Connect with us

News

Toyota’s supply chain quandary

Published

on

Toyota’s supply chain quandary

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

With great fanfare last month, Toyota put on an event showcasing its planned next generation of internal combustion engines, the clearest demonstration yet of its bet on the hybrid boom.

Beyond the immediate need to convince investors and analysts, Toyota’s chief executive and chief technology officer had another audience in mind too: the group’s suppliers.

“It is important for us to make clear which direction we are going to create a future together with these companies. That is why we declared today that we want to create together the future for internal combustion engines,” said Koji Sato, Toyota’s chief executive.

Advertisement

Toyota’s famous “just-in-time” supply chain has long been a key element of its success, allowing the development of a lean production approach that has been adopted worldwide by multinationals. And executives have long said they feel a moral obligation to maintain the country’s millions of auto jobs.

That is all fine and good when things are going well, but what if things go wrong? What if there are corporate decisions they cannot make at sufficient speed due to the obligation to protect the supply chain and jobs?

“Toyota’s defence of its supply chain — which makes economic sense at the moment due to the continuing demand for hybrids — could become a liability at some point. And it’s not just about Toyota but about Japan’s auto industry as a whole,” said James Hong, autos analyst with Macquarie.

Such a dilemma might also confront carmakers in Germany, France and the US. It is one where risks and the benefits are complicated by the broader political economy.

The operations of auto companies often reflect the workings of the countries where they are founded. Their development over time can be very directly linked to subsidies, aid and unofficial support. This can have a deep impact on how the companies, and their home countries, view social obligations in areas like jobs. It can also provide the parachute during periods of difficulty.

Advertisement

More jobs can equal more stability for companies across different sectors, in a similar way that the size of a big bank’s balance sheet size can render it too big to fail. When things get rough you have a built-in corpus of consumers, voters and lobbyists who are ready to argue for your survival. And industries like auto production carry more weight than others.

Auto industry-related employment — from fuel retailers to insurance to shipping — totals some 5.5mn jobs in Japan, according to the country’s automobile manufacturers association. The sector is estimated to account for 2.9 per cent of the nation’s GDP and 13.9 per cent of the manufacturing GDP. Sato said that Toyota did business with about 100 so-called tier-one suppliers, companies that sit at the top of the pyramid and provide products directly to big manufacturers. Beneath them are many more smaller companies who in turn supply the top tier.

“Be it in China, Japan or Europe, automaking is a highly political industry and I think it’s extremely rare to see a country sacrifice its automotive industry. It’s a bit like steel or banks or ships, you just don’t do it,” said Thomas Besson, head of autos research at Kepler Cheuvreux.

Renault in France, Volkswagen in Germany, BYD in China, Ford and GM in the US — they are all the products of their country’s political economies. Toyota is also clearly a product of Japan and a clearly successful one. The world’s largest carmaker is churning out record profits and sales. And Toyota’s defence of its supply chain is a reflection of the scale and variety of technological bets that protect it against uncertain regulations, politics and consumer preferences.

But if a carmaker must defend its supply chain and its jobs — be it in Japan, Germany or another country — then it is not overly difficult to see the risk that responsibility becomes a hindrance, slowing down innovation and burdening a company with unnecessary costs. 

Advertisement

With the car industry in turmoil over the development of electric vehicles, that strategic issue is becoming more pressing. In Europe, a 2021 study for a supplier trade body by PwC estimated that a switch to EV production only in the region by 2035 would lead to the loss of some 500,000 jobs in power-train production for cars with internal combustion engines. This would be offset by 226,000 new jobs related to EV power-train production but there still would be less employment.

“The danger point . . . could arrive sooner than they are planning for due to EVs and China ramping up competition and supply even quicker than was estimated,” said Hong. “And the simple point is that you don’t need as many suppliers for EVs.”

david.keohane@ft.com

News

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

Published

on

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”

“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”

Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”

Advertisement

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”

The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.

“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.

Advertisement

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.

“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”

Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.

This is a developing story.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Published

on

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

transcript

transcript

Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”

Advertisement
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Published

on

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.

The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” 

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

Advertisement

The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region. 

Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it. 

The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.

In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees. 

“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.

Advertisement

In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”

On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall. 

Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.

Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending