U.S. targets Ford’s China-linked partnerships

On Sept. 8, 2026, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a formal letter to Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley raising concerns about the automaker’s relationships with several Chinese companies. The Trump administration described Ford’s dealings with battery maker CATL and automakers Geely (0175.HK) and BYD (1211.HK) as issues of “profound concern” that pose “deep national security concerns.” The correspondence marks a direct challenge from federal transportation authorities to how Ford is structuring key parts of its international manufacturing and supply chain.

Duffy’s letter frames the concerns in national security terms rather than purely commercial competition. By grouping CATL, Geely and BYD (1211.HK) together in one communication, the administration draws a connection between Ford’s battery sourcing, vehicle production partnerships and component negotiations with Chinese counterparties. The letter indicates that these relationships are being evaluated in Washington as part of a broader strategic and security discussion.

A central point in the letter is Ford’s joint venture with Geely in Spain. Duffy wrote that this venture “helps strategic adversaries secure a vital foothold in Western markets,” suggesting that the presence of a Chinese automaker in a European production context is viewed as strategically sensitive. The letter positions this partnership as more than a standard cross-border collaboration, highlighting fears that it could expand Chinese influence in key automotive markets.

The letter also addresses Ford’s ongoing talks with BYD regarding hybrid vehicle components. Duffy warned that these discussions could “lead to further embedding subsidized foreign technology into Ford’s core supply chains.” This characterization underscores official unease that increased reliance on BYD-made components might deepen Ford’s exposure to foreign technology and subsidies within parts of its hybrid lineup.

Duffy singled out Ford’s use of licensed technology from Chinese battery maker CATL at Ford’s Marshall, Michigan plant. The Department of Transportation was described as “deeply alarmed” by this reliance, indicating particular sensitivity around battery technology and domestic manufacturing sites. The reference to the Michigan facility shows that policymakers are scrutinizing not only where Ford produces vehicles, but also whose technology underpins critical components such as batteries.

By highlighting CATL-licensed technology at a U.S. plant, the letter links foreign intellectual property and domestic industrial capacity. The concern centers on how core technologies within the electric or hybrid vehicle value chain might tie U.S.-based production to Chinese firms, even when the physical facility is on American soil.

Beyond technology and joint ventures, the administration’s letter criticizes Ford’s production footprint for specific models. Duffy pointed to Ford’s decision not to shift production of the Lincoln Nautilus from China to the United States until 2030. He said this timeline “leaves an unacceptable, multi-year window of reliance on Chinese manufacturing,” underscoring frustration with the continued use of Chinese plants for a luxury vehicle sold under a U.S. brand.

This criticism signals that, in the administration’s view, the geographic location of production is itself a strategic factor. The reference to an extended window through 2030 shows that policymakers are looking at Ford’s medium-term manufacturing plans, not just current operations, when assessing exposure to Chinese production and technology.