GM Hints at New Affordable Next-Gen EV Made in U.S.
General Motors (GM) has announced plans to develop and build an affordable next-gen electric vehicle (EV) at its Fairfax, Kansas, plant. While Chevy's new Bolt EV is entering production by the end of the year at the same Kansas facility, it's unclear whether the up-and-coming next-gen model is part of the Bolt family or a new lineup. GM's president, Mark Reuss, said in October the 2027 Bolt EV's "price isn't final yet," while adding "it [2027 Bolt EV] will be priced only slightly higher than the 2023 Bolt, which started at $28,795, and it will just be one member of a family on the Bolt, including an even lower cost option," according to GM Authority.
The average transaction price (ATP) for a new EV in May was $57,734, Kelley Blue Book reports. Chevy's 2027 Bolt will be North America's first Ultium-based model with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, helping the model sell at lower prices than ones with nickel manganese cobalt batteries. Despite details on the 2027 Bolt remaining limited, its release around mid-2026 means that Chevy is likely months away from revealing the model.
News of the affordable EV in development arrives after GM revealed plans to invest around $4 billion in U.S. production for gas-powered and electric models over the next two years. Domestic manufacturing investments should help GM mitigate the impacts of President Trump's tariffs, which are projected to cost the automaker up to $5 billion in 2025. GM's $4 billion investment will allow the company to manufacture over two million vehicles in the U.S. annually. In addition to making a next-gen affordable EV and the 2027 Chevy Bolt, GM's Fairfax, Kansas plant will support the gas-powered Chevy Equinox's production starting in mid-2027.
Equinox sales increased 30% year-over-year during Q1. Separate GM U.S. production facilities include Orion Assembly in Orion Township, Michigan, and Spring Hill Manufacturing in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Orion Assembly will take on gas-powered full-size SUVs and light-duty pickups, while Spring Hill Manufacturing will focus on the Chevy Blazer, the Cadillac LYRIQ and VISTIQ EVs, and the Cadillac XT5. GM's Factory ZERO in Detroit-Hamtramck, Michigan, will handle the Chevy Silverado EV, GMC Sierra EV, Cadillac ESCALADE IQ, and GMC HUMMER EV pickup and SUV production.
GM also confirmed plans last month to commercialize lithium manganese-rich (LMR) prismatic battery cells for future GM electric trucks and full-size SUVs. These cells will provide a 33% higher energy density compared to the best lithium iron phosphate (LFP)-based cells at a comparable cost. The new battery cells are expected to be a staple of the automaker's electric truck lineup, with over 400 miles of available range, while optimizing savings over their high-nickel pack counterpart, which currently supplies segment-leading range.
Following GM's most recent production announcement, the biggest question is whether its next-gen affordable EV will be part of the Chevy Bolt EV family or a new lineup. We also don't know whether the 2027 Bolt EV, which is returning after a three-year hiatus, will revive its hatchback configuration or if the model will adopt crossover styling reminiscent of its EUV version. Still, it's clear that GM's manufacturing strategy is prioritizing affordability in the EV segment and cost mitigation amid tariff policies.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Food and Drug Administration staff cuts may hinder US biomedical innovation
President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's economic and strategic independence — from reshoring pharmaceutical production to cutting regulatory red tape. But not all reforms are created equal. Recent restructuring efforts at the Food and Drug Administration may have been well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the very innovation and domestic capacity the president seeks to promote. In March, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the agency, which in part included the elimination of 3,500 full-time employees at the Food and Drug Administration — many of them senior scientific staff and experienced regulators who served as institutional pillars across drug review divisions. While we all support government efficiency and the secretary's efforts to create a gold-standard regulatory agency, the loss of this institutional memory risks hobbling the expedited pathways that small biotech firms rely on to deliver therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, the impact of these cuts is not theoretical. The Wall Street Journal has reported that some biotech firms have had to delay or cancel clinical trials due to lack of timely Food and Drug Administration guidance. One California biotech firm facing unpredictable delays has even turned to European regulators to move forward with a clinical trial — effectively offshoring American capital, investment and jobs. Others have reported receiving conflicting and confusing feedback from inexperienced FDA staff or no response at all on time-sensitive requests. But such issues don't just affect companies; they hurt patients, too. Innovation in gene therapies, cancer immunotherapies, and treatments for rare diseases depend on regulatory clarity and speed. Without senior staff to help clarify agency positions, decisions are either delayed or driven by less-experienced personnel unfamiliar with long-standing scientific standards. It's no surprise then that over 200 biotech CEOs, patient advocates and investors — many of them strong supporters of FDA modernization — have expressed their concerns in a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). As a former member of Congress who sat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA, I have long supported targeted reforms to make the agency more nimble and responsive. But there is a fine line between streamlining operations and cutting the institutional capacity necessary to do the job. Removing experienced drug reviewers before an adequate backup plan can be put into place not only jeopardizes U.S. safety standards but also undermines our competitive edge. This matter is not merely a domestic problem; it's a global race. Since 2014, the number of biomedical drugs under development in