The U.S. government publicly put the brakes on Ford's business strategy of adopting technology from Chinese corporations and continuing production in China. Ford immediately pushed back, saying the government's criticism was not based on facts.
On the 8th (local time), according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and others, U.S. Minister of Transportation Shaun Duffy sent a warning letter to Ford Chief Executive Jim Farley urging him to reconsider cooperation with Chinese corporations.
Minister Duffy took issue with Ford's plan to produce electric-vehicle batteries in Michigan using technology from Chinese battery maker CATL. He also criticized that Ford would produce Geely Automobile Holdings vehicles for the European market at its Spain plant and jointly develop sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) for overseas sales with China's Geely Automobile Holdings.
Regarding producing some Lincoln models sold in the United States in China, he said it was "unacceptable." Minister Duffy said, "Trying to navigate the current situation in a way that could enrich competitors is not a sustainable strategy for the United States."
Ford plans to move production of those models to the United States by 2030. However, Minister Duffy pointed out that until the production facilities are relocated, Ford would have to rely on China for a considerable period.
He argued that the plan would "create a yearslong period that both takes away important manufacturing jobs from skilled American workers and relies on Chinese manufacturing."
Ford countered that Minister Duffy's letter was "a misguided attempt to grab media headlines." It explained that the contract with CATL is limited to licensing the technology, and that the Michigan plant is directly owned by Ford and its employees are hired by Ford.
Ford added that the White House also praised the battery venture, emphasizing, "We build more vehicles in the United States, employ more hourly manufacturing workers, and export more vehicles from the United States than any other automaker."
WSJ assessed that it is unusual for a U.S. Cabinet-level official to publicly criticize the business strategy of a specific corporations and for the corporations to immediately rebut it.