Ford Motor Company issued a sharply worded public statement on the 9th, directly challenging US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's criticism of its partnerships with Chinese firms, branding his remarks as a "misguided attempt to grab headlines."
The trigger for this confrontation was an open letter Duffy sent on the 8th to Ford CEO Jim Farley, in which he reportedly demanded Ford sever its collaboration with Chinese companies. Ford's rebuttal the following day was described by the Wall Street Journal as "unusually forceful."
According to media reports, Duffy's letter characterized Ford's battery technology licensing agreement with Chinese battery giant CATL and its vehicle assembly partnership with China's Geely in Spain as "unacceptable." He also questioned Ford's patriotic stance, suggesting the company had failed to demonstrate the reliability expected of a partner by both the American public and the Department of Transportation.
Ford's response was equally unsparing. Ford's Chief Communications Officer, Mark Truby, revealed that company officials spent considerable time engaging with Trump administration figures after Duffy's letter became public, ultimately concluding that the Secretary's letter did not represent the government's overall policy stance toward Ford. Ford asserted that Duffy had "completely overstepped his authority." The company's public statement also pointed to factual errors and misleading claims in the letter, citing a White House press release from the previous week praising Ford's Marshall project and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's commendation of Ford's decision to move Lincoln production back to the US.
Political Pressure Disguised as National Security
In his letter, Duffy elevated Ford's Chinese partnerships to a matter of national security, claiming they threatened "the integrity of America's automotive manufacturing sector, supply chain risks, and reliance on foreign adversaries' technology." He demanded that Ford prioritize "the long-term resilience of the American automotive ecosystem and technological sovereignty" over "short-term arrangements or questionable foreign alliances."
Zhou Mi, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, told Chinese media on the 9th that the Transport Secretary's decision to send a public letter was itself heavily political. He argued that if there were genuine material security risks, the US would not resort to such public pressure tactics. Zhou characterized Duffy's accusations as lacking evidentiary support and bearing a defamatory tone, noting that such labeling harms corporate reputations and disrupts business operations. This, he said, explains why Ford chose to respond so forcefully.
A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington responded to media inquiries the same day, urging the US to stop politicizing trade matters. The spokesperson stated that blaming external factors for domestic economic problems does not address America's own difficulties and that unilateral sanctions severely deviate from the principles of a market economy.
Why Ford Can't Walk Away from Chinese Technology
At the heart of Ford's cooperation with Chinese partners is a technical dependency it cannot easily escape in the race toward electrification. The CATL deal criticized by Duffy involves a licensing agreement for lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery technology at a facility in Marshall, Michigan. Crucially, this is limited to third-generation LFP technology, as China has explicitly banned companies like CATL from exporting fourth-generation LFP production equipment overseas.
Zhang Xiang, a visiting professor at the Huanghe Science and Technology College, noted on the 9th that the new energy vehicle sector is Ford's weak spot. The company previously partnered with Japanese and South Korean battery suppliers, but their products underperformed compared to Chinese offerings. Developing a full suite of new energy technologies in-house would be a lengthy and risky endeavor with unpredictable outcomes.
Sam Adham, head of battery research at consultancy CRU, said that while Ford and its South Korean battery partners have begun producing LFP cells in the US and South Korea, their supply is unlikely to meet American market demand. He added that many US customers still prefer what they perceive as higher-quality Chinese batteries.
"Behind every American buyer seeking domestic supply, there's another buyer who prefers Chinese products."
Navigating the Contradiction Between Onshoring and EV Transition
The policy objectives of the US government and the practical realities of the automotive industry remain fundamentally at odds.
Zhang Xiang pointed out that while the US administration pushes for manufacturing onshoring, if Ford were to comply strictly with Washington's demands, it would be limited to producing gasoline vehicles. That would cause its market share to shrink continuously as consumer demand evolves.
For Ford, this public rebuke of the Transport Secretary is both a defense of its commercial decisions and a candid acknowledgment of the industry's struggles in the electric vehicle transition.
Analysts suggest that the core question remains unresolved: can American automakers find a path that satisfies political demands while remaining competitive in the marketplace, caught between a shrinking combustion-engine market and the high technological hurdles of electrification?