Sean Duffy fired a formal warning at Ford Motor Company over its growing reliance on Chinese manufacturers, accusing the automaker of jeopardizing national security and undermining American workers in pursuit of cheaper foreign partnerships.

The Transportation Secretary sent a letter to Ford CEO Jim Farley laying out a bill of particulars: licensed battery technology from a Chinese firm flagged by the federal government, a joint venture with a Chinese-owned company in Spain, reported talks with another Chinese automaker over hybrid components, and years-long delays in bringing Lincoln production back to the United States. Duffy did not hold back about what he saw in the pattern.

FOX Business obtained the letter, in which Duffy wrote that Ford's recent decisions "paint a troubling picture of a foundational American brand actively intertwining its future with Chinese state-backed enterprises." He warned that Chinese law can compel companies to hand over proprietary and customer data to Beijing, a risk he said Ford was choosing to deepen rather than contain.

Duffy names four Ford deals that alarm the administration

The letter zeroed in on four specific arrangements. First, Ford's use of licensed battery technology from CATL, a Chinese battery manufacturer, at its BlueOval Battery Park facility in Marshall, Michigan. Second, a joint venture with Chinese-owned Geely to produce vehicles at a factory in Valencia, Spain. Third, reported discussions between Ford and BYD, another Chinese automaker, over hybrid vehicle components. Fourth, Ford's delayed plans to reshore Lincoln models, including the Nautilus, which Duffy said could drag out until 2030.

Duffy framed the concern in blunt terms:

"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 added that "iconic American companies, like Ford, are also expected to out-innovate competitors" and urged the automaker to "chart clear paths to technological self-reliance" rather than leaning on Beijing-linked partners for core technology.

The CATL relationship has drawn particular scrutiny beyond the Transportation Department. Twenty-six House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have probed Ford's $3.5 billion partnership with CATL, raising alarms about Chinese Communist Party influence over U.S. electric vehicle supply chains. CATL's founder and CEO, Zeng Yuqun, is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, a body led by the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee. Republican lawmakers obtained information suggesting a significant number of jobs at the proposed Michigan facility could go to Chinese citizens, a claim Ford has denied.

Michael Sobolik of the American Foreign Policy Council warned that Ford was exposing itself to manipulation:

"Ford should know that it is opening itself up to quiet manipulation and the malign influence of the CCP by partnering with an organization run by a CPPCC member."

The concern is not abstract. As China continues to flex its military muscle across the Pacific, the question of how deeply American industrial giants are entangled with Chinese state-linked firms carries weight well beyond the boardroom.

Ford fires back, calls letter a headline grab

Ford did not take the accusation quietly. The company issued a public 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."

Ford described its CATL arrangement as "a limited technology-licensing and services agreement, not a joint venture or foreign-owned manufacturing operation." The company pointed to its BlueOval Battery Park as a Ford-owned and Ford-operated facility representing billions of dollars in investment and roughly 1,700 American jobs.

The automaker also noted that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had recently praised Ford's decision to expand Lincoln production in the United States, and that the White House itself highlighted the Marshall battery project in a recent press release. Ford said it "supports the Trump administration's vision for advancing American innovation and manufacturing."

The company landed a pointed jab at Duffy's process: "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." The implication was clear, Ford believed the letter was designed for public consumption, not private resolution.

That complaint may carry some weight procedurally, but it sidesteps the substance. Whether Duffy called first or not, the underlying facts about Ford's Chinese partnerships are not in dispute. Ford licenses CATL technology. Ford has a joint venture with Geely in Spain. Ford has held discussions with BYD. And Lincoln reshoring remains years away. The question is whether those arrangements pose the kind of risk Duffy described, or whether Ford's framing of them as limited and controlled is the more accurate picture.

CATL sits on the Department of War's banned companies list

Just The News reported that CATL appears on the Department of War's banned companies list, a detail that sharpens the national security dimension of Ford's licensing arrangement. The outlet noted that Ford's agreement with Geely Auto in Spain covers the production of low- and zero-emission vehicles, meaning the partnership is not peripheral but sits at the center of Ford's electrification strategy.

House Energy and Commerce Republicans have warned in stark terms about the stakes. "Should China gain control of domestic electric vehicle production, the United States would be exposed to serious national security risks at a time of escalating geopolitical tensions," the committee stated.

The legislative branch has moved in parallel with the executive branch on these 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, including firms based in China. The measure would also prohibit certain connected vehicle technologies developed by those countries.

Separately, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the industry's own trade group, urged congressional leaders in September to enact a permanent ban on Chinese-made vehicles in the United States. When an industry lobby and a bipartisan Senate committee arrive at the same conclusion, the direction of policy is not hard to read.

The broader pattern of federal agencies confronting institutional failures to protect American interests has become a recurring theme under the current administration. Duffy's letter fits squarely within that effort.

Ford's stock drops as the dispute goes public

Markets did not ignore the confrontation. Ford's stock sat at $14.00 at the time of the report, down $0.62, a decline of 4.24%. Whether that move reflected Duffy's letter specifically or broader market conditions is unclear, but the timing was hard to miss.

Ford's defense rests on a distinction between licensing technology and handing over control. The company insists it owns and operates the Marshall facility, that the CATL deal is narrow, and that it remains committed to American manufacturing. Those claims may be true on paper. But Duffy's letter raises a different question: even a limited licensing agreement with a company whose CEO sits on a CCP advisory body and whose firm appears on a federal banned list creates a dependency that Beijing could exploit.

The tendency to dismiss concerns about communist-linked influence as overblown has a long and embarrassing track record. Ford may believe its arrangements are carefully managed. Duffy and two dozen House Republicans are telling the company that careful management is not the same as independence.

Several questions remain unanswered. Ford accused Duffy's letter of containing factual errors but did not specify which claims were wrong. The details of the reported Ford-BYD discussions over hybrid components remain thin. And the Senate legislation banning vehicles from foreign entities of concern has cleared committee but has not yet become law.

What is clear is that the administration, Congress, and even the auto industry's own trade group are converging on a single position: American automakers cannot build their futures on Chinese state-linked technology and expect Washington to look the other way. Ford, for all its history and its billions in domestic investment, is being told that national security obligations apply to boardrooms as well as battlefields.

An iconic American brand should not need a letter from a cabinet secretary to figure out that its supply chain belongs in the United States, not in the hands of companies answerable to Beijing.