MxM News

Quick Hit:

Honda will produce its next-generation Civic in Indiana instead of Mexico, a strategic shift aimed at sidestepping potential tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration. The decision underscores the growing impact of the proposed 25% tariffs on automakers and global supply chains.

Key Details:

• Honda plans to build the next Civic model in Indiana, with production set to begin in May 2028, instead of the previously planned November 2027 start in Mexico.
• The Indiana plant is expected to produce around 210,000 Civics annually, according to sources familiar with the decision.
• Honda had initially planned to manufacture the vehicle in Guanajuato, Mexico, but rising costs and potential tariffs forced a strategic reassessment.

Diving Deeper:

Honda’s move signals a major shift in automotive manufacturing, as the Japanese automaker responds to potential 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada. The Trump administration’s proposed tariffs are aimed at bolstering U.S. manufacturing, a policy that has already prompted concerns and adjustments from global car companies.

Sources told Reuters that Honda had originally selected Mexico due to lower production costs. However, with the possibility of hefty tariffs disrupting supply chains, the company recalibrated its plans, opting for production in Indiana to ensure continued market stability in the United States, where it sold over 1.4 million vehicles last year.

Although Honda has not officially confirmed the decision, a company spokesperson emphasized that Honda is always evaluating its global production strategy based on market conditions. Given that approximately 40% of the vehicles Honda sells in the U.S. are imported from Mexico and Canada, this shift may be just the first of many adjustments the automaker makes to mitigate potential cost increases.

The Civic remains a crucial model for Honda, with U.S. sales jumping 21% last year. The decision to manufacture the next-generation model domestically reflects the broader industry trend of automakers reevaluating their supply chains in light of shifting trade policies.

  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Miranda Devine pushes back against claims that 47th President Donald Trump “ambushed” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their Oval Office meeting, arguing that it was Zelensky who provoked the confrontation. Devine contends that Trump was “cordial” and intent on brokering peace, while Zelensky entered the meeting “in bad faith,” contradicting and interrupting the president before ultimately derailing the negotiations.

Key Details:

• Devine asserts that Zelensky was “negative from the start,” contradicting Trump within minutes and repeatedly interrupting him in an “insolent” manner.

• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Zelensky should have voiced concerns privately at a scheduled lunch instead of creating a public spectacle.

• Trump’s detractors, according to Devine, are using this incident to fuel yet another “Russia hoax” in their ongoing attempts to discredit him.

Diving Deeper:

Miranda Devine, in her latest op-ed for the New York Post, refutes the mainstream media’s portrayal of 47th President Donald Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as an “ambush.” Instead, she argues, it was Zelensky who instigated the confrontation by entering the meeting with “negative body language” and a “hostile attitude.”

“Trump could not have been more cordial,” Devine writes, emphasizing that Trump had successfully navigated complex negotiations to bring both Russia and Ukraine to a moment where peace seemed possible. But Zelensky, she asserts, was determined to sabotage that effort.

From the outset, Zelensky took a defiant tone, directly contradicting Trump’s assertion that Europe had provided far less financial support to Ukraine than the U.S. “President Trump said that they made less support, but they are our friends,” Zelensky interjected, attempting to downplay Trump’s concerns. When Trump reiterated his position, Zelensky repeatedly interrupted with “No, no, no.” Despite Trump’s attempt to keep the exchange lighthearted, the tension in the room was palpable.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later weighed in on the debacle, telling Fox News that “if Zelensky wanted to contradict Trump, the proper venue for that would have been 15 minutes later [at a private lunch].” Instead, Zelensky chose to grandstand before the press, leading to what Devine describes as the complete “blowing up” of the peace talks.

At the end of the meeting, Zelensky’s smirk and thumbs-up to someone off-camera left little doubt in Devine’s mind that he had orchestrated the confrontation deliberately. His ambassador, she noted, appeared distraught, watching the spectacle unfold “with her head in her hands.”

Devine sees a broader political game at play. She argues that the media and Trump’s political enemies have seized upon this incident to spin yet another “Russia hoax,” akin to the discredited Steele dossier, the first Trump impeachment over a call with Zelensky, and the “Laptop from Hell” censorship saga. “They could not tolerate that Trump… would be successful in ending the war,” Devine writes, suggesting that warmongers on both sides of the aisle needed this peace effort to fail.

Trump, for his part, did not let the moment pass without drawing a direct line to the Biden family’s corruption in Ukraine. He referenced Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, telling Zelensky: “It came out of Hunter Biden‘s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said… the ‘laptop from hell’ was made by Russia. The 51 agents. The whole thing was a scam.”

Despite his provocations, Zelensky was met with Trump’s signature diplomatic coolness. When Zelensky dismissed the minerals deal, a key component of Trump’s proposed peace framework, Trump did not lash out. Even when Zelensky warned that “your American soldiers will fight” if Ukraine failed, a “severe provocation” as Devine puts it, Trump remained composed.

Only after an extended barrage of Zelensky’s interruptions and dismissive tone did Vice President JD Vance finally respond, stressing that “the path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.” That set Zelensky off, leading Trump to finally push back. “We’re trying to solve a problem,” he told the Ukrainian leader. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel, because you’re in no position to dictate that.”

Now, with the negotiations shattered, the fate of Ukraine rests in Europe’s hands at an upcoming summit. “Ukraine can’t survive without America,” Devine warns, and Zelensky may soon realize that the stunt he pulled in the Oval Office cost him far more than he anticipated.

You can watch all 46 minutes of the February 28 meeting between Trump, Vance and Zelensky here.