Why Ford’s China partnerships have Washington questioning the future of American cars

• Trump administration officials are challenging Ford’s ties with Chinese companies.
• Ford says its Michigan battery operation is American-owned and employs US workers.
• The dispute highlights the auto industry’s growing dependence on Chinese EV technology.

Ford is building electric vehicle batteries in Michigan, employing American workers and investing in domestic manufacturing.

Yet the technology behind those batteries has become the latest source of tension between one of America’s most recognizable automakers and the Trump administration.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has sharply criticized Ford’s partnerships with Chinese companies, arguing that the automaker is becoming too dependent on technology and businesses linked to a strategic rival.

In a letter to Ford CEO Jim Farley, dated September 3 and released publicly on Tuesday (8), Duffy expressed what he called the Department of Transportation’s “profound concern” about Ford’s reliance on technologies from foreign adversaries.

The dispute centers partly on Ford’s relationship with Chinese battery giant CATL.

Ford has licensed CATL technology for battery production at its BlueOval Battery Park in Marshall, Michigan. The facility is owned by Ford and employs its workforce, and production of lithium-iron-phosphate batteries has begun this year.

The batteries are expected to power Ford’s upcoming Fathom electric truck, the first vehicle based on the company’s Universal EV Platform, due in 2027.

For Ford, the arrangement is a way to bring battery technology into American manufacturing.

For the Trump administration, it raises a different question: how American can a critical technology be when the underlying know-how comes from China?

The Chinese connection goes beyond batteries

Duffy’s concerns do not stop at CATL.

Ford also has a recently announced partnership with Chinese automaker Geely in Europe. The companies agreed in July to form a joint venture at Ford’s Valencia factory in Spain to develop and produce multienergy passenger vehicles for the European market.

The vehicles will include electric, hybrid and gasoline models. Ford has said the planned products are intended for Europe and are not currently planned for the US market.

That distinction has not eased Washington’s concerns.

Duffy said Ford’s recent decisions 'paint a troubling picture of a foundational American brand actively intertwining its future with Chinese state-backed enterprises,' according to the letter provided to the Detroit Free Press.

He also criticized Ford’s continued production of Lincoln vehicles in China for the US market. Ford has said it plans to bring that production back to the US beginning in 2030.

Duffy described the period before that transition as a “multiyear window of reliance on Chinese manufacturing while depriving skilled American workers of vital manufacturing jobs.”

The criticism is particularly striking because Ford has publicly supported efforts to prevent Chinese automakers from entering the US market.

At the same time, Ford executives have acknowledged that Chinese companies have become major competitors in the global auto industry and that American automakers need to remain competitive in markets where Chinese technology and manufacturing capabilities are already deeply established.

That creates a difficult balancing act.

Ford pushes back

Ford has responded unusually forcefully.

In a statement provided to the Detroit Free Press, Ford described Duffy’s letter as a “wrongheaded attempt to capture headlines” and argued that it contained factual errors about the company’s partnerships and manufacturing plans.

“Ford is the most American automaker,” the company said, adding that it produces more vehicles in the US, employs more hourly manufacturing workers and exports more vehicles from the US than any other automaker.

Ford also said Duffy could have contacted the company before issuing the letter and that it would have provided additional details about its US manufacturing commitments.

The company has stressed that its CATL arrangement in Michigan is limited to licensing technology. Ford owns the Marshall facility and employs the workers there.

The disagreement also extends to reports that Ford had explored a framework for potential joint ventures involving Chinese automakers in the US.

Duffy said Farley had presented such a framework to US officials earlier this year. Ford denied that it had proposed the arrangement described by Duffy.

The Wall Street Journal has separately reported that Ford and Geely discussed potentially extending their European relationship to the US, although Ford later denied that such talks took place.

The episode reveals the increasingly complicated position American automakers find themselves in.

The US wants stronger domestic manufacturing and less dependence on China for strategically important technologies. At the same time, China has built a commanding position in areas such as batteries, electric vehicles and related supply chains.

Cutting those links is therefore not as simple as ending a few partnerships.

Ford's Michigan battery project illustrates the problem. The manufacturing is taking place in the US, American workers are producing the batteries and Ford owns the facility. Yet some of the technology comes from a Chinese company.

For Duffy, that still represents an unacceptable dependency.

“Iconic American companies, like Ford, are also expected to out-innovate competitors,” he wrote, adding that they need to pursue technological self-reliance.

For Ford, the calculation is different: competing in a rapidly changing global auto market may require access to technology wherever the best technology exists.

That tension is unlikely to disappear with one letter.

The bigger question is whether America can build a truly domestic EV supply chain without giving up the technology and cost advantages that Chinese companies have spent years developing.