Ford’s China-Ties Dispute Widens — Two Lawmakers Join Duffy, Farley Pushes Back

Update, Sept. 9, 2026: The Ford-China dispute that began with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s criticism has widened. Reuters reported that Sen. Rick Scott and Rep. John Moolenaar joined the criticism of Ford’s China-linked business relationships, while The Wall Street Journal separately reported from an interview that Ford CEO Jim Farley personally rejected Duffy’s characterization.¹² This article has been updated from the Sept. 8 version to incorporate those developments.

The new comments increase the number of senior U.S. political figures publicly criticizing Ford’s China-linked relationships, but they do not change the legal posture established by the government records reviewed for this update. The Sept. 8 USDOT release and Duffy’s Sept. 3 signed letter do not themselves announce a formal investigation, violation finding, penalty, subpoena, binding order or mandatory unwind of Ford’s relationships.³⁴

That distinction matters because the dispute includes a factual disagreement about what Farley proposed. Duffy’s signed letter says Farley proposed a framework at the Detroit Auto Show to facilitate Chinese joint ventures on U.S. soil.³ Ford’s Sept. 8 public response says it did not propose the U.S. joint-venture framework as described in Duffy’s letter.⁵ Those records establish the disagreement; they do not independently resolve what was said in the underlying discussion.

Ford had already disputed Duffy publicly before Farley’s Sept. 9 interview. The Wall Street Journal’s new reporting is therefore a direct CEO-level reiteration of Ford’s pushback, not the first company denial.²⁵

What Ford says its CATL relationship is

Ford’s Sept. 8 response says BlueOval Battery Park Michigan is Ford-owned and Ford-operated, and it describes CATL’s role as a limited technology-licensing and services arrangement rather than a jointly owned manufacturing operation.⁵ That is Ford’s public characterization of the structure; it does not independently resolve Duffy’s policy argument about dependence on Chinese technology.

Duffy’s letter criticizes Ford’s continued use of CATL technology and argues that the relationship creates strategic and supply-chain concerns.³ Those are Duffy’s stated judgments, not findings of wrongdoing or a proven security vulnerability.

Ford has also described the Michigan project as moving toward commercial battery output. In a June 17 company update, Ford said the plant was assembling full lithium-iron-phosphate cells, had moved beyond initial pre-production cell assembly and remained on track to ship EV batteries in 2026.⁶ The operating-status description and shipment target are Ford-reported, and the 2026 shipment timing remains forward-looking.

The Geely venture remains a separate, Europe-focused plan

Ford and Geely announced July 23 that they had agreed to form a manufacturing joint venture at Ford’s Valencia plant in Spain. Their announcement describes the venture as Europe-focused, says its vehicles are intended for the European market and makes the plan subject to regulatory approvals.⁷

That planned venture is different from Ford’s description of the CATL arrangement in Michigan. Ford describes Michigan as its own operation using licensed CATL technology and services,⁵ while Ford and Geely have announced a jointly owned European manufacturing venture that still requires approvals.⁷

The Sept. 9 development does not resolve the underlying policy dispute. Reuters establishes that Scott and Moolenaar have joined Duffy’s criticism; The Wall Street Journal establishes that Farley has personally pushed back.¹² Ford continues to describe its China-linked relationships in terms of U.S. ownership, licensed technology and a separate Europe-focused venture, while Duffy’s letter argues that the remaining ties themselves create too much dependence.⁵³⁷

Sources

Footnotes

1. “Republican lawmakers criticize Ford business ties to China” — Reuters, David Shepardson, Sept. 9, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/republican-lawmakers-criticize-ford-business-ties-china-2026-09-09/ Reuters is the originator used for the fresh Scott and Moolenaar statements. It establishes that the lawmakers made the attributed criticisms; it does not establish their underlying national-security characterizations as fact. ↩ ↩²

2. “Ford CEO Says Transportation Secretary Had ‘Basic Misunderstandings’ in Letter” — The Wall Street Journal, Ryan Felton, Sept. 9, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-ceo-says-transportation-secretary-had-basic-misunderstandings-in-letter-34795840 WSJ reports from an on-record interview that Jim Farley personally rejected Duffy’s characterization. No Ford transcript or recording was identified in the research packet, so interview-specific claims remain attributed to WSJ. ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. “Secretary Duffy Ford Motor Company Letter — NHTSA-260820-001_Signed.pdf” — U.S. Department of Transportation / Secretary Sean P. Duffy, dated Sept. 3, 2026 and publicly posted Sept. 8, 2026. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2026-09/NHTSA-260820-001_Signed.pdf Establishes Duffy’s written criticisms, urging and disputed assertion about a proposed U.S. Chinese-joint-venture framework. It does not establish that disputed underlying conduct occurred, that Ford violated law or that a security vulnerability was proven. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. “Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Urges Ford to Cut Ties to China and Prioritize Manufacturing in America” — U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 8, 2026. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-urges-ford-cut-ties-china-and-prioritize Establishes USDOT’s Sept. 8 public release and official framing. The release is a government position, not an adjudicative finding of wrongdoing. ↩

5. “Ford Statement in Response to Letter from Transportation Secretary Duffy” — Ford Motor Company, Sept. 8, 2026. https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2026/ford-response-transportation-secretary-duffy Establishes Ford’s public dispute of Duffy’s letter, Ford’s denial of the U.S.-joint-venture framework as described by Duffy, and Ford’s own description of the Michigan plant and CATL licensing/services arrangement. It is an interested-party company statement. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

6. “BlueOval Battery Park Michigan Hits Hiring and LFP Production Milestones” — Ford, June 17, 2026. https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2026/blueoval-battery-park-michigan-hiring-and-lfp-production Establishes Ford’s company-reported cell-assembly status and forward-looking 2026 battery-shipment target. It does not validate the policy or security claims in the dispute. ↩

7. “Ford and Geely Auto Join Forces in Europe to Produce Next-Generation Multi-Energy Vehicles in Spain” — Ford / Geely Auto, July 23, 2026. https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/eur/en/articles/2026/ford-and-geely-auto-join-forces-in-europe Establishes the announced Europe-focused Valencia joint venture, European-market manufacturing scope and regulatory-approval condition. Future operation and production remain company plans. ↩ ↩² ↩³