chinese models based almost purely on costs alone. Apparently they don’t value their IP.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  AWG
July 20, 2026 5:06 am

Well, you won’t be finding provably higher reliability in an EV from China. The average life of a Chinese EV is 3 years from what I’ve been reading. One of the main reasons there are no Chinese brands sold in the US is that in order to meet US safety standards the Chinese lose much of their cost advantage and the performance suffers dramatically.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 5:52 am

Can you give any references for any of that?

BYD is hugely successful in the rest of the world.

Why are BYD cars not sold in the US?

BYD cars are not sold to U.S. consumers mainly because of trade policy, not because BYD lacks the ability to compete. The short version is that the U.S. market has effectively been made inaccessible to Chinese-built passenger EVs through tariffs and regulatory barriers. (The Daily Automotive)
There are several layers to the answer:
1. Tariffs make the economics unattractiveThe biggest barrier is the tariff structure.
Chinese-built EVs entering the U.S. face very high import duties. The U.S. already had a 25% Section 301 tariff on Chinese EVs, and additional measures have pushed the effective burden much higher. (The Daily Automotive)
This matters because BYD’s competitive advantage is largely its low manufacturing cost:

  • BYD makes its own batteries.
  • It produces many key components in-house.
  • It has enormous production scale in China.
  • It benefits from a mature EV supply chain.

For example, a BYD Dolphin that might sell for the equivalent of around US$15,000–25,000 in some markets could become much less disruptive after:

  • shipping,
  • certification,
  • dealer costs,
  • tariffs,
  • compliance costs.

A vehicle that is designed to compete at the low end can lose its advantage if thousands of dollars of artificial costs are added.
2. The U.S. has strict vehicle regulationsA car sold in the U.S. must meet:

  • Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (crash requirements),
  • EPA emissions rules,
  • cybersecurity requirements,
  • software and data regulations.

BYD would need to modify vehicles specifically for the U.S. market, which costs money.
This is not impossible—Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, Honda, and Tesla all do it—but it is another hurdle.
3. BYD lacks a U.S. dealer and service networkEven if tariffs disappeared tomorrow, BYD would face a major commercial challenge.
A successful U.S. car brand needs:

  • dealerships,
  • parts warehouses,
  • trained technicians,
  • warranty infrastructure,
  • financing partners,
  • brand recognition.

Tesla avoided this by selling directly online, but BYD would still need to convince millions of Americans to buy a new Chinese brand.
4. Political concerns are significantThe U.S. government and some lawmakers are concerned about:

  • dependence on Chinese technology,
  • vehicle data collection,
  • supply-chain security,
  • the impact on domestic auto manufacturing.

This has created pressure to restrict Chinese connected vehicles. (The Wall Street Journal)
5. BYD has chosen to focus elsewhereBYD is not ignoring global expansion. It sells in Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and other markets. It has effectively decided that the U.S. is currently a poor return on investment compared with other regions. (Financial Times)

The interesting counterfactualIf BYD were allowed to sell freely in the U.S., it would likely put enormous pressure on American automakers.
A BYD Atto 3 (similar size to a Tesla Model Y) or Dolphin (small hatchback) could potentially undercut many U.S. EVs on price while still offering:

  • competitive range,
  • advanced battery technology,
  • strong warranties,
  • good equipment levels.

That is exactly why the issue is controversial: supporters of tariffs argue they protect the U.S. auto industry while critics argue they prevent American consumers from accessing cheaper EVs.
A particularly interesting comparison is with Honda: Honda is investing billions to build EV capability, while BYD already has a highly scaled EV ecosystem. The question for traditional automakers is whether tariffs buy them enough time to catch up—or simply delay the inevitable competition.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 7:06 am

Or is it because their nickname world wide is Burn Your Driveway

Derg
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 20, 2026 3:00 pm

Me is really beginning to think you are from China

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 21, 2026 7:57 am

Addiction to AI is sadly not treatable.

Bryan A
July 19, 2026 7:55 pm

What works BEST, what creates affordable, reliable energy is what should be utilized.
For Electricity that is NOT part time redundant generation ((wind and solar) plus battery).
For Transportation that is whatever the buyer/end user wants to spend their money on.
If that’s EVs then the buyer needs to be sure they can recharge at home.
If Fueling (Gas) Stations want to provide Quick Charging service it is at their cost and Electricity rates must be posted like gas prices. (Which will increase at Peak demand time then decrease after peak is passed).
Now nothing can stop a fueling station from installing Off Grid Solar and batteries to provide EV charging services then the price they charge is for Non Grid Energy.

AWG
Reply to  Bryan A
July 20, 2026 4:10 am

Now nothing can stop a fueling station from installing Off Grid Solar and batteries to provide EV charging services then the price they charge is for Non Grid Energy.

Work the numbers. I’m pretty sure that urban charging station doesn’t have several hundred adjacent, zoning approved acreage that can support the megawatts of solar panels and batteries required to operate (350 kW per fast charger multiplied by number of chargers per plaza) typical ideally operating solar panel 46kW per acre. (45-50kW planning power).

Bryan A
Reply to  AWG
July 20, 2026 5:43 am

Dang…reality has a nasty way of biting you in the ass don’t it!

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Bryan A
July 20, 2026 5:12 am

I thought it costs more to run an EV when charging at a commercial charging station than it does to run an ICEV. It’s only when you charge at home and don’t pay all the taxes that EVs are cheaper to run.

Bryan A
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 6:32 am

Can’t say either way but in Northern California, recharging during Peak Demand times is 56¢/KWh so recharging a 100KWh Tesla Battery is $56. If its a cold winter and you’re only getting about 1/2 normal range because of frigid temperatures then it’s actually costing $112 to go the same distance you do in summer on a full charge.
But then there’s the extra 1100lbs of your fuel tank and the wear is causes on tires (and brakes) requiring their replacement every 20,000 miles or so…depending on tire brand.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
July 20, 2026 2:22 pm

That same $56 will buy you 14 gallons of gas at $3.95 per gallon
Last year gas was $3.14/gal average so a 14 gallon fill was cheaper
Right now gas is $4.00/gal so 14 gallons is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2026 8:22 am

Not in California with residential rates at $0.35 per KWh.

Bryan A
Reply to  isthatright
July 20, 2026 9:25 am

35¢ is off peak while 56¢ is during peak…when people get home from work and plug in.

claysanborn
July 19, 2026 7:59 pm

All the automakers that lost $Billions lost the billions because they chose to ignore the Free Market System. Also choosing to go WOKE, they listened to politicians instead of their own customers. Their customers didn’t want BEVs. But they took the socialist tack anyway. Ignore free markets and lean socialist, everyone loses.

July 19, 2026 8:26 pm

It isn’t just Honda. Multiple global car companies have entered and then exited the Chinese market over the years – not all of this turmoil has been due to EVs.
Here is a partial list (with a Gemini assist) of total exits: Mitsubishi, Stellantis, Suzuki, Renault and Acura, while Hyundai/Kia, GM and Ford did major downsizing due to huge losses. The recent switch to EVs in China (pushed by the CCP) was just the final straw.
Ironically, the companies who entrusted their financial futures on either US or China lost their shirts, but for different reasons.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
July 19, 2026 8:31 pm

Simples….. the government bribed people to make EVs and bribed people to buy them. When the bribes disappeared so did the sales.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
July 20, 2026 11:05 am

And even with the bribes, not enough people wanted them for reasons other than just cost. (Even before Trump.)

GeorgeInSanDiego
July 19, 2026 8:40 pm

People have also figured out that electric cars have terrible resale value.

Scissor
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
July 20, 2026 2:50 am

Therein lies the major economic issue from a consumer perspective.

cartoss
July 20, 2026 2:49 am

Offer massive bungs of taxpayers cash to people willing to ‘invest’ in an EV and people will invest in an EV. Who knew??

Ronald Stein
July 20, 2026 6:46 am

The proof in the pudding is that the EV demand has failed to support the demand anticipated by the supply chain of numerous EV manufacturers.
 
The elites have bought EVs and will most likely continue to buy EVs, mostly as second vehicles, BUT demand has evaporated as we’re running out of elite buyers, and the common folks cannot afford the MANDATED transition.
 
Major companies including Ford, GM, Stellantis, Honda, and Rivian are scaling back EV investments, canceling models, and pivoting back towards hybrids to manage these losses and align with consumer demand. 
 
Automakers have incurred an estimated $20,887 loss on each EV produced over the last three years.
·       Ford Motor is taking a $19.5 billion write-down and is removing several electric-vehicle (EV) models from its line-up.
·       GM wrote down $1.6 billion in EV assets and indicated that more write-downs are expected.
·       Stellantis reported a massive $26.3 billion net loss for 2025, driven by roughly $30 billion in write-downs and charges related to a strategic retreat from aggressive electric vehicle (EV) targets.
·       Honda warns of $15.7 billion EV charge as auto business losses deepen.
·       Rivian faces severe financial challenges, primarily driven by massive cash burn and billions in losses, and softening EV demand. 
 

Sparta Nova 4
July 21, 2026 8:02 am

Many of the posts involve points about tariffs.

The thrust of the article is:
“consumers are at more risk than anyone of having their lives upended by the whims of radical left government policy”

A fundamental point: Radical, yes, left, not necessarily. Any radical government policy puts the citizens are risk.

Now, the more curious observation is:
Those adamantly against the tariffs are also those adamantly in favor of “carbon cap and trade,” “carbon offset markets,” and “carbon taxes.”
To my way of thinking those are pseudo tariffs put in place under a different name.