China has grown twelvefold. Meanwhile, innovation in the U.S. has remained relatively flat. If trends continue, China could match or surpass the U.S. in biomedical innovation within the decade. We have seen this movie before — in semiconductors, in telecommunications, in clean energy. We cannot afford to let biotech go the same way. The Trump administration's tariff policy was designed to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. shores. But how can we expect capital to stay in the U.S. if our regulatory infrastructure cannot deliver? Delays and unpredictability at the FDA don't just slow down science — they push investors to look elsewhere. Even the user fee system — critical to funding timely drug reviews and a source of government revenue — has been impacted by the reduction in force. Staff who oversaw the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have been laid off, raising questions about whether the agency will even be able to continue to collect user fees and whether these government cuts will actually end up costing taxpayers in the long run. Of course, Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for health reform. His Make America Healthy Again agenda's focus on combatting chronic diseases and enhancing nutritional standards deserves attention. His focus for such reform is where his background and passion can lead to meaningful improvements. But when it comes to regulating complex biologics and therapeutics, we must be careful about taking actions that could inadvertently stymie scientific progress. President Trump's vision for American self-reliance will only succeed if it's built on a foundation of regulatory competence and stability. Swift actions should therefore be taken to restore the FDA's core functions, rehire critical staff and unfreeze the hiring of roles essential to America's leadership in biomedical science. The stakes — for patients, for innovation and for national security — are simply too high to ignore. John T. Doolittle is a former member of Congress who served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate Can Keep Ban on State AI Rules in Trump Tax Bill
(Bloomberg) -- A Republican effort to block US states from enforcing new artificial intelligence regulations will remain in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package for now, marking a win for tech companies pushing to stall and override dozens of AI safety laws across the country. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports In a surprise decision, Democrats said the Senate parliamentarian ruled the provision aligns with the special budgetary process Republicans are using to consider the tax package. That process allows the GOP to avoid making concessions to Democrats, who otherwise could filibuster legislation. The Senate version of the AI moratorium would deny states federal funding for broadband internet projects if they enforce AI regulations. The provision will likely still be challenged on the Senate floor, where stripping the provision would need just a simple majority. Some Republicans in both the House and Senate have pushed back on the AI provision. 'We do not need a moratorium that would prohibit our states from stepping up and protecting citizens in their state,' Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn said last week. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has advised lawmakers that many other provisions have failed to pass muster for the budget process, including language requiring state matching funds for food stamps and a requirement that people suing the federal government post enormous bonds to obtain temporary restraining orders, Democrats said. Republicans are racing to pass the fiscal package by July 4, with Senate leaders planning to vote on it this week. The bills' provisions are being litigated by staff in a closed-door process, with Senate Budget Committee Democrats releasing periodic updates to the media. The AI provision would benefit many of the US's largest tech and AI companies, some of which have lobbied against a state-by-state 'patchwork' of rules governing AI. California, New York, Utah and dozens of others have introduced or enacted AI laws in recent years, including bills to address concerns about data privacy, copyright and bias. Congress has yet to pass a federal framework on AI, which has effectively left the states to figure out how to set rules around the technology. The House passed its version of the bill, which would impose a 10-year moratorium on any state law regulating artificial intelligence or automated decision systems. House Speaker Mike Johnson said June 9 that the AI provision had the full backing of the White House, including AI and crypto czar David Sacks. More than 200 state lawmakers from both parties urged Congress to scrap the measure, which could have nullified a wide range of consumer protection laws on topics including children's online safety, generative AI harms, and government AI adoption and deployment, according to the AI safety think tank Center for Responsible Innovation. Senate Republicans also made progress on the broader bill as the Joint Committee on Taxation — the key congressional scorekeeper on tax matters — found the new tax provisions in the bill would add a net $441 billion to deficits through 2034. The Senate GOP's preferred 'current policy' baseline assumes that trillions of dollars in expiring Trump tax cuts are free. The score gives lawmakers room to negotiate final agreements on the broader package, including setting the level of the state and local tax deduction and how fast to end green energy tax credits. --With assistance from Erik Wasson. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump ropes Fed into debt fight as GOP faces fiscal mess
President Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to go beyond its legal mandate and help him manage the national debt as Republicans face growing pressure over the nation's finances. In a series of remarks and social media posts, Trump has ripped Fed Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to lower interest rates, insisting he should help the White House manage the costs of servicing more than $36 trillion in national debt. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, a day after the Fed held rates steady. While Trump has spent most of his two White House stints berating Powell to cut rates, only recently has he tied those demands to the country's deteriorating fiscal health. 'We're beginning to see what I think are the early warning signs that the Fed is going to be increasingly called upon to keep the government solvent,' said David Beckworth, senior research fellow and monetary policy director at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank at George Mason University. 'When you begin to see this type of rhetoric, it's a clear sign that people are beginning to get nervous,' Beckworth explained. 'And how else can we save money? Well, let's turn into the Fed and put pressure on them.' Trump's escalating pressure on Powell over the national debt comes as he and Republicans stand to add trillions of dollars to it through a major tax-cut bill. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find common ground on what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation features an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, additional cuts the president proposed during the 2024 campaign, and steep cuts to social safety net programs. While GOP lawmakers claim the bill would help solve the country's fiscal woes, a range of ideologically diverse analysts forecast the bill to add anywhere between $2 trillion to nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. At the same time, Trump is attempting to secure GOP support to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department runs out of ways to avoid a default — a deadline that could come as soon as August. Trump is 'kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth,' said Dan Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital 'He's got this enormous, $3.5 trillion dollar continuation of a tax cut from his first term that he wants to get across the line,' Alpert added. Republican lawmakers have argued that such estimates don't take into account the economic growth unlocked by lower tax rates, which they say would help narrow deficits over time. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that even when accounting for growth impacts, the bill would still add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years — more than the CBO projected without considering the preferred GOP scoring. 'The fundamental issue is we have a Congress and a president who cannot bring the budget deficit under control,' Beckworth said. While both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, he added, 'for a party that has claimed historically it is concerned about their debt burden, it is going to blow things up even more.' Trump's efforts to push the Fed into managing the debt mark a significant break from more than 70 years of federal economic policy. During World War I and II, the Fed yielded to pressure from presidential administrations to keep interest rates low and ease the burden of the rising debt. While that practice extended for nearly a decade after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Fed and Treasury eventually reached an agreement in 1951, setting the stage for the next seven decades of economic management. 'The purpose of the 'accord' was to make Treasury manage its debt, rather than expecting the Fed to 'monetize' it. In turn, the Fed asserted its control of monetary policy via the setting of interest rates to meet congressional mandates for price stability and maximizing employment,' said Sarah Binder, political science professor at George Washington University and co-author of 'The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.' The Fed has since avoided anything that could be considered financing the federal debt while sticking to its 'dual mandate' of balancing unemployment and inflation. And while several presidents have verbally pressured the Fed to keep rates low since 1951, none has made a formal move to limit its legal authority over monetary policy. 'Based on most concepts of 'independent' monetary policy, the central bank shouldn't be monetizing the debt. That is, it shouldn't be taking the administration's financing needs into account when it aims to meet its mandates,' Binder said. 'Those mandates are price stability and strong labor markets,' she added. 'Congress has not given the Fed an additional mandate to make it easier for the Treasury to finance its debt.' But Trump could be laying the groundwork for a shift toward a 'fiscal dominance' regime, Beckworth warned, in which the Fed would be forced to clean up the government's fiscal mess and abandon the bank's legal obligation to keep prices stable and unemployment low. 'Maybe we're not there yet, but we're getting close,' Beckworth said. 'If they push, push, push, and then at some point, the Fed loses independence … and it's no longer able to control inflation.' Trump griped Wednesday, hours before the Fed's latest hold, that he was unable to sway Powell into making major interest rate reductions. 'He's not a smart person,' Trump said of Powell. 'I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should. I call him every name in the book to get him to do something.' Powell brushed off several questions Wednesday about Trump's attacks and the potential debt impact of the president's agenda, but has implored the White House and Congress throughout his time as Fed chief to get the nation's finances on a sustainable track. Trump will be able to add 'former Chair' to his list of names for Powell come 2026, when his four-year term leading the Fed board lapses. Whomever Trump nominates to succeed Powell will almost certainly be more aligned with the president's thinking and face an easy path to confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, Powell is but one of 12 Fed officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) who vote to set interest rates — all of whom voted to keep borrowing costs steady Wednesday. 'Even if you got rid of Powell, you'd have to remake the FOMC with yes-men,' Beckworth said. Powell could also choose to stay on as a member of the Fed board through 2028. That would be an usual move for a former Fed chair, but Powell has not ruled it out. 'Powell has not budged, and the FOMC has not budged despite Trump's incessant ranting and pressure and whatever else he can throw at them,' Beckworth said. 'They're still sticking to their guns.'
