Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy accused Ford of “intertwining its future with Chinese state-backed enterprises” in a pointed letter made public on September 8, and Ford fired back the same day, calling the 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,” according to CNN Business and Fox Business.

What Duffy Is Actually Objecting To

The dispute centers on Ford’s BlueOval Battery Park facility in Marshall, Michigan, where Ford has a technology-licensing arrangement with Chinese battery giant CATL to build lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells, plus separate business ties to Chinese automaker Geely. Duffy’s letter argues that arrangement amounts to strategic dependence on a geopolitical rival. “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,” Duffy wrote, according to Fox Business’s reporting on the letter. He added that “iconic American companies, like Ford, are also expected to out-innovate competitors” rather than license technology from them.

Ford’s Rebuttal, On the Record

Ford didn’t stay quiet. The company’s statement, carried by both CNN Business and Fox Business, insists the Marshall plant “is owned and operated by Ford” and that the CATL relationship is “a limited technology-licensing and services agreement, not a joint venture or foreign-owned manufacturing operation.” Ford also took a jab at Duffy’s process, saying: “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.”

Key Points

• Duffy’s letter targets Ford’s CATL licensing deal at the BlueOval Battery Park LFP plant in Marshall, Michigan, and its ties to Chinese automaker Geely.
• Ford says the Michigan plant is fully Ford-owned, employing a domestic workforce, with CATL providing licensed technology only — not manufacturing operations.
• The exchange happened entirely through public statements, not private negotiation — Ford explicitly noted DOT never reached out before going to the press.

Why This Matters for Buyers

LFP battery chemistry is a big deal for EV affordability. It’s cheaper and more durable than the nickel-based cells used in many current electric trucks and SUVs, and it’s a major reason Ford has pointed to the Marshall plant as central to bringing EV prices down for U.S. buyers. A federal push to sever the licensing relationship that made that plant possible could complicate Ford’s timeline for cheaper battery packs at exactly the moment automakers are fighting to make EVs cost-competitive with gas vehicles. Whether this fight escalates into an actual policy or funding dispute, or stays a war of public statements, is now a live question for anyone watching Ford’s next-generation EV cost structure.