Panic in Trump heartland as tariffs choke investment

President Donald Trump's tariff policies are posing a threat to the revival of US manufacturing.
A push for a 'Made in America' renaissance has been a key priority for the White House, with particular focus on the American Rust Belt.
But companies are warning how turmoil and confusion around Trump's trade wars is slowing the progress made in reinvigorating American factories.
The latest jobs report revealed that manufacturing jobs declined by 8,000 last month - the most this year so far.
Anxiety is high in the Midwest, which remains home to the largest concentration of US manufacturing jobs — despite losing tens of thousands of workers to offshoring in the early 2000s.
'Overall, it is going to be a drag on the US economy,' Gus Faucher, chief economist for PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh, told Bloomberg.
'In particular, it's going to be a drag on the Midwestern economy.'
US factory activity also contracted in May for the third month in a row.
The Midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin lost almost 2 million manufacturing jobs between 1998 and 2010, Bloomberg reported.
This was due to companies looking to cheaper production and labor outside the US - in China in particular.
In recent years, a cautious optimism had returned, as supply chain shocks from the pandemic pushed some companies to bring production back to the US.
But frequent changes and uncertainty around where Trump's tariff policy is headed has 'got people spooked,' Andrew Anagnost, CEO of Autodesk, told the outlet.
The company sells software used by manufacturers to design factories and improve processes.
'The current operating mode is just the death to long-term investment,' he said.
While construction projects that were already underway are still going ahead, he added, confusion about the future is stalling new work.
Some states are harder hit than others by tariff plans.
Illinois, for example, will see a 16 percent increase in effective tariff rate on manufacturing inputs, according to the National Association of Manufacturers.
This means that the total cost of importing goods used in production increases, which could lead to reduced profits, supply chain shocks or higher prices for consumers.
Minnesota will also see a 16 percent increase, while Missouri is facing a 15 percent hike.
The sense of uneasiness is particularly strong in the automotive industry, which is facing 50 percent tariffs on steel imports, a measure Trump announced at an appearance at Irvin Works, a steel plant outside the Pittsburgh city limits in West Mifflin, last month.
Kenosha, Wisconsin-based company Snap-on provides tools used by car mechanics.
Its CEO told Bloomberg that while the company can manage the impact of tariffs as it mostly serves US customers with domestically-made products, auto shop workers are 'confidence poor.'
Nicholas Pinchuk said customers are worried about economic disruption even if they are fans of the President.
'They're still big Trump fans. This is Trump territory. They believe in where we're going, but they're worried that something's going to happen,' he said.
Even companies that stand to benefit from tariffs are expressing anxiety about what the future might hold.
Ross Widmoyer, CEO of textile manufacturing company Faribuault Mill, told the outlet he has been getting calls from retailers looking for a producer in the US.
But he is still concerned that the trade wars could impact economic growth.
'If there's a slowdown in consumer spending, it doesn't matter if you're making products domestically or overseas, and that's not good for anybody,' Widmoyer, who is also chairman of the Minnesota Manufacturers' Council, said.
The Trump administration has pointed to announcements from major companies of planned investment in the US as proof the policies are working.
For example, Volkswagen's CEO confirmed last month that the company is looking to make a 'massive' US investment.
Oliver Blume, VW's top boss, said he has been in contact with members of the Trump administration, including US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
His strategy to shield VW from steep tariff costs appears two-fold: maintain open communication with US officials and continue ramping up investment in American businesses.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

16 minutes ago

• Times

Trump tariffs leave UK firms scrambling to renegotiate contracts

British companies are looking to renegotiate supplier contracts as they scramble to find savings that can protect them from the impact of escalating US tariffs, according to new data. A survey of firms with more than 5,000 employees found that 90 per cent fear that President Trump's import duties would hurt their revenues and profits, with businesses looking at a series of ways to manage rising costs. More than half (55 per cent) said their main tool to deal with tariff threats was to review existing contracts to find savings or renegotiate better terms with break clauses that could account for the imposition of new levies, according to Acertis, which provides contract management software. Bernadette Bulacan at Icertis said companies' first resort 'to protect margins is to take a critical look at customer and supplier relationships. For many companies, the path to surviving tariff disruption starts not with policy lobbying but with a forensic look at what's already been committed to on paper.' She said firms were taking measures to include rules of termination and force majeure clauses in contracts to deal with costs caused by tariffs, while also seeking out new suppliers in countries that were not affected by sweeping US levies. The Trump administration applied a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs he had announced on most of the world economy on April 8, which is due to expire in early July. The president has signed a partial tariff deal with the UK, but most British goods will still be subject to a 10 per cent tariff when selling to US markets, raising the average US tariff rate from about 1 per cent last year to more than 6 per cent. The European Union is also in talks with the White House about avoiding a potential 55 per cent tariff on all its goods exports. • Britain's exporters at a loss over US tariff turmoil The debate over contractual terms between suppliers and customers is part of a swathe of legal complexities about who should shoulder the cost of import taxes. In April, Howmet Aerospace, an American supplier of components to the sector, declared a force majeure event that would allow it to stop shipments if it remained subject to US tariffs. Although the full gamut of threatened tariffs has not yet been applied on most countries, recent data has shown a spike in invoice rejections as businesses attempt to delay supplier payments until they have more certainty about US trade policy. Icertis's survey, which included 1,000 companies across Britain, the United States and India, found that just under half of them were 're-evaluating' where to find suppliers to avoid tariffs, restructuring their supply chains and manufacturing plants, and also considering 'sunsetting relationships that no longer serve under new cost and compliance pressures'. About 40 per cent of UK firms said they would absorb higher costs into their margins and just over a third said they were planning to raise prices charged to consumers to deal with tariffs. Bulacan said companies should also consider price adjustment clauses that account for tariff changes. 'In the same way that force majeure clauses changed fundamentally during the pandemic, these clauses could be invoked against new tariffs to prevent potential losses,' she said.

The Guardian

19 minutes ago

• The Guardian

The Guardian view on Trump bombing Iran: an illegal and reckless act

Donald Trump was predictably quick to claim victory following the illegal US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities: 'Completely and totally obliterated,' he crowed. Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and sycophants at home rushed to fawn over his 'courageous' and 'brilliant' decision. The most senior US military official, Dan Caine, offered a more muted assessment: it was 'way too early' to know the full outcome despite severe damage. We cannot yet know whether the blow has ended Iran's nuclear aspirations – or will spur it to pursue the bomb. It may be weeks or months, too, before Iranian retaliation plays out, with all its potential repercussions. Two nuclear-armed states have gone to war on the unevidenced claim that a third state is on the verge of acquiring its own nuclear arms. In March, the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said Iran was not building weapons (though she has now scrambled to align with Mr Trump). Israel is clear that its attacks will continue, and has increasingly talked of regime change. The price is being paid not only by a reviled regime but by the Iranian people. Senior administration figures insisted that the US is solely focused on the nuclear programme. As a candidate, Mr Trump vowed to 'stop the chaos in the Middle East' and 'prevent world war three'. Yet the risk of regional conflagration is growing, and now he warns of 'either peace or … tragedy for Iran' if it does not end uranium enrichment. Mr Netanyahu lured him into this attack and may lead him into more, paying gushing tribute to a history-making president and thanking him on behalf of 'the forces of civilisation'. Mr Trump described them as working together 'like perhaps no team has ever worked before'. Iran has been notably cautious since Israel's attack began. The pillars of its security – its regional networks, missiles and nuclear programme – have all suffered punishing blows. To do nothing invites further attack; to hit back – particularly by targeting US personnel in the region – courts disaster. Close the strait of Hormuz and oil prices would soar. But that would hit Iran's own exports and risk involving Gulf states. Russia and China condemned the US strike but are hardly rushing to offer Tehran assistance. Israel's strike – and the US's – on Iran cannot be justified under international law's self-defence doctrine. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, rightly warns of catastrophe in the Middle East, urging diplomacy as the only solution. Yet Mr Trump walked away from the Obama-overseen deal that slowed Iran's programme, and now has struck Iran when it sought negotiation despite Israel's attacks. Sir Keir Starmer, too, called for de-escalation and negotiation, though he backed the US strike. The US did not request British assistance – but the fear remains that European powers may be drawn into another criminal and disastrous war in the Middle East. In rejecting diplomacy and choosing war, not only in breach of international law but at the behest of a country pursuing annihilation in Gaza, the US has delivered a resounding blow to the architecture of global affairs. It has signalled that countries that negotiate (Iran) face stark consequences, which those which rush to own the bomb (North Korea) can avoid. Its embrace of pre-emptive strikes is handy for Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and any leader who might want to carry out their own. Even if the immediate crisis in the Middle East can be contained, the cost of this reckless act may not be fully felt or comprehended for decades.

Auto Blog

19 minutes ago

• Auto Blog

Tesla Insurance 2024 Losses, Combined Ratio & Safety Score Data-Driven Risks

Customer complaints mount as payouts lag In May 2025, Tesla's insurance arm posted a combined ratio of 121% — meaning for every dollar in premiums, it paid out $1.21 in claims and expenses. For context, most insurers break out into a profuse, 'I am going to lose my job' sweat if that number nudges above 95%. Elon Musk pitched Tesla Insurance, a subsidiary of Tesla Inc. as the 'missing piece' in the Tesla ecosystem. He argued Tesla owners now crave more than torque — they want their insurance bill to shrink as fast as their 0–60 mph time. 0:07 / 0:09 2025 Audi S3: 4 reasons to love it, 2 reasons to think twice Watch More Tesla Insurance Loss & Combined Ratios versus Industry Average, 2023–2024. In this chart, you can see just how far off the mark Tesla is compared to the industry average. The loss ratio shows what portion of premiums is paid out in claims, while the combined ratio adds all expenses. Above 100%? You're losing money on every single policy you sell, even before you count the cost of keeping the lights on. For Tesla, that means underwriting losses — $42 million in the first nine months of 2024 alone. It might not look like a lot, but by insurance industry standards, year over year 2023-2024 Tesla are still bleeding profusely. These are very serious 'in the red' numbers for an insurance company. The chart highlights that Tesla Insurance's loss and combined ratios were much higher than the industry averages in both 2023 and 2024. Even as Tesla improved in 2024, it still paid out far more in claims and expenses than it collected in premiums — underscoring ongoing profitability challenges compared to traditional auto insurers. The Third-Person Cinematic Scene The Tesla Insurance sold by Musk offered a 'disruptor' view of car insurance, no doubt spurred on by asking himself what in the data they already collect from owners' cars could they captialize on. Picture a Model Y idling in a suburban driveway, the morning sun glinting off its glass roof. The owner sips coffee, scrolling through the Tesla app — not for a new FSD beta, but to check how must she will have to pay this month in car insurance. The number flickers, driven by last week's hard braking and that one questionable left turn. A push notification: 'Safety Score: 92. Your rate may decrease.' But as the birds chirp and the caffeine kicks in, a question lingers: Is Tesla's insurance experiment a revolution in risk or just another Silicon Valley mirage? Let's also not forget a Tesla Y is meant to also be able to go off-road. What happens to this month's premium if our owner decides to take the family for a spin to a favorite camp site? What about when you decide to go hands-free? The premium will surely spike. The Disruptor's Dilemma: When Data Meets Damage Claims Tesla Insurance launched with a promise: harness real-time driving data, reward safe behavior, and undercut legacy insurers. The pitch? 'We know our cars best, so we can price risk better.' For a while, it worked—sort of. By 2024, Tesla Insurance had reached a $300 million annual premium run rate and was available in 16 states (Tesla Q1 2025 Earnings). But then came the numbers: a combined ratio of 145% in 2023, easing to 'only' 121% by Q3 2024. Progress, sure, but still deep in the red. Any other insurer would be firing people hand over fist. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Safety Score: The Algorithmic Tightrope Tesla's secret sauce is the Safety Score — a real-time, black-box rating that turns every commute into a behavioral audit. Hard brake at a yellow light? That's a ding. Take a corner with a little too much verve? Another. Go off-road? God only knows. In theory, this should incentivize safer driving and lower claims. In practice, owners complain about 'phantom dings', lifestyle choices they didn't have to make before, and inscrutable penalties. Again, Tesla's monitoring feels both opaque and invasive. And then there's the repair bill. Teslas remain expensive to fix, with parts and labor often pricier than their ICE counterparts. And mostly VIN-locked. Even with all that data, Tesla Insurance can't escape the gravitational pull of high repair costs — especially as increased vandalism and accident rates tick up in urban markets. The Investor's Paradox: Growth vs. Gravity For investors, Tesla Insurance is both a carrot and a stick. The business is growing — fast — but the losses are stubborn. As Tesla expands coverage and refines its algorithms, the combined ratio is falling, but not fast enough. The industry gold standard is a combined ratio below 95 percent. Tesla's 121 percent is still a very long way from liquid. Tesla Insurance has kept being able to pay claims despite earning less than the costs by cash infusions from Tesla Inc, their parent company. Tesla Insurance lost $30 million in 2023, and $42 million for the first 9 months of 2024; so it will be well over $50 million for the full 2024 so expect the line for 2024 in the chart to rise. The stakes are real, of course. If Tesla cracks the code, using its data edge to drive down claims and costs, and its owners feel it adds to their life, it could rewrite the rules of auto insurance. It needs to do this without alienating the insured with premium increases on every hard brake. If they can't do these things, the business becomes a costly distraction, a cautionary tale for tech giants who think they can outsmart old-school actuaries. Real-World Rituals: The Human Cost of Disruption For owners, the promise of lower premiums is offset by frustration with claims processing and the opaque Safety Score, which nudges their premiums up and down seemingly at random. The ritual of checking your rate has become a new form of range anxiety. Will this month's premium spike because of a single swerve? Meanwhile, Tesla forums buzz with tales of denied claims and customer service black holes. So, is Tesla Insurance the promised disruptor? Is it a revolution in the making or a slow-motion fender-bender? The numbers say 'not yet' — but the experiment is far from over but shrouded in corporate blood lost. At 70 mph, with the Safety Score whispering in your ear, you have to wonder: is this the future of insurance, or just another beta test by a known conjurer? In the end, all we really want is a policy that's as smart — and as fair — as the car it covers. About the Author Brian Iselin View Profile