Ford Motor Company and U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy are engaged in an unusually public dispute over the automaker’s business relationships with Chinese companies, with Duffy warning of national-security risks and Ford accusing the secretary of misrepresenting its actions.
In a letter dated Sept. 3 and released by the Transportation Department on Sept. 8, Duffy expressed “profound concern” about what he called Ford’s increasing dependence on Chinese technology and manufacturing. He urged CEO Jim Farley to pursue strategies that give priority to American workers, allied supply chains and domestic technological independence.
Duffy’s primary concern is Ford’s BlueOval Battery Park Michigan in Marshall, Michigan. The Ford-owned factory uses lithium-iron-phosphate battery technology licensed from Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd., better known as CATL. The Chinese battery manufacturer appears on a Pentagon list of companies alleged to have connections to China’s military.
Ford says its arrangement with CATL is a technology-licensing agreement, not a joint venture. The automaker owns the Michigan factory, controls its operations, employs its workers and manages its supply chain. The plant began assembling its first lithium-iron-phosphate cells this year and is expected to employ approximately 1,700 people when fully staffed.
“While others continue to import Chinese batteries, Ford is investing to build batteries here in America,” the company said in response to Duffy’s letter, which it called “a wrongheaded attempt to capture headlines.”
Duffy also criticized Ford’s proposed joint venture with Chinese automaker Geely at Ford’s Valencia, Spain, factory. Under the arrangement announced in July, Ford would own 66% of the venture and Geely would own 34%. The companies plan to build Ford and Geely vehicles for European customers, with production of the first new models scheduled to begin in 2028.
Ford says the partnership is limited to Europe and is designed to lower manufacturing costs, use more of the Valencia plant’s production capacity and help Ford compete in a European market increasingly challenged by lower-cost Chinese automakers.
Duffy further cited what he described as Ford’s continuing discussions with BYD over hybrid-vehicle components. He warned that such an agreement could further embed Chinese technology in Ford’s supply chain. Ford has not announced a BYD agreement.
The secretary also accused Farley of proposing a framework at the Detroit Auto Show that would allow Chinese automakers to establish joint ventures in the United States. Farley emphatically denied making such a proposal.
“N-O, period. That’s flatly wrong,” Farley told The Wall Street Journal. He described Duffy’s allegations as “basic misunderstandings” and said they could have been resolved with a brief telephone call. Farley invited the secretary to visit Ford’s American operations.
Another point of contention is Ford’s plan to continue importing the Lincoln Nautilus from China until 2030, when Ford intends to move production of certain Lincoln vehicles to the United States. Duffy said waiting until 2030 leaves Ford dependent on Chinese manufacturing for too long and deprives American workers of manufacturing jobs.
Ford countered that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently praised the same reshoring announcement as evidence that manufacturers were returning production to the United States.
The disagreement has produced conflicting messages from Washington. Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China, supported Duffy’s concerns. The committee accused Ford of warning publicly about Chinese automotive competition while simultaneously entering business relationships with Chinese companies.
The White House, however, posted that Ford is a “great American company” that has increased domestic investment and returned production to the United States. President Donald Trump added another wrinkle Friday when he said he would be open to Chinese automakers building vehicles in the United States if they employed American workers, although he opposes Chinese vehicles being built in Mexico and imported across the border.
Ford has repeatedly warned that heavily subsidized Chinese automakers present a major competitive threat and has supported efforts to keep Chinese-built vehicles out of the United States. At the same time, Ford argues that selectively using Chinese technology and overseas partnerships is necessary to compete against those same manufacturers globally.
For now, Duffy’s letter imposes no sanctions and orders no formal government action. It does, however, expose a growing disagreement over where learning from a formidable competitor ends—and dependence on a strategic rival begins.