Ford publicly rebukes the U.S. Transportation Secretary; U.S. auto industry "fights desperately to save electric vehicles."

Ford Motor Company issued a strongly worded public statement on the 9th, directly refuting U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's public criticism of its cooperation with Chinese companies, characterizing the latter's criticism as a "wrong attempt to grab attention."

The incident was sparked by an open letter Duffy sent to Ford CEO Jim Farley on August 8. According to the Global Times , Duffy's open letter to Ford CEO Jim Farley was described by Reuters and other foreign media outlets as a demand for Ford to "cut off cooperation with Chinese companies." Ford's response on August 9 was described by the Wall Street Journal as "extremely strong-tongued."

On September 9, media reports indicated that in his letter, Duffy characterized Ford's battery technology licensing agreement with China's CATL and its vehicle manufacturing cooperation with China's Geely Group in Spain as "unacceptable," and questioned Ford's patriotic stance, stating that it "failed to demonstrate the level of a reliable partner required by the U.S. public and the Department of Transportation."

Ford's counterattack was equally ruthless. Media reports indicated that Ford's Chief Communications Officer, Mark Truby, stated that after Duffy's letter was made public, Ford officials spent considerable time communicating with Trump administration officials, ultimately concluding that Duffy's letter did not represent the government's overall policy stance towards Ford , and that "he completely overstepped his authority." In its public statement, Ford also pointed out that Duffy's letter contained factual errors and misleading statements, and cited a White House official press release from the previous week praising Ford's Marshall Project and Commerce Secretary Lutnick's affirmation of the decision to bring Lincoln production back to the United States, thus refuting Duffy's accusations.

Duffy's accusations: Political pressure disguised as national security

In his open letter, Duffy elevated Ford's cooperation with Chinese companies to a national security level, stating that the cooperation "involves the integrity of the U.S. national auto manufacturing industry, supply chain risks, and dependence on foreign adversaries' technology," and demanded that Ford prioritize "the long-term resilience and technological sovereignty of the U.S. automotive ecosystem" over "short-term arrangements or questionable foreign alliances."

The Global Times reported that Zhou Mi, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the Ministry of Commerce, stated on the 9th that the US Secretary of Transportation's open letter to Ford was inherently politically motivated . If there were truly substantial security risks, the US would not have needed to resort to such a method of pressure. Zhou Mi believes that Duffy's accusations lacked supporting evidence and were defamatory. Such a characterization would damage the reputation of the company involved and impact its business, which is a key reason why Ford chose to respond strongly.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the United States responded to media inquiries on the matter on the 9th, stating that China urges the United States to stop politicizing economic and trade issues , believing that attributing domestic economic problems to external factors will not help the United States solve its own predicament, and that its unilateral sanctions are a serious departure from the principles of a market economy.

The shortcomings of electrification: Why Ford cannot do without Chinese technology

The core of Ford's cooperation with Chinese companies lies in its unavoidable technological dependence on the electrification race. According to media reports, the cooperation between Ford and CATL that Duffy criticized involves CATL's licensing of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery technology in Marshall, Michigan, and is limited to third-generation LFP technology—China has explicitly prohibited companies like CATL from licensing fourth-generation LFP production equipment overseas.

The Global Times reported on the 9th that Zhang Xiang, a visiting professor at Yellow River Science and Technology College, pointed out that the new energy vehicle sector is Ford's weakness . Ford had previously cooperated with South Korean and Japanese battery manufacturers, but the performance of their products was inferior to that of Chinese companies. If Ford chooses to independently develop a complete set of new energy technologies, the process will be lengthy, extremely risky, and the success or failure is unpredictable.

Media reports, citing an analysis by Sam Adham, head of battery business at battery consultancy CRU, stated that while Ford and South Korean battery manufacturers have begun producing LFP batteries in the United States and South Korea, their supply is unlikely to meet the demand in the US market , and many US customers still prefer to choose Chinese batteries, which they perceive as being of higher quality.

"Behind every American buyer who wants to source domestic products, there is another buyer who prefers Chinese products."

Policy Dilemma: The Dilemma Between Manufacturing Reshoring and Electrification Transition

There is an irreconcilable contradiction between the policy goals of the U.S. government and the actual needs of the auto industry.

According to a report by the Global Times , Zhang Xiang pointed out that the US government advocates for the return of manufacturing, but if Ford is required by the US to produce only gasoline-powered vehicles, market demand will continue to shrink, making it difficult to maintain market share.

Media reports indicate that for Ford, this public rebuttal to the Secretary of Transportation is both a defense of its own business decisions and a public statement on the real difficulties faced by the American auto industry in its electrification transformation.

Analysts believe that whether American automakers can find a way to both meet political requirements and be competitive in the market, amid the shrinking market for gasoline-powered vehicles and the technological barriers to electrification, remains an open question.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerInvesting involves risk; please exercise caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.