We have three scenario plans ranging from "minor revisions, agreement extended" to "full breakdown, tariffs on everything from Canada and Mexico." I wish I could say they were equally weighted internally. They are not. The comfortable scenario gets the most attention because nobody wants to present the scary one to the board.

The 75% regional value content requirement is already painful for some of our platforms. If they push it to 80 or 85 we are talking about meaningful sourcing changes that cannot happen in a year. The suppliers who would benefit from that shift don't have capacity. This isn't a policy decision in a vacuum, it affects physical production.

To actually answer your question: yes, some OEMs are running contingency scenarios and no, most of them are not sharing the outputs with supply chain teams below a certain level. We have three modeled outcomes internally. Status quo with minor threshold adjustments, meaningful RVC tightening to something in the 80 percent range, and a full renegotiation that reopens labor value content and steel and aluminum provisions simultaneously. The third scenario is the one nobody wants to talk about because the operational response to it involves sourcing decisions that would take 18 to 24 months to execute and we do not have 18 to 24 months before July 1st. What that means practically is that the contingency planning exists on paper but the actions required to actually prepare for the worst case are not happening because taking them would be disruptive and leadership is betting on a more moderate outcome.

We ran a formal USMCA scenario exercise about eight months ago. Three scenarios: status quo renewal, tightened RVC requirements to 80 percent, and a breakdown with MFN tariffs applying across the board. The honest output of that exercise was that scenario two was survivable with 18 to 24 months of transition pain and about a dozen supplier relationships that would need to be rebuilt domestically. Scenario three was not survivable at current margins without significant price increases or production shifts that our capital plan does not support. What surprised leadership was how little flexibility actually existed in the supply base. A lot of the nearshoring that got announced publicly in 2022 and 2023 is still in process or was quietly scaled back. The exercise was useful but it also made clear that the gap between our contingency plans and our actual sourcing reality is wider than anyone wanted to admit out loud.

The “monitor the situation” language is a tell. It usually means the contingency work is happening somewhere but not at your level, and the decision has been made not to distribute scenario planning broadly because it creates internal panic before there is anything actionable to communicate. That does not mean nobody is running the numbers. It means the people running the numbers are in a room you are not in yet.
What I would actually do in your position: build your own scenario framework anyway. Model what a tighter regional value content threshold does to your three most exposed supply relationships. Have that analysis ready so when leadership does share something, you are contributing to the solution rather than waiting to receive one. The July 1 review is not the end of the process even if it is the headline date. These negotiations drag out.

We cannot build a Q3 inventory strategy when nobody knows what tariff structure we are operating under in 45 days. Trump said Wednesday he is not renewing USMCA. The July 1 review deadline is weeks away. Vehicles that do not meet USMCA content rules are already sitting at 25 percent tariff exposure. Now we do not know if the agreement gets extended, renegotiated, or collapses entirely. My GM keeps asking me to project floor plan needs through year end. On what basis. The OEM cannot tell us what vehicles will cost. The factory cannot tell us which production runs are confirmed. And the bank wants a financing plan. I have been in dealership operations for over a decade and I have never tried to run a business through this many simultaneous unknowns at the same time.

The July 1 deadline is 18 days away and any OEM that does not have a documented contingency for elevated tariff exposure on Mexico and Canada sourced content right now is going to be reacting to a crisis instead of executing a plan. Regional value content thresholds at 75% were already the tightest in any trade agreement. If those move or if the agreement lapses into annual reviews, supply chain planning assumptions built for a stable USMCA environment are wrong and need to be rebuilt now.