Honda Motor posted its first-ever annual loss this week since it was first listed on the stock market in 1957.

The Japanese car company’s bet on electric vehicle sales left it with $9 billion in restructuring costs due to low demand and President Donald Trump’s “Made in America” policies.

“EV demand has declined considerably, due to the rollback of environmental regulations in the U.S. and other factors,” Honda said in a statement.

CEO Toshihiro Mibe said on Thursday that the company, which suffered a $2.7 billion loss, would also abandon its target to make electric vehicle sales 20% of profits by 2030.

TRUMP ESCALATES BATTLE WITH NEWSOM, SHUTTING DOWN GOVERNOR’S LEFT-WING RULES ROCKING CAR INDUSTRY

Honda’s Chief Executive Toshihiro Mibe speaks at a press conference in Tokyo Thursday, May 14, 2026. (Yuta Omori/Kyodo News via AP / AP Newsroom)

The company had also previously set a goal to fully move to electric or fuel-cell vehicles by 2024.

Losses related to its electric vehicle operations are expected to reach $16 billion, the company said.

The Trump administration has moved away from electric vehicle incentive programs, including blocking California’s stringent electric vehicle mandates and removing former President Joe Biden’s EV tax credit.

MASSIVE HONDA RECALLIMPACTS 440K VEHICLES OVER AIRBAGS POTENTIALLY DEPLOYING ‘UNEXPECTEDLY’

Honda, however, stemmed the bleeding through an increase in motorcycle sales – 20 million more than last year, which translated to a half a percent increase or $138 billion for the fiscal year through March.

The logo of Honda seen at a dealership store. (Photo by Igor Golovniov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images / Getty Images)

Honda, which makes the Accord sedan and Super Cub motorcycles, sold 3.4 million vehicles around the world in the fiscal year through March, down from 3.7 million the previous year.

The company is the main motorcycle seller in some markets, including India.

Despite the loss, Honda is still forecasting a $1.7 billion profit for the fiscal year through March 2027.

Visitors look at a HONDA E:N2 electric car on display at the 47th Bangkok International Motor Show 2026 in March.  (Anusak Laowilas/NurPhoto via Getty Images / Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We will continue our research to develop future technologies including electric vehicle batteries,” Mibe said. “We will get back on a growth track,” adding that the company will continue a goal of carbon neutrality while acknowledging the need to work on hybrids and regular gasoline-engine models as well.

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles Lakers’ second-round playoff exit at the hands of the Oklahoma City Thunder has reignited one of sports’ most enduring arguments: the Michael Jordan versus LeBron James GOAT debate. At 41 years old, James once again delivered elite production in the postseason, yet the Lakers’ early departure has prompted fresh claims from Jordan loyalists that the conversation is finally settled in favor of the six-time champion. Most analysts and players, however, insist the discussion remains very much alive.

The Lakers fell to the top-seeded Thunder in a competitive but ultimately lopsided series, with James posting strong individual numbers even as his supporting cast struggled against Oklahoma City’s depth and defensive intensity. James’ continued excellence at an age when most players have long retired has only deepened the divide among fans and commentators. Jordan advocates point to his perfect 6-0 NBA Finals record and unmatched killer instinct, while LeBron supporters highlight longevity, versatility, and statistical dominance across four different franchises.

Perkins and Others Weigh In

ESPN analyst Kendrick Perkins stirred the pot earlier this season by declaring Victor Wembanyama the most dominant player currently, but the broader GOAT conversation always circles back to James and Jordan. James himself has repeatedly downplayed the debate, calling it “barbershop talk” and noting that he and Jordan played fundamentally different styles. In a recent wide-ranging interview, James emphasized his role as a point-forward who prioritizes playmaking over Jordan’s scoring-first mentality.

Jordan, who has largely stayed silent on the matter in recent years, maintains a legendary aura built on six titles, six Finals MVPs and an unmatched winning pedigree. His supporters argue that no amount of regular-season longevity or statistical accumulation can overcome Jordan’s flawless championship record and cultural impact during his prime. LeBron’s four rings and 10 Finals appearances, achieved with three different teams, demonstrate adaptability but also fuel arguments about team-hopping versus Jordan’s loyalty to the Chicago Bulls.

Longevity vs. Peak Dominance

At the heart of the debate lies a philosophical difference in how greatness is measured. Jordan’s peak from 1991 to 1998 remains the gold standard for many: undefeated in the Finals, relentless defensively, and clutch in the biggest moments. James counters with an unprecedented 21 All-NBA selections, the all-time scoring record, and the ability to elevate mediocre rosters to contention well into his 40s. His 2026 playoff performance, leading the Lakers in scoring and assists despite the loss, only reinforced that narrative for his backers.

Advanced metrics tell a nuanced story. James ranks among the all-time leaders in playoff wins, series-clinching victories and versatility stats. Jordan’s efficiency in high-stakes moments and defensive impact during his championship runs still set benchmarks. Younger analysts increasingly favor LeBron for his statistical accumulation and influence on modern basketball, while older observers and many former players side with Jordan’s aura and perfection.

Social media exploded after the Lakers’ elimination, with hashtags like #MJGOAT and #LeBronGOAT trending simultaneously. Some declared the debate “over” citing the sweep, while others pointed to James’ individual brilliance at 41 as further evidence of his unparalleled career. The discourse revealed deep generational divides, with millennials and Gen Z leaning toward LeBron’s longevity argument.

LeBron’s Own Perspective

James has consistently refused to engage deeply in the comparison. “Our games are totally different,” he said earlier this season. “I’ve always looked for the pass first.” He has expressed admiration for Jordan, wearing No. 23 in homage and hoping to make his idol proud. In quieter moments, James has said the only opinion that matters is his own self-assessment at the end of his career.

Jordan, for his part, has avoided direct commentary in recent years, preferring to let his résumé speak for itself. The two icons share mutual respect, with James often citing Jordan as a primary influence and Jordan acknowledging LeBron’s unique place in the game.

What the Future Holds

With James potentially playing alongside his son Bronny and showing no signs of sharp decline, the debate could continue for another season or two. Another deep playoff run or a fifth championship would significantly bolster LeBron’s case. Conversely, Jordan’s untouchable Finals record remains a powerful anchor for his supporters. Most neutral observers now view the conversation as unresolvable, more a matter of personal preference than objective fact.

The 2026 postseason exit changes little in the grand scheme. James once again proved he can perform at an All-NBA level deep into his career, a feat unmatched in league history. Jordan’s six titles in eight years remain legendary. Both players redefined excellence in their eras, and both will be remembered as all-time greats regardless of where the endless online arguments land.

As the NBA moves forward with a new generation of stars, the Jordan-James debate endures as a celebration of basketball excellence rather than a zero-sum contest. Their combined impact has elevated the league’s global popularity and inspired countless players. Whether one prefers Jordan’s perfection or LeBron’s longevity, the conversation itself enriches the sport and ensures both legends remain central to its story.

The GOAT debate is far from over — and that’s exactly how basketball fans seem to prefer it. As long as highlights are watched, stats are debated and new generations discover these icons, the conversation will thrive. LeBron James’ latest playoff run, though ending in elimination, only added more chapters to one of sports’ greatest ongoing narratives.

Company Participants

Walter Pritchard – Senior VP & Head of Investor Relations
Michael Lyons – CEO & Director
Takis Georgakopoulos – Co-President and COO of Technology & Merchant Solutions
Dhivya Suryadevara – Co-President and Head of Financial Solutions, Sales & Operations
Paul Todd – Chief Financial Officer

Conference Call Participants

James Friedman – Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division
Andrew Schmidt – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division
Kartik Mehta – Northcoast Research Partners, LLC
Vasundhara Govil – Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division
Dan Dolev – Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Research Division
Timothy Chiodo – UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Dominick Gabriele – Loop Capital Markets LLC, Research Division
Bryan Bergin – TD Cowen, Research Division
Harshita Rawat – Bernstein Institutional Services LLC, Research Division
Darrin Peller – Wolfe Research, LLC
Jason Kupferberg – Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division
Bryan Keane – Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Tien-Tsin Huang – JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
David Koning – Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division
William Nance – Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division

Presentation

This article was written by

Follow

This article was written by

Follow

Thailand’s opposition is challenging Prime Minister Anutin’s plan to borrow 400 billion baht to mitigate the Middle East conflict’s impact and cost of living crisis. They argue current economic conditions don’t justify such borrowing, questioning the funding for energy transition.

Key Points

• Thailand’s opposition is challenging Prime Minister Anutin’s plan to borrow 400 billion baht (S$15.7 billion) via an emergency decree.
• The funds are for cash handouts, farmer assistance, and a renewable energy transition, but opposition parties argue the country’s growth and fiscal space don’t justify the debt.
• They are seeking a Constitutional Court ruling to suspend the decree, citing concerns about fiscal discipline and the necessity of debt-financing the energy transition.

Opposition Challenges Massive Borrowing Plan

Thailand’s main opposition parties, the People’s Party and the Democrat Party, are actively challenging Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s plan to borrow 400 billion baht. This substantial sum is intended to mitigate the economic repercussions of the Middle East conflict and alleviate the cost-of-living crisis. The government has authorized this borrowing through an emergency decree, aiming to fund cash handouts to approximately 30 million citizens and provide support to farmers, fisherfolk, and small businesses impacted by soaring energy costs. Furthermore, a significant portion, 200 billion baht, is earmarked for accelerating Thailand’s transition to renewable energy sources.

Fiscal Concerns and Economic Justification

The opposition’s primary argument against the borrowing decree centers on Thailand’s current economic conditions and limited fiscal space. They contend that the economy is still expanding and that the country’s public debt, already nearing its self-imposed 70% of GDP cap, cannot sustain such massive new debt. Specifically, they question the rationale for financing the energy transition through additional borrowing. While the government, through Finance Minister Ekniti Nitithanprapas, argues that the borrowing is crucial to combat the economic crisis fueled by surging energy costs and to prevent stagflation, the opposition believes alternative measures, such as reducing excise taxes on fuel, would be more appropriate.

Government Reassurance and Economic Outlook

Despite opposition concerns, the government maintains that the borrowing will not compromise the nation’s overall fiscal discipline, as public debt will remain below the 70% voluntary cap. Finance Minister Ekniti Nitithanprapas stated that the new debt will be raised from the domestic market, which possesses ample liquidity. He emphasized that the global energy shocks have directly impacted household incomes and the cost of living, making state spending from new debt essential. The Bank of Thailand projects a slowdown in economic growth to 1.5% this year, from 2.4% in the previous year, highlighting the challenging economic climate and Thailand’s vulnerability due to its reliance on imported oil and natural gas.

Other People are Reading

This article was written by

Follow