Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is assembling a team to negotiate a tariff agreement with U.S. President Donald Trump following their recent phone conversation. This diplomatic effort comes amid significant declines in Tokyo's stock market and Ishiba's expressed uncertainty about establishing effective communication channels with the Trump administration.
Trump has recently highlighted what he perceives as imbalances in U.S.-Japan automotive trade:
While it is accurate that General Motors and Ford have limited sales in Japan—reporting around 1,000 and fewer than 200 units, respectively, for the last fiscal year—the notion that unfair trade practices are to blame is a persistent myth. The fact remains that :
The limited presence of American cars in Japan can be attributed to misalignment with local consumer preferences. Japanese drivers favor compact, fuel-efficient vehicles, a market segment largely dominated by domestic manufacturers. Notably, one-third of car sales in Japan are ultralight vehicles (kei cars), with small engines that are taxed at a lower rate. It’s a category that U.S. manufacturers do not produce. The size of many American vehicles presents another challenge; for example, some Ford F-150 models, which have historically been popular in the U.S., are too large for standard Japanese roads and parking spaces.
Despite these challenges, foreign brands have found success in Japan, particularly in the luxury segment. The Mercedes-Benz Group, for instance, sold over 50,000 vehicles last year, with BMW and Volkswagen also performing well. In contrast to the high regard for European brands, American cars often suffer from a negative reputation. While efforts could be made to change this perception, historical trends indicate a lack of willingness from U.S. automakers. Tesla may be one exception, with its vehicles an increasingly common sight in wealthy neighborhoods, but the company doesn’t provide sales data.
Ironically, it seems from complaints like Miller’s that the Trump administration, usually known for its opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion and other alleged "woke” initiatives, seems not to want equality of access — but rather equity in the form of equal outcomes.