What makes a Lotus, a Lotus? Anyone familiar with automotive history would likely say it’s the coy “simplify, then add lightness” philosophy that defined Colin Chapman’s scrappy sports car manufacturer and UK Formula One legend. But last year, the company began shipping its all-new electric SUV, the Eletre. It weighs 2600 kilograms. It’s built in China. It has more settings than a high-end washing machine. It’s… an SUV. Absolutely nothing about this car says “Lotus” — aside from the many Lotus logos on it.
Yesterday, I sat down with two of Lotus’ leaders, Chief Commercial Officer Mike Johnstone and VP of Design Ben Payne. Their story is one of a historically agile company doing what it’s always done: Breaking rules and bucking expectations. Now, I draw the line at building a super luxury SUV being “rebellious” (which Lotus claims the Eletre is, given the aforementioned heritage) — that’s like calling a Rolex a counterculture statement. Taking a step back from a blatant case of chasing the market with the Eletre, the strategy of the “new” Lotus does break sharply from the expectations anyone who knows the company would have had even five years ago. The end goal? Securing Lotus’ financial future so it can build an EV sports car that’s actually fun and engaging to drive. That’s easier said than done, but it’s a real plan.
Evolve or die
In a future where many boutique sports cars are likely to be as culturally relevant as grandfather clocks and polo horses, stubbornly adhering to analogy idolatry and internal combustion romanticism is a “business strategy” like smoking five packs a day is a “retirement plan.” Many sports car enthusiasts believe that the gas sports car will hold on for decades, a niche market offering for those of us who demand a mechanical connection to our vehicles. I don’t know that Lotus would go so far as I would, but I consider this viewpoint borderline delusional. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of supply chains, product development cycles, and product-market fit. The demand for new ICE sports cars is headed for a cliff. I predict we won’t see new platforms of this type after 2030, perhaps barring bespoke hypercars and specialty track-only toys —I’m ready to sign the category’s death warrant now (signed: previous owner of two Mazda Miatas, a Veloster N, a VW GTI, and a Mercedes SL55 AMG).
The Emeya is Lotus’ forthcoming super-GT sedan. It shares a platform with the Eletre SUV.
As the concurrent cascades of supplier, R&D, advertising, and market demographic shifts to the EV come tumbling down on the industry like a lithium-ion Niagra, you’d have to be clinically unhinged to pour billions of dollars into a new ICE sports car platform intended to be on sale past the early 2030s. I suspect most sports car makers know this, but few are ready to say it out loud for fear of alienating their very emotionally invested (and very profitable) customers. Lotus understands that we’re headed for a historic market disruption event, one which has no precedent. The brand plans to be fully electric by the end of 2027, meaning the current Emira will be Lotus’ last gas engine product, full stop. The Emira is easily the best-reviewed and most in-demand car the company has ever built. And it’s still declaring ICE dead.
When talking to Ben and Mike, I heard two themes consistently: Lotus needs to quickly expand its portfolio if it’s going to make a credible EV sports car, and the new killer feature of that sports car experience will be software. Hearing this would make the hairs stand up on the necks of many Evora or Emira owners, even if Lotus says it wants to respect the brand’s faithful community as it enters this new era. Frankly, I get the sense that while Lotus may respect that community, it is refusing to be defined by it, and is moving full steam ahead at a deeply opportune moment — to dramatically and pivotally transform the business.
In many ways, Lotus’s playbook is incredibly familiar. Lotus won’t even announce its EV sports car, internally dubbed the Type 135, until 2025, and sales won’t start until 2027. In the meantime, it will build a portfolio of three much more mainstream vehicles — the now on-sale Eletre, the GT super-sedan Emeya (on sale this year), and the unannounced Type 134 crossover (think Macan EV competitor).
The Emeya’s luxurious interior is as pleasant as it is surprising from a brand like Lotus.
The Eletre represents what will likely be the most profitable category of vehicle to build on a per-unit basis for any OEM right now: a big luxury SUV. They’re popular globally, and high-earning buyers are likelier to pick them over a traditional sedan layout. While I think the luxubarge SUV segment is headed for a decline in the mid-term, there’s likely room for new players to get established here — especially if the execution of the product is strong. I haven’t driven an Eletre, but after spending a good amount of time playing with the in-vehicle software, I’m impressed. It feels far closer to a modern smartphone or tablet than any legacy OEM vehicle, and the performance of the software in the Eletre is excellent. I can also confirm what many reviews have stated: The interior of the Eletre is exceptional. Forget everything you know about Lotus or Chinese EVs — this looks and feels like a $100,000 product. Before I sat in it, I was skeptical of the praise. I’m not anymore. Even the secondary touchscreen in the back feels well-executed. With rear seat heating, ventilation, massage, and media controls, it’s an experience that feels like something out of a Maybach limo. I’m not exaggerating when I say this is a bafflingly lovely car. Not just for a Lotus, but in general.
Software will eat the world, and the sports car
One thing I found in the Eletre that made me legitimately excited? A detailed software changelog. Every notable change or fix introduced as part of the v1.3 OTA update the Eletre received was described in a way that felt straight out of a modern smartphone. This is pretty standard fare for owners of brands like Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian — but most carmakers remain woefully opaque in this regard. Better yet? There were actual changes. The most recent update added a driver entry mode function that automatically adjusts the seat for more room when you climb in, automatic memory for the tilt position of the camera mirrors when the car is placed in reverse, and more. That is to say, Lotus is making the car better with updates. Again, this isn’t revolutionary if you’ve ever owned a Tesla. But for a traditionally low-volume sports car maker? This is cutting-edge stuff.
Beauty is more than seat setting-deep, however. While highly readable menus and logically laid out software navigation are great, they have little bearing on a sports car. Or do they? Speaking with Ben and Mike, this modern approach to software is part of a radical rethink of how Lotus develops the vehicle experience, as an ongoing effort to enhance and refine the product for the customer. Some people may cynically claim this is just a way to “beta test” on customers, but I don’t count myself in this camp. I would much rather buy a new product that can be evolved and iterated based on customer feedback than one that feels frozen in time. Tesla has built a huge part of its brand reputation on this reaction-and-response software agility, and for a good reason — cars should get better with time if they can.
The Evija is a handmade EV hypercar that makes nearly 2000 horsepower. Lotus will begin delivering them later this year. Only 130 will be built.
Claim as commenters on the internet may that their E36 BMW M3 or 997 Porsche 911 was designed perfectly from the factory and never “needed” to be improved, that sentiment derives from well-meaning but ultimately unhelpful nostalgia. Statistically, no buyer of any new mass-produced car wants an “old car” experience — sports car or not. This is like demanding an IBM PC XT in 2024. Is there a “market” for such a thing? Sure, if you want to produce in handmade quantities and demand handmade prices. But no serious car business can be built on the back of such a boutique market, apart from those that cater to the ultra-rich, like Pagani, ICON, or Singer. If you intend to sell thousands of cars a year, let alone tens of thousands, you must build a product that retains a semblance of economic accessibility and practical appeal. I believe such a balance requires electrification and a commitment to a software-defined vehicle — and so does Lotus.
But even if I accept the actuary-driven reality of running a car business, I’m not totally ignorant of physics. I’ve owned two Mazda Miatas, a car that weighs just a hair over 1000 kilograms. Cars that put a smile on your face just going to the grocery store! To recreate that feeling in something that weighs 1500 kilograms — remember, that’s 50% heavier! — already feels impossible. And there are fewer and fewer ICE sports cars on sale today under 1.5 Miata Standard Units. For example, a new Porsche 911 S comes in slightly over that 1500 kg mark. Now imagine dumping the ICE powertrain and stuffing it full of batteries. Keeping it under 1750 kg would be a big challenge on its own. Historically, lightness is next to godliness for a company like Lotus. I sincerely hope they show the world that lightweighting an EV isn’t just a sneering euphemism tossed around by engineers at the bar. I mean, the first Tesla Roadster weighed about 1250 kg — and that was based on a Lotus! It’s possible, it’s just a question of whether it’s possible while also building something that buyers will actually put down cold, hard cash to purchase. And that’s where software enters the picture.
To Lotus, the Eletre and Emeya — and the forthcoming Type 134 crossover — are where the company will cut its teeth using software to create a more engaging, more fun driver experience. As someone who’s driven a few EVs, “fun” is not how I’d describe the driving experience of any of them. Occasionally amusing? Sure. Calming? Absolutely. Precise? Sure! Gut-wrenching (in the case of high-power EVs)? Unquestionably. But fun? Pardon my Clarksonian wistfulness, but there’s simply no drama to driving an electric car. Lotus wants to change that (as I’m sure do Porsche, Maserati, Lamborghini, and many other brands with plans to electrify sports cars).
Words are well and good, but right now, the evidence on the ground for this approach is… thin. The Eletre offers one concrete example of how Lotus wants to use software to “analogize” the EV driving experience: Throttle input progressively builds power instead of applying the “instant torque” curve we’re all so familiar with when piloting an EV. Interestingly, that throttle is something I’ve seen cited consistently as “weird” (maybe even undesirable) in reviews of the Eletre. I’d put that down to expectations of how an EV “should” deliver power versus it being an objectively good or bad thing, personally — as more companies try more approaches, our expectations will probably adjust to meet some of them. I’ve also yet to drive it myself, so I may well eat my words here; I recognize that.
But I pick up get what Lotus is putting down here, and speaking to Ben and Mike, the possibilities of the software-led sports car come into vague relief in some exciting ways. Granted, “vague” and “possibilities” are operative words here. It’s easy to be optimistic about the future when you can also be largely noncommittal about it. But walk with me for a moment. Imagine using ADAS systems (radar, cameras, AI) to create driving modes that allow a sports car to drive well beyond a driver’s skill level. Lotus offered no specific examples, but given how Lotus owners tend to use their cars? My mind immediately goes to Lotus-developed AI track mappings that keep the car on the best line and even auto-brake as you enter the braking zone coming into a corner. Yes, like a video game. While the idea of a novice turning Randy Pobst times around Laguna Seca by tapping a touchscreen and mashing the right pedal would make any track rat’s blood pressure spike, I can already tell you: That would sell a sports car. Because that can give a driver an experience that only software can (absent years of rigorous practice and professional coaching).
Lotus’ infotainment interface already looks like a video game loading screen. Video game car settings seem a logical next step.
On the road, the possibilities for software to inject fun into the EV driving experience are a bit different. Some ICE OEMs have already played with modes that allow a car to lose enough traction to give a thrill around a corner still while remaining safe and controllable (a “drift mode,” if you will). Something similar for EVs sounds feasible. I’d love to see “heritage” driving modes, where adaptive air suspension, electric anti-roll, and drive-by-wire steering can recreate the input (steering and throttle) responses, ride quality, and perceived grip levels of reference cars. Imagine being able to put your car in “Lotus Esprit Twin Turbo” mode — with absurd intake noises coming through the rear speakers and all. Me likey. But that feels far more ambitious than teaching a car how to go around a track quickly or give a little extra wheelspin around a hairpin corner. More Sports Car 2037 than Sports Car 2027.
Lotus 2027
In 2027, Lotus intends to begin manufacturing and selling this Type 135 2-seater sports car, the first all-electric sports car in its history. I already suspect there’s a good chance this car could be pushed back if market conditions or technical advancements don’t line up precisely — Lotus was transparent that this is still a vehicle they’re in the process of defining. Given how green a field this segment is for any OEM (no EV sports cars meaningfully exist, after all), it will be essential to deliver a strong first showing. Lotus says that the Type 135 will be the “halo” vehicle for its brand, and that means it needs to be different enough, desirable enough, and critically lauded enough to move units for the rest of the portfolio (read: It needs to sell those profitable SUVs). That’s a tall order, and I remain unsure if Lotus will be ready to fill it by 2027. But that’s the plan, so I fully accept I may be wrong here. Lotus is the one building cars, after all, not me.
Eletre business today, sports car fun tomorrow.
With Geely’s engineering, financial, and manufacturing resources (the Geely factory Lotus has contracted in Wuhan can scale to 150,000 cars per year), it’s Lotus’ game to lose. While Porsche will likely start selling its EV Boxster and Cayman replacement before Lotus gets to market, the EV sports car space seems destined for a much more gradual ramp-up than the SUV/CUV and other mass market segments. Given the volumes these cars sell in, that’s not a particularly bold prediction — I suspect many OEMs will take a “wait and see” approach to the EV sports car before deciding if it makes sense to jump in. But that leaves an open door to build a brand, assuming the customers show up.
Many car enthusiasts believe that electrification will be the death of the sports car. That’s a bit melodramatic. But the sports car is about to enter the most challenging environment it has ever faced, and it won’t come out the other end as the sports car we know today. It’s going to be something different. As a car enthusiast, I’m heartened that companies like Lotus are trying to shepherd the sports car through this next stage of life — and still cognizant that there’s a real chance of failure. But I retain hope that someone will get it right, and Lotus is a name that’s earned its reputation for pluckiness. The Type 135 will see that reputation put fully to the test.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
China’s EV automakers have surged ahead of the competition in global EV sales, and a new report shows just how far ahead they are.
The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) just dropped its third annual Global Automaker Rating, showing that Chinese carmakers dominate the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) space. China now accounts for over 11 million EVs sold annually – over half of global EV sales.
Its massive domestic market has helped Chinese automakers build serious momentum. They’ve scaled up, improved tech, and are now setting the pace globally. Companies like Geely and SAIC have already hit 50% EV sales share, meeting their 2025 targets a full year early. In fact, Chinese automakers took the top five spots for ZEV class coverage, and five out of the top six for EV sales share.
Meanwhile, automakers in the US and Europe are trying to catch up. But they’re facing a dual challenge of falling behind on tech while navigating shaky regulatory environments.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The report also confirmed a big milestone: In 2024, BYD officially surpassed Tesla in global battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales for the first time. BYD’s BEV sales jumped 25%, and its combined BEV and plug-in hybrid sales climbed an impressive 47% year-over-year. Still, both BYD and Tesla remain in the “Leaders” category.
Automakers boosted energy efficiency, charging speed, and driving range thanks to newer, high-performance models.
“Our assessment revealed widespread improvement in BEV technology performance across the industry,” said Zifei Yang, ICCT’s global passenger vehicle lead. “GM and Honda made significant advancements by introducing high-performance models to their previously limited offerings, while companies like Geely, Chang’an, and Chery improved substantially with new high-performance EV lines.”
India’s Tata Motors also hit a turning point. For the first time, it graduated from ICCT’s “laggard” group to “transitioner,” thanks to new EVs and big moves on battery recycling and repurposing. While Japanese and South Korean automakers are still lagging behind, Honda and Nissan are inching forward. Honda launched its first US BEV, and Nissan finally clarified its ZEV targets.
One newer addition to this year’s report: a green steel metric. Since steel is the second-largest source of emissions in vehicle manufacturing (after batteries), ICCT now tracks which automakers are cutting emissions in the supply chain. European brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and VW earned high marks for sourcing renewable-powered green steel.
ICCT’s CEO, Drew Kodjak, summed it up: “The rapid evolution of the EV market in China has created technological and manufacturing advantages for companies there. For the wider global auto industry, this is no longer just about meeting future goals – it’s about remaining competitive today in a market that’s charging up.”
Now is a great time to begin your solar journey so your system is installed in time for those longer sunny days. If you want to make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate partner
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Bloomberg has just released an embarrassingly bad report about the self-driving space, in which it claimed Tesla has an advantage over Waymo by misrepresenting data.
There are currently many eyes on Tesla’s imminent launch of its “robotaxi” service in Austin, Texas.
At the same time, Bloomberg Intelligence released its own report, claiming that Tesla is ahead in self-driving technology, but the firm misrepresented data to support its claim.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The report compares Tesla’s and Waymo’s self-driving efforts, going so far as to claim that “Tesla is closer to vehicle autonomy than peers.”
Here are the two main charts that Bloomberg circulated from the report:
The problem is that the report is misleading by comparing completely different data.
Steve Man, the Bloomberg Intelligence analyst behind the report, based his report on Tesla’s own quarterly misleading “Autopilot Safety Report.”
The report is widely considered to be unserious for several main reasons:
Tesla bundles all miles from its vehicles using Autopilot and FSD technology, which are considered level 2 ADAS systems that require driver attention at all times. Drivers consistently correct the systems to avoid accidents.
Tesla Autopilot, which is standard on all Tesla vehicles, is primarily used on highways, where accidents occur at a significantly lower rate per mile compared to city driving.
Tesla only counts events that deploy an airbag or a seat-belt pretensioner. Fender-benders, curb strikes, and many ADAS incidents never appear, keeping crash counts artificially low.
Finally, Tesla’s handpicked data is compared to NHTSA’s much broader statistics that include all collision events, including minor fender benders.
All these facts combined render the comparison between Tesla’s accident rate using “Autopilot technology” and NHTSA’s US average completely useless.
Yet, Bloomberg decided not only to use it but also to compare it to Waymo’s data to claim that “Tesla is 10 times safer”:
The problem with this is similar to the comparison with the US average, as the Waymo data includes all police-reported incidents, which is a much wider net than Tesla’s data, in addition to the previously mentioned issues.
To highlight how big a potential discrepancy there is in the data, NHTSA underscored in a report last year how Tesla is not aware of many crashes involving Autopilot and that only 18% of police-reported crashes involve airbag deployment:
Gaps in Tesla’s telematic data create uncertainty regarding the actual rate at which vehicles operating with Autopilot engaged are involved in crashes. Tesla is not aware of every crash involving Autopilot even for severe crashes because of gaps in telematic reporting. Tesla receives telematic data from its vehicles, when appropriate cellular connectivity exists and the antenna is not damaged during a crash, that support both crash notification and aggregation of fleet vehicle mileage. Tesla largely receives data for crashes only with pyrotechnic deployment, which are a minority of police reported crashes. A review of NHTSA’s 2021 FARS and Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) finds that only 18 percent of police-reported crashes include airbag deployments.
Knowing full well the comparison is not fair and completely misrepresents the situation, the usual Tesla stock pumpers on X widely shared Bloomberg’s misleading report positively, and even CEO Elon Musk shared the misleading data:
Electrek’s Take
This is embarrassing for Bloomberg. It’s such a blatant error and misrepresentation that it is suspicious. They should issue a correction right away.
Tesla fanboys are now pushing this to try to prove that Tesla’s robotaxi is safe to launch amid Tesla doing everything it can to hide its self-driving crash data ahead of the launch. This is a dangerous report from Bloomberg.
Additionally, it’s not just the primary claim regarding the accident rate that is misleading. The report also contains several glaring errors.
In this chart, Bloomberg claims that Tesla is at “3 billion miles of data collected since launched”:
It looks like they simply use Tesla’s “cumulative miles driven with FSD (Supervised)”, which includes driver supervision, and the driver remains responsible for correcting FSD at all times.
In comparison, they talk about 22 million miles for Waymo. It looks like Bloomberg only used Waymo’s rider-only mileage in San Francisco, which is currently at 22 million miles, but when accounting all markets, Waymo is currently at more than 71 million miles:
It’s not clear why they would only use mileage in San Francisco for Waymo when they used Tesla’s global customer FSD mileage for Tesla.
Again, these are also “rider-only” miles, which means that there are only people riding inside the Waymo vehicles, compared to Tesla’s mileage being completely supervised by customer-drivers at all times.
We simply don’t know how many “rider-only” miles Tesla has, since it only started with one or two cars in Austin over the last few weeks. It is likely to have no more than a few hundred or a few thousand miles.
Regardless, it’s completely nonsensical to claim that Tesla is “ahead of its peers” in self-driving, especially Waymo, based on this report.
Tesla is currently only trying to launch something that Waymo has been doing for years.
The other argument the report attempts to make is that Tesla’s “self-driving” vehicles are approximately 7 times cheaper than Waymo’s.
Again, the problem is that Tesla’s vehicles are not self-driving. Tesla has yet to prove that, and that’s why it is using “plenty of teleoperation” in this launch in Austin. Mapping, optimizing for geo-fenced area, and teleoperations are the real limiting factors here. Not the cost of the vehicles.
Suppose Tesla has anything less than a 100-to-1 vehicle-to-teleoperator ratio. In that case, its system is not profitably scalable and I wouldn’t be surprised if it has a 1-to-1 ratio for the foreseeable future – at least on its current hardware.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Smoke billows from an explosion at the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) building in Tehran on June 16, 2025.
AFP | Getty Images
The U.S. stock market rose and oil prices retreated amid news that Iran wants a ceasefire with Israel. As early as the first days of Israel’s strikes, Tehran reportedly asked several countries to persuade U.S. President Donald Trump to call on Israel for an immediate ceasefire, NBC Newsreported, citing a Middle East diplomat with knowledge of the situation.
When asked at a news briefing Monday about the prospect of a ceasefire, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated he was not interested in one, according to NBC News. Netanyahu said Israel is “not backing down” from eliminating Iran’s nuclear program.
Regardless of how negotiations — or the lack thereof — play out, it’s clear that countries are placing renewed emphasis on defense. The U.S. Defense Department is turning to artificial intelligence to bolster its forces, announcing on Monday a one-year contract with OpenAI “to address critical national security challenges in both warfighting and enterprise domains.”
Amid the Monday developments regarding armed conflict and defense considerations, the Trump Organization announced a mobile phone plan called Trump Mobile and a smartphone, clad in gold and emblazoned with an American flag, dubbed “T1.” Putting aside iffy ethical issues about the sitting U.S. president lending his name to consumer products, their unveiling seemed ill-timed and tone deaf.Perhaps the reception over Trump Mobile was spotty.
Safe-haven assets dip In another sign the markets are shrugging off the Israel-Iran conflict — which continued for the fourth consecutive day — both safe-haven assets and oil prices dipped Monday. At the end of the trading day stateside, spot gold prices fell 1.03%, while the dollar index dipped 0.07%. Meanwhile, U.S. crude fell 1.66% to settle at $71.77 and international benchmark Brent lost 1.35% to close at $73.23 a barrel.
‘Golden share’ in U.S. Steel Shares of U.S. Steel rallied 5.1% Monday after Trump issued an executive order on Friday that allowed the firm and Nippon Steel to finalize their merger so long as they sign a national security agreement with the U.S. government. U.S. Steel said Friday that the agreement, which both companies have signed, includes a golden share for the U.S government, which would give it veto power over many decisions.
OpenAI wins contract from Defense Department OpenAI has been awarded a $200 million one-year contract to provide the U.S. Defense Department with artificial intelligence tools, the latter announced Monday. It’s the first contract with OpenAI listed on the Department of Defense’s website. In December, OpenAI said it would collaborate with defense technology startup Anduril to deploy advanced AI systems for “national security missions.”
Trump Organization enters telecommunications The Trump Organization, a company owned by the current U.S. President, on Monday announced a mobile phone plan and a $499 smartphone set to launch in September. The company’s new foray into telecommunications mainly comprises a licensing agreement. On Friday, the president reported that he had made more than $8 million in 2024 from various licensing agreements.
[PRO] What would it take for markets to react? Equity and energy markets appeared to shake off concerns of a wider conflict in the Middle East on Monday, reversing some of the moves from late last week. Such a response to geopolitical conflict is not unusual, according to one strategist, who explained what it would take for markets to feel the effects of the hostilities.
And finally…
U.S. President Donald Trump raises a fist as he steps off of Air Force One upon arrival at Calgary International Airport, before the start of the G7 summit, in Alberta, Canada, June 15, 2025.
As leaders of the world’s largest advanced economic powers gather in Canada for this year’s Group of Seven summit, ongoing trade instability and turmoil in Ukraine and the Middle East are set to dominate talks.
With uncertainty over those major issues largely arising from the White House’s economic and foreign policy, allies are likely to ask whether Trump stands with them, or against them on major geopolitical points.
Asked if he planned to announce any trade pacts at the summit as he left the White House on Sunday, Trump said: “We have our trade deals. All we have to do is send a letter, ‘This is what you’re going to have to pay.’ But I think we’ll have a few, few new trade deals,” in comments reported by The Associated Press.