Connect with us

Business

Trump’s Tariffs Could Help Tesla, by Hurting Its Rivals More

Published

on

Trump’s Tariffs Could Help Tesla, by Hurting Its Rivals More

As President Trump puts new tariffs on goods from China and threatens a trade war with allies like Mexico and Canada, one global company is likely to suffer less than most of its competitors: Tesla.

But the electric car maker led by Elon Musk, which accounts for a third of the billionaire’s wealth, is also vulnerable if relations with China worsen. That country is the company’s second-largest market after the United States and it produces more cars there than anywhere else.

Tesla has built largely self-sufficient supply chains in the United States and China, a rarity in a world of interconnected trade. As a result, the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Chinese goods, and the continuing threat to put them on Mexican and Canadian products, might help Tesla by hurting its competitors more.

Although there is no evidence that Mr. Musk is shaping trade policies, the tariffs are one of several measures adopted by the Trump administration that may benefit Tesla at the expense of its rivals. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump paused 25 percent tariffs on most autos and parts made in Canada and Mexico, but the reprieve expires in a month, leaving automakers in the United States that depend on foreign supply chains in a state of uncertainty.

The administration is also trying to eliminate financial support for the construction of fast-charging stations for electric vehicles, a move that could handicap companies seeking to compete with Tesla’s extensive network. And it is attempting to cut or eliminate loans and subsidies that competitors like Ford Motor and Rivian are using to finance electric vehicle and battery factories.

Advertisement

Mr. Musk has said next to nothing about trade or the administration’s crusade to promote fossil fuels and impede sales of electric vehicles, which could also hurt Tesla. And his support of Mr. Trump has inspired protests at Tesla dealerships and weighed on Tesla’s share price. But his position as a de facto member of Mr. Trump’s cabinet gives him influence that far exceeds any other auto executive.

“Conflict of interest is putting it very mildly here,” said John Helveston, an assistant professor at George Washington University who teaches engineering management.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. A White House official said that its policies predated Mr. Musk’s support for Mr. Trump.

“President Trump consistently slammed Biden’s job-killing electric vehicle policies on the campaign trail since summer 2023 — more than a year before Elon Musk even endorsed President Trump — and he has consistently pressed companies to have their products be made in America since he first ran for president in 2015,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said in an email.

The trade war and other Trump policies also hold risks for Tesla when the company is already in crisis, with sales plummeting in China and Europe even as the overall market for electric vehicles is surging.

Advertisement

Mr. Musk’s extensive investments in China leave him vulnerable as trade tensions between the Chinese government and the Trump administration rise.

“He could become a pawn in all of this,” said Lei Xing, an independent auto analyst based in Massachusetts who is focused on China.

Tesla is already struggling in Europe and China because of competition from Chinese electric carmakers and a dearth of new models. Anger over Mr. Musk’s political activities, including promotion of far-right parties, has also hurt demand in Germany, the United States and other markets. Mr. Musk’s personal wealth is tied up in Tesla stock, which has been on a steep decline.

When Tesla began mass-producing electric cars at a factory in Fremont, Calif., in 2012, it designed a supply chain that was less dependent on imports than virtually all of its competitors. Electric vehicles were a new technology then, forcing Tesla to largely develop its own sources of batteries, motors and other components.

Tesla built a battery factory in Nevada in partnership with Panasonic of Japan, and it remains one of just a few car companies to mass-produce batteries in the United States.

Advertisement

When, in 2014, Mr. Musk began talking about building a factory in China, he received a warm welcome from government officials. Tesla opened a factory in Shanghai six years later under unusually favorable conditions. Beijing changed ownership rules so that the company could set up without a local partner, a first for a foreign automaker in China. The Chinese government also ensured low-interest loans, access to top leaders and even changes that Tesla had sought on emissions regulations.

But Mr. Musk kept supply chains for the Chinese and U.S. factories relatively separate, unlike other auto companies that depend heavily on imported parts.

“He set himself up nicely in the event that trade goes sideways and tariffs go higher,” said Michael Dunne, a longtime China automotive consultant. “And that serves him well today.”

Today, the cars made in Shanghai are sold in Europe, Southeast Asia or in the domestic Chinese market — but not in the United States.

The cars Tesla sells in the United States are made at factories in Fremont and Austin, Texas. Tesla also produces charging equipment for its proprietary charging network — the nation’s largest — in Buffalo, N.Y. Tesla regularly tops an annual ranking by Cars.com, an online shopping site, of how much of a vehicle is American-made.

Advertisement

“Tesla is in a good position” to withstand tariffs, said Patrick Masterson, who oversees compilation of the data that goes into the Cars.com ranking. “Their domestic production is robust.”

Tesla is still vulnerable to tariffs on goods from China and Mexico because a quarterof the components and materials in the car, measured by value, is imported, according to data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But electric vehicles made by Tesla’s competitors are much more vulnerable to tariffs.

General Motors’ Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle, for example, is made in Mexico. With a starting price of $34,000, the battery-powered Equinox is a threat to the Tesla Model Y, which starts at $45,000 before government incentives. The Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff will erase most of that advantage, assuming it stands.

The risk to Tesla in China is harder to gauge. So far, Chinese leaders appear to see Mr. Musk’s role in the Trump administration as a plus, viewing him as a potential point of contact. In January, when Han Zheng, China’s vice president flew to Washington to attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he met with Mr. Musk.

“U.S.-China policy often has operated through specific personal relationships,” said Ilaria Mazzocco, a senior fellow in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “There is hope in China that he could play a constructive role.”

Advertisement

But Mr. Musk has also lost some bargaining power in China.

When Chinese leaders greenlighted the Shanghai factory, Tesla was seen as a technology leader that would spur development of the E.V. industry. With sales plummeting in Europe and weakening in China, however, Tesla production in Shanghai fell 50 percent in February from a year earlier. Chinese automakers like BYD and Xiaomi are introducing new models that rival Tesla in features like autonomous driving.

Tesla’s prestige and leverage in China may be diminished as a result.

“Tesla can no longer control China,” said Jia Xinguang, an independent automotive analyst in Australia. “But China, by contrast, can control Tesla.”

Still, China would likely think twice before targeting Tesla and Mr. Musk because doing so could make it more difficult to attract foreign investment, said Wang Yanhang, a fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University in Beijing who tracks trade issues. “China will not shoot itself in the foot,” he said. “It is the last option.”

Advertisement

China has so far steered clear of autos when retaliating against the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese goods, instead raising duties on U.S. agricultural products like chicken and wheat.

Tesla has quietly fought at least one potential tariff on Chinese materials that would have a direct impact on its competitiveness.

China is the main source of high-purity graphite, an essential material for batteries. In December, a group of companies that are trying to produce battery-grade graphite in the United States accused China of dumping and asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to impose punitive duties that could be more than 800 percent.

At a hearing on the issue in January, Tesla hired a prominent Washington law firm to argue its case, and four Tesla executives spoke, according to public documents. Tesla is “pushing back because they don’t see an alternative to the Chinese graphite,” said Iola Hughes, head of research at Rho Motion, which tracks the battery industry.

Last month, the trade agency said there was a “reasonable indication” that Chinese exports of graphite were harming U.S. producers. The agency has not issued a final decision. Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on trade has not included any mention of graphite.

Advertisement

Joy Dong contributed reporting.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending