A factory, thousands of jobs, and a photo with Trump: Audi’s move divides Germany

Audi wants to manufacture in the United States, and the decision has a business logic that is quite easy to understand: producing near its customers and reducing its exposure to tariffs. What is far more questionable is the setting chosen to announce it. Audi’s top executive, Gernot Döllner, appeared alongside Donald Trump at an election event, turning an industrial project into part of the U.S. president’s campaign message.

This image has sparked debate in Germany. For some, it shows that the country is losing its appeal to its own companies. For others, it is a consequence of tariffs that drive manufacturers to set up operations within the U.S. market. There are also those who see sense in building the factory but consider it a mistake for Audi to present the project within an election context.

The project involves a plant with the capacity to produce up to 200,000 cars per year and create around 4,500 jobs, focusing on high-end SUVs tailored for the North American market. Audi plans to start production in the early 2020s. Georgia authorities provide more specific details: site preparation by 2027, construction in 2028, with full production expected by 2031. The investment still needs final approval from Volkswagen’s supervisory board.

Tariffs weigh more than the debate over electric cars

The FOCUS article that sparked this discussion includes a selection of comments from its readers. These contain the usual criticisms directed at Germany’s industry: high energy costs, elevated labor expenses, bureaucracy, and strict environmental regulations. The shift toward electric cars is also blamed for forcing manufacturers to seek opportunities outside Europe.

It’s important to keep things in perspective. Classifying comments does not equate to a representative survey, and readers’ statements are not verified data. While the article groups these opinions into different categories, their percentages do not allow us to determine what the overall German population thinks or identify the reasons behind a company’s decision.

In addition, manufacturing in the United States addresses a very specific business issue. Audi supplies that market with imported cars, while BMW and Mercedes have local production. When import barriers raise the cost of products, this difference affects profit margins and competitiveness. A U.S. factory helps reduce such exposure, though it does not guarantee that manufacturing there will be cheaper in every aspect.

Audi itself presents Georgia as part of its growth strategy. The brand highlights the availability of land, skilled workers, suppliers, and logistical infrastructure. These factors go far beyond just the cost of electricity. To evaluate a factory, one must consider transportation, components, productivity, initial investment, and sales volume. Comparing only two electricity rates ignores much of the equation.

There is also no basis in the published comments to prove the claim that no German factory can produce electric cars profitably. Data on costs, facility utilization, and performance per plant would be needed. Profitability depends on what is manufactured, how it is manufactured, and how much is sold, not just on the propulsion system.

There is another relevant nuance in the debate about a supposed exodus from Germany. According to information published by El País, the relocation of production for large SUVs would affect Bratislava in Slovakia. Thus, there is concern about the workload on Europe, but it is not necessary to describe the entire operation as a direct transfer from German factories.

That doesn’t eliminate the uncomfortable question for Europe. Every new industrial allocation entails years of activity for suppliers, workers, and supporting companies. If manufacturing near the buyer becomes essential to overcome trade barriers, plants that rely on exports end up in a more vulnerable position. The concern is valid; attributing it automatically to electric vehicles requires evidence that this debate does not provide.

The other unresolved issue is Döllner’s participation in Trump’s event. Union criticisms cited by Reuters question precisely that presence and its alignment with the company’s rules on political neutrality. It is entirely possible to support an American investment while still objecting to its presentation being part of an election campaign.

For Trump, the image allows him to present the future factory as a result of his tariff policy. For Audi, it enables them to publicly link a long-term decision to a specific leader and campaign. The brand gains visibility and closer ties with the administration, but it also risks backlash from those who view such a relationship as inappropriate.

The warning for Europe lies in its ability to protect investments, develop technology, and ensure jobs at its factories. It will be necessary to discuss costs, productivity, and trade policy with concrete figures on the table. The photo with Trump has already been taken; proving that the operation strengthens Audi without weakening its European base will be the challenging part.