Senator Ted Cruz has turned a postponed Senate hearing into a high-profile clash with Ford CEO Jim Farley, accusing the executive of “swindling taxpayers” and being too frightened to face lawmakers. The dispute, centered on electric vehicle losses and federal subsidies, has quickly become a proxy fight over who should answer for the costs of the auto industry’s transition.
At stake is not only Farley’s reputation but also how aggressively Washington will scrutinize the Detroit Three as they juggle affordability concerns, union contracts, and expensive bets on battery-powered trucks like the Ford Lightning. Cruz, who leads the relevant Senate panel, is signaling that he intends to make Farley the face of that debate.
The postponed Jan hearing and Cruz’s escalating rhetoric
The immediate flashpoint is a Jan hearing of the Senate Commerce Ch that was supposed to bring in the CEOs of the Detroit Three to talk about vehicle affordability and the impact of federal policy. A U.S. Senate committee postponed the session after Ford raised concerns about the format and scope, a move that Cruz, a Republican from Texas who heads the committee, has framed as a retreat by corporate leaders who do not want to answer tough questions about pricing and subsidies for the Detroit Three in front of the Senate. That delay gave Cruz an opening to argue that the industry is ducking accountability at a moment when car buyers are struggling with high monthly payments.
Rather than let the postponement pass quietly, Cruz has used it to sharpen his attacks on Farley personally. He has said that Ford CEO Farley is “terrified of testifying before Congress,” casting the executive’s absence as a deliberate attempt to avoid public scrutiny rather than a scheduling or procedural dispute. In interviews and statements, Senator Ted Cruz has portrayed Farley’s reluctance as emblematic of a broader pattern in which large companies embrace federal support but resist detailed questioning from Congress once problems emerge.
Farley’s no-show, Ford’s explanation, and the EV money fight
Behind the rhetoric is a concrete decision by Ford that has only fueled Cruz’s criticism. However, Ford has indicated that Farley would not be attending the meeting, citing several reasons in a letter sent to lawmakers that was prepared with input from Ford’s legal team, reports The Detroit News. The company has argued that the hearing’s structure and timing were not workable and that other executives could address lawmakers’ questions, but that stance has not softened Cruz’s view that the top decision maker should appear in person when billions in public incentives and consumer costs are on the line.
Cruz has responded by threatening to escalate the confrontation, suggesting that the Senate could subpoena Farley if he continues to decline an invitation to testify. In public comments, he has described Ford CEO Jim Farley as “terrified of testifying” at an automaker hearing and has hinted that the committee is prepared to compel his attendance if voluntary cooperation fails. That posture turns what might have been a routine policy session into a potential showdown over congressional authority, corporate transparency, and how far lawmakers will go to force answers from one of the country’s most prominent industrial leaders.
“Swindling taxpayers,” Ford Lightning losses, and the political stakes
Cruz’s most explosive charge is that Farley has “swindled taxpayers,” a phrase he ties directly to Ford’s electric vehicle strategy and the public money that has supported it. He has pointed to what he describes as $19 billion in losses for Ford shareholders on the Ford Lightning and other EV investments, arguing that the company embraced generous federal incentives while pursuing a “misguided” product plan that has not yet delivered sustainable profits. After Ford CEO Jim Farley became the focal point of the postponed hearing, Cruz accused him of overseeing large losses tied to EV investments and then refusing to defend those decisions under oath.
In this telling, taxpayers are effectively subsidizing a risky corporate experiment without getting clear answers about how the money is being used or when it might pay off. Cruz has said he does not know if Farley is more worried about the $19 billion figure or about explaining why Ford, in his view, leaned so heavily on public support while raising prices on consumers. He has framed the issue as a matter of basic fairness, arguing that if Ford benefits from federal programs, its CEO should be willing to sit in front of Congress and explain the strategy in detail.
The language has grown sharper as the standoff has dragged on. Cruz has repeatedly described Farley of being “too scared to testify,” telling audiences that the CEO is avoiding a public accounting for Ford’s EV bets and their impact on both shareholders and taxpayers. In one account, Senator Cruz criticized Ford’s CEO and said that Farley is “terrified of testifying before Congress,” linking that fear to what he calls a pattern of corporate leaders embracing subsidies while resisting oversight. The criticism has been amplified in coverage that notes how Cruz accuses Ford’s Farley of swindling taxpayers and calls him too scared to testify, underscoring how a policy hearing about car prices has morphed into a personal and political confrontation.
More from Wilder Media Group: