WASHINGTON — A whirlwind first six months of President Donald Trump's second term delivered massive changes for automakers, at times winning widespread support across the industry and at others driving deeper wedges between competitors.

"We're seeing quite a different environment right now than we've seen in quite some time," said Glenn Stevens, executive director of MichAuto, the automotive arm of the Detroit Regional Chamber. "And the word division comes to mind."

Stevens recalled "unifying" times of the past, such as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when rival manufacturers shared best practices to navigate the sudden disruption of global supply chains. He said the current moment has been more divergent.

Mileage has varied, however, across the three main policy areas Trump has upended: emissions regulations, international trade and federal subsidies meant to usher in a more electrified future. Stevens and other industry players said the emissions changes have made nearly all automakers happy, while the others have caused more friction.

The biggest changes — to recap — have included a steady teardown of most tailpipe emissions regulations, volatile import tax levies that have hit automotive goods from both overseas and within North America, and the contentious ending or modification of tax credits for domestic production of electric vehicles and the high-tech batteries that power them.

"Those are all three issues that the industry expected there would be change within. We knew that," Stevens said. "What has surprised and even shocked people has been the magnitude and the velocity of the changes.

"I believe in the resiliency of this industry," he added. "But boy, it's been a tough year, with regards to this uncertainty and divisiveness."

Tony Flanagan, a managing director in the automotive and industrial practice at AlixPartners, agreed that there is a challenging climate but cautioned against overblowing the sense of conflict. He pointed to the contentious 2008 U.S. auto bailouts, which Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. still spar over.

"It's just different circumstances," he said. "President Trump is a different ingredient, but it doesn't change the real, real competitiveness there."

Emissions regulations

The main area of agreement between automakers, except perhaps for EV-exclusive companies like Tesla Inc. and Rivian Automotive Inc., has been Trump's pullback on pollution regulations. The industry's top lobbying group has been clear on that message since Trump won reelection last year.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which lobbies for the industry's legacy brands and several top suppliers, warned Trump in a November letter of "federal and state emissions regulations (particularly in California and affiliated states) that are out-of-step with current auto market realities and increase costs for consumers." The alliance has since cheered Trump's moves on emissions.

Tu Le, managing director of Sino Auto Insights, an innovation and management consulting firm with offices in Detroit and China, said that lobbying for lighter environmental rules is standard for the industry: "They've been pretty universal on that throughout history. That's not just this particular situation, that's been always. You can safely say they're unified."

Still, some brands are likely more relieved about the emissions changes than others, according to Sam Abuelsamid, an auto industry veteran and vice president of market research at auto communications firm Telemetry.

"I would say probably in the short term, at least, Stellantis is the happiest about it," Abuelsamid said. "It gives them some breathing space to put Hemi (engines) back into everything, and sell more of those and generate some profits off of that."

The other two major Michigan automakers, Ford and GM, have also indicated that they will save billions by no longer needing to purchase regulatory credits to bring their gas-guzzling fleets into compliance with now-defunct federal and state rules.

Even Toyota Motor Co., which features a hybrid-heavy U.S. fleet that averaged five miles per gallon better than Stellantis NV vehicles last year, supported Trump and Republican allies on policy rollbacks that specifically targeted EVs.

"We applaud President Trump, the House and Senate for rejecting (California's) unrealistic battery electric vehicle mandate," the company said in a statement after lawmakers took action to block the state's upcoming EV rules.

International trade

Trump's policies on trade and tariffs have been more — but not completely — divisive for automakers, industry experts said.

"All the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) have different manufacturing bases. They have different supply chains. But one thing is, they are all very much global supply chains. And they are all, without question, being impacted in the area of billions to their cost structure and to their bottom line," said Stevens of MichAuto.

Earlier in the administration, companies and trade groups banded together to oppose new 25% import taxes on automotive goods, especially from Mexico and Canada.

The Detroit Three — Ford, GM and Stellantis — successfully lobbied the president in March to back off from levying the tariffs on the United States' northern and southern neighbors. They pleaded that tariffs would be catastrophic for automakers' highly integrated North American production process and won exemptions for items compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement that Trump signed in 2020.

Those exemptions are still partially in place, though tariff bills are beginning to pile up even for North American goods.

The following month, six major trade groups — including domestic and foreign automakers, suppliers and dealers — made a united plea to top Trump administration officials to reconsider global tariffs on finished vehicles and auto parts. Their effort yielded a complicated rebate, but most of the tariffs remain in effect.

Since then, there has been some splintering in tariff lobbying, as the White House has reached tentative trade agreements with European and Asian trade partners but not Mexico and Canada.

The American Automotive Policy Council, which collectively represents the Detroit Three, condemned the July announcement of a trade deal with Japan that promised to lower automotive tariff rates on that country to 15%. But the AAPC did not issue statements on later agreements with the European Union or South Korea after those deals proved too divisive among automakers.

Ford, which builds 80% of its U.S.-sold vehicles within the United States, has been the most outspoken in criticizing a competitive disadvantage resulting from the trade agreements. Stellantis, which is headquartered in the Netherlands, and GM, which imports several popular models from South Korea, have been more muted in their responses.

"There's division between different OEMs of the same country origin, and there's certainly division between OEMs that come from a different foreign country," Stevens acknowledged. But he also emphasized that there is still unity on the industry's top trade priority: stabilizing relations with Mexico and Canada.

"The ability to have free trade when it comes to the automotive industry between our three countries is critical to our ability to compete on a global basis," Stevens said.

Even Toyota, which imported about a quarter of its U.S.-sold vehicles from Japan in 2024, emphasized the need for USMCA stability after Trump finalized his trade deal with the Pacific nation last week.

"While nearly 80% of the vehicles Toyota sells in the U.S. are made in North America, this framework provides much-needed clarity," the company said in a statement. "We are encouraged by this development and hopeful for progress with Canada and Mexico to continue providing our U.S. customers with affordable vehicles that fit their needs.”

EV and battery credits

On electric vehicles, the auto industry was unified in collectively — and unsuccessfully — fighting to save a $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of new EVs. But there was significant handwringing over a lesser-known policy meant to boost electrification.

The most contentious disagreement over policy changes this year was a crosstown dispute between Ford and GM centered on a key Biden-era credit for advanced battery manufacturing dubbed 45X. The program offered sizable incentives for battery producers and upstream industries to build in the United States.

The rival companies got into a fierce lobbying battle over the credit during congressional Republicans' process of passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the party's massive legislative package of tax cuts and spending. Politico first reported on the dispute in June, writing that it caused significant tensions within the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

The dispute centered around Ford's $3 billion investment in south-central Michigan for a new battery plant. The plant in Marshall has been controversial because of Ford's agreement to license technology from Chinese battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd., or CATL, for production at the facility.

GM, meanwhile, has U.S. business relationships with South Korean battery makers LG Energy Solution and Samsung SDI, though the Detroit-based automaker recently announced plans to purchase CATL batteries as a stopgap measure until a new battery plant in Tennessee comes online in 2027.

The U.S. House version of the bill jeopardized Ford's plant — which the company has said is more than half complete — by modifying 45X to block payouts to manufacturers that agreed to licensing deals with Chinese producers. The final Senate version of the bill ultimately spared Ford by providing more workable adjustments to the 45X credit.

General Motors was solely responsible for the more restrictive lobbying push, three sources familiar with the situation told The Detroit News. The sources spoke anonymously due to the sensitive nature of negotiations. They said no other automakers joined GM's fight to block subsidies for projects with China licensing agreements, and that their lobbying amounted to a move to hamstring Ford.

One source described the situation as "dramatic" and a "roller coaster" that did not relent throughout the monthslong negotiations over the bill in Congress. The more lenient licensing requirement was not put into the bill until about two weeks before final passage, the sources said.

"Don't be surprised, because this is how the car business is, particularly between Ford and GM," one industry leader said. "They try to kill each other."

Le, of Sino Auto Insights, characterized the situation similarly, making a National Football League analogy: "They're like the Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Commanders. They're gonna bicker and bicker, and they won't agree on the color of the sky."

He added, however, that the dispute was not a healthy sign for the industry: "I look at lobbying against each other on the policy side as (automakers) being uncompetitive. Instead of doing the hard work to make great products, they're kicking that can down the road via policy."

©2025 www.detroitnews.com. Visit at detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.