Between tariffs, shifting regulations, slower sales, major EV-related writedowns, supplier disruptions, and a record wave of recalls, 2025 proved to be one of the most difficult years in recent memory for the American automotive industry.
For many workers, the pressure was felt directly through smaller profit-sharing checks, greater uncertainty, and a tougher operating environment across factories and supply chains. At the executive level, however, the picture looked very different, as the CEOs of Detroit’s Big Three continued to receive substantial compensation packages despite the challenges surrounding their companies.
Stellantis Struggled, But Antonio Filosa Still Cashed In
Stellantis endured a particularly difficult year, reporting a massive $26.3 billion net loss. Most of that figure was tied to a $26.5 billion writedown linked to the company’s retreat from its previous electrification strategy, as the automaker moved away from some of the aggressive EV ambitions it had pursued in recent years.
The impact was not limited to the balance sheet. UAW-represented workers did not receive profit-sharing payouts from the automaker, underlining how sharply the company’s performance affected employees on the ground.
At the same time, Antonio Filosa, who became CEO in June 2025, received around $6.3 million for six months in the role. His compensation included a base salary of approximately $1.8 million, with incentive opportunities that could significantly increase his future earnings if performance targets are achieved. Under the current structure, his annual compensation could reportedly rise to as much as $23 million by 2028.
Filosa’s early direction also marks a clear shift from the approach taken under former CEO Carlos Tavares. Electrification appears to have lost some priority inside Stellantis, while larger gasoline-powered engines and traditional high-margin models have returned to the center of the company’s product strategy.
Ford Had A Messy Year, But Jim Farley Got A Raise
Ford also faced a challenging 2025, even if its losses were not as severe as those reported by Stellantis. The company posted an $8.2 billion net loss after taking a $19.5 billion writedown related to its EV business, a clear sign of how expensive the electric transition has become for legacy automakers trying to balance future investment with current profitability.
The year was further complicated by a fire at an aluminum supplier in New York, adding more pressure to an already strained operating environment. Ford also recorded 153 recalls during the year, covering nearly 13 million vehicles, an unwanted milestone for a brand that has been working to improve quality and restore customer confidence.
Despite those setbacks, CEO Jim Farley received an 11 percent increase in total compensation, bringing his 2025 package to $27.5 million. His base salary remained at $1.7 million, but stock awards, non-equity incentives, and performance-linked compensation lifted the final figure well above the previous year’s total of just under $25 million.
That compensation level equals roughly 295 times the median annual pay of Ford employees, a comparison that highlights the widening gap between executive rewards and the financial reality faced by much of the workforce.
Mary Barra Remained The Highest Paid Of Them All
General Motors CEO Mary Barra remained the highest-paid executive among the Detroit Three, receiving $29.9 million in 2025. The figure was slightly higher than her 2024 compensation, keeping her at the top of the executive pay list in Detroit.
This came during a year in which GM’s net income fell to $2.7 billion, less than half of what the company recorded the previous year. Much of the decline was linked to a $7.6 billion EV writedown, along with nearly $3 billion in tariff-related costs that added further pressure to the company’s results.
Even with that weaker financial performance, Barra and GM’s senior leadership retained their multi-million-dollar annual performance bonuses. At the same time, profit-sharing checks for UAW-represented workers were reduced by thousands of dollars.
The reason lies in how GM’s board evaluated executive performance. Tariff-related losses were excluded from the calculation of profitability for executive bonuses, allowing top management to preserve large incentive payouts even as employees received smaller profit-sharing rewards.
