Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a letter to Ford Motor Company on Tuesday telling it to reduce its reliance on Chinese partners and prioritize U.S. manufacturing, citing national security concerns and the need for American jobs. The automaker called the letter a wrongheaded attempt to capture headlines.
Duffy’s Sept. 8 letter to Chief Executive Jim Farley said the automaker has deepened its dependence on China even as Washington treats Beijing as a strategic competitor. He wrote that skilled American workers lose when the company manufactures abroad instead of expanding domestic production.
What the letter said
The Transportation Department identified two specific concerns. First, Ford has delayed bringing Chinese production of some Lincoln models back to the United States until 2030, which Duffy said leaves the automaker dependent on China for years. Second, Ford struck a partnership with Geely Auto, a Chinese automaker, to build low- and zero-emission vehicles at the company’s factory in Valencia, Spain.
Duffy framed the Geely deal as deepening reliance on Beijing at a moment when the administration has been pushing manufacturers to decouple from overseas supply chains.
Ford’s response
The company‘s pushback was direct and unambiguous. It characterized the letter as a wrongheaded attempt to capture headlines, a framing that disputes both the factual basis of the department’s concerns and the motivation behind the public letter.
The company is one of the largest employers in American manufacturing, with significant U.S. production and procurement. The company has been navigating the same pressures as other automakers, including the need to develop electric vehicle capacity while managing global costