Ford is currently facing significant criticism from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, who are accusing the Detroit-based automaker of becoming too reliant on Chinese companies. This concern particularly revolves around battery technology, manufacturing partnerships, and other potential supply arrangements.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has specifically pointed to Ford’s reliance on technology from the Chinese battery company CATL at its Michigan battery factory. He also mentioned a planned joint venture with the Chinese automaker Geely in Spain and reported discussions with BYD regarding hybrid vehicle batteries.
Duffy has expressed that Ford CEO Jim Farley attempted to present a framework that might enable Chinese automakers to establish manufacturing operations in the U.S. through American-controlled joint ventures. Ford has strongly disputed this claim.
The situation escalated further on Wednesday when Senator Rick Scott from Florida commended Duffy for raising concerns about Ford’s connections to companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party. The House Select Committee on China has also directed attention towards Ford, juxtaposing the company’s statements against its actual business dealings with Chinese firms.
In a letter to Farley, Duffy described his worries about Ford’s manufacturing and supply chain decisions, which he said raised “profound concern” about the firm’s dependence on Chinese technology.
Central to the issue is Ford’s BlueOval Battery Park Michigan in Marshall, where it’s producing lithium-iron phosphate batteries using technology licensed from CATL. This arrangement has drawn scrutiny, particularly since CATL is included on a Pentagon list of companies associated with China’s military.
Ford maintains that the agreement with CATL is merely a limited technology-licensing deal and not a joint venture or foreign-run manufacturing operation. They claim to wholly own the plant, manage the operations, and employ the workforce.
Even so, the administration remains apprehensive about the firm’s reliance on Chinese intellectual property, especially given that Ford is manufacturing its batteries in the U.S.
Congressional investigators have previously requested the full CATL licensing agreement, questioning whether Ford could sustain operations if CATL were to withdraw technical support.
Details of the licensing agreement remain undisclosed, raising concerns about aspects like technical assistance, software, and Ford’s capacity to function independently from CATL.
Duffy has also criticized Ford for its forthcoming manufacturing partnership with Geely in Valencia, Spain. According to the deal, Ford would hold a 66% stake and Geely 34%, with plans to produce vehicles for both brands at the facility. Critics argue this could boost a Chinese competitor’s presence in Western markets, while Ford describes it as a cost-sharing strategy to optimize operations in Valencia.
Moreover, there have been discussions with BYD regarding a potential battery supply deal for Ford’s hybrid vehicles, but specifics about quantities, pricing, and manufacturing locations have yet to be established.
Duffy additionally took aim at Ford for its decision to keep manufacturing the Lincoln Nautilus in China while delaying the increase of U.S. production until 2030. Ford described this critique as misguided, asserting that it has been collaborating with administration officials to bring production back to the U.S. They highlighted a positive response from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick regarding this reshoring initiative.
Ford countered Duffy’s letter, branding it as a misguided attempt to attract attention and noted that the White House recently celebrated Ford’s significant investment in the Michigan battery facility.
On August 31, the White House spotlighted Ford’s $3 billion investment in the Marshall battery plant, projected to create about 1,700 jobs, as a significant win for Michigan manufacturing.
Ford explicitly denied Duffy’s claims regarding Farley proposing a framework to aid Chinese automakers in entering U.S. manufacturing. The automaker stated that it has not suggested any such joint-venture framework as outlined in the letter.
The Post has reached out for comments from both Ford and Duffy.
