Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy fired off a pointed letter to Ford CEO Jim Farley accusing the automaker of weaving its future into Chinese state-backed enterprises, a move he says threatens American security and American jobs.
The letter, obtained by FOX Business, lays out a bill of particulars against one of the country's oldest industrial names. Duffy cited Ford's use of licensed battery technology from Chinese manufacturer CATL at its BlueOval Battery Park facility in Marshall, Michigan. He flagged a joint venture with Chinese-owned Geely in Spain. He pointed to reported discussions between Ford and BYD, another Chinese firm, over hybrid vehicle components. And he singled out Ford's delayed plans to bring Lincoln models like the Nautilus back to domestic production, a timeline he said could now stretch to 2030.
Taken together, Duffy wrote, these decisions "paint a troubling picture of a foundational American brand actively intertwining its future with Chinese state-backed enterprises." The letter amounts to the most direct public rebuke a sitting cabinet secretary has aimed at Ford in recent memory, and it lands at a moment when Washington is moving aggressively to cut China out of the American auto supply chain.
Duffy did not hold back about why the Department of Transportation views Ford's trajectory as a problem. Chinese law, he noted, can require companies to provide government access to proprietary and customer data. Every partnership Ford deepens with a Chinese firm, in his framing, is another door Beijing can walk through.
In the letter, Duffy wrote:
"When a company intentionally chooses to deepen operational dependencies on strategic competitors, it fails to act as the reliable partner the American public and this DOT require."
He went further, arguing that iconic American companies like Ford "are also expected to out-innovate competitors" and "need to chart clear paths to technological self-reliance." The implication was plain: licensing Chinese battery technology is not innovation. It is dependence.
The specific targets of Duffy's concern span three countries and multiple business arrangements. CATL, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited, is the world's largest battery manufacturer and is headquartered in China. Ford uses CATL's licensed technology at BlueOval Battery Park in Marshall, Michigan. Geely, the Chinese-owned automaker, partners with Ford through a joint venture based in Spain. And BYD, the Chinese electric vehicle giant, has reportedly been in talks with Ford about supplying hybrid vehicle components.
The broader political environment reinforces Duffy's concerns. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved bipartisan legislation in July that would ban the import, sale, and operation of vehicles manufactured by companies designated as foreign entities of concern, a category that includes Chinese firms. That bill would also prohibit certain connected vehicle technologies from those countries. Separately, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation urged congressional leaders in September to enact a permanent ban on Chinese-made vehicles in the United States.
Washington, in other words, is building a wall around the American auto market. Duffy's letter asks why Ford keeps building bridges in the other direction. The administration's posture toward China as a strategic competitor has only hardened, and the Transportation Department's letter makes clear that Ford is not getting a pass because of its famous nameplate.
Ford did not take the rebuke quietly. The company issued a corporate statement calling Duffy's letter:
"A wrongheaded attempt to capture headlines at the expense of a company that has done more for American manufacturing than virtually any other in the nation's history."
The automaker pushed back on the substance, too. Ford described its CATL arrangement as "a limited technology-licensing and services agreement, not a joint venture or foreign-owned manufacturing operation." The company said BlueOval Battery Park in Marshall represents billions of dollars in investment and is expected to create approximately 1,700 American jobs. Ford owns and operates the facility, the company stressed.
Ford also noted that the White House itself had highlighted the Marshall battery project in a recent press release. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Ford pointed out, had recently praised the company's decision to expand Lincoln production in the United States. The company's statement carried a clear subtext: if Ford's Chinese ties are so dangerous, why was the administration celebrating the very facility those ties helped build?
The sharpest line in Ford's response was aimed directly at Duffy's process. The company said it supports the Trump administration's vision for advancing American innovation and manufacturing, then added a jab:
"Had Secretary Duffy reached out before issuing his letter to the press, we would have been happy to share more details about Ford's U.S. commitment."
That accusation, that Duffy went to the media before picking up the phone, is the kind of complaint that resonates with corporate America. Whether it resonates with voters who have watched American manufacturing hollow out over three decades is another question entirely. The tension between political loyalty and policy substance is hardly unique to this dispute.
Ford's distinction between a "licensing agreement" and a "joint venture" is technically accurate but strategically beside the point. A company that licenses core battery technology from a Chinese state-adjacent manufacturer is still dependent on that manufacturer for the technology at the heart of its electric vehicle strategy. If CATL's cooperation were withdrawn, whether by Beijing's decision or by future U.S. sanctions, Ford's Marshall plant would face a serious problem.
Duffy's letter did not announce any formal regulatory action, fines, or sanctions. It was a warning shot. But the direction of federal policy is unmistakable. Bipartisan legislation is moving through the Senate to ban vehicles and connected technologies from Chinese-linked firms. The auto industry's own trade group is lobbying for a permanent ban on Chinese-made cars. Ford is swimming against a current that is only getting stronger.
The delayed reshoring of Lincoln models adds another layer. Duffy's letter noted that Ford's plans to bring the Lincoln Nautilus back to domestic production could now stretch to 2030. For an administration that has made reshoring a centerpiece of its economic agenda, a five-year delay from an American icon is not a minor irritant. It is a direct contradiction of the policy Ford says it supports.
Ford's stock reflected the tension. Shares of Ford (ticker: F) traded at $14.00, down $0.62, a decline of 4.24%. Markets do not like uncertainty, and a public confrontation between a cabinet secretary and a major automaker creates plenty of it. Accountability within the administration's own ranks has been a recurring theme, and Duffy's letter suggests that corporate America is not exempt.
Several questions remain open. Has Duffy sent similar letters to other automakers with Chinese business ties, or is Ford the sole target? What specific factual errors does Ford allege are in the letter? What are the precise terms of the Ford-Geely joint venture in Spain? And has the DOT taken, or threatened, any formal enforcement action beyond the letter itself?
The status of the Senate legislation banning Chinese-linked vehicles is also unclear. The Commerce Committee approved the bill in July, but whether it has passed the full Senate or reached the president's desk remains unaddressed. If that bill becomes law, the landscape for every automaker doing business with Chinese firms changes overnight. The pattern of institutions discovering uncomfortable truths about their own partners is not limited to politics.
Ford built its reputation over more than a century by building cars in America, for Americans, with American workers. Duffy's letter is a blunt reminder that reputation is not a permanent asset. It has to be earned, and right now, the Transportation Department does not think Ford is earning it.
A company that needs Chinese technology to build American batteries has a branding problem. It also has a national security problem. Duffy put both on the table. Ford's answer, that the administration should have called first, does not make either one go away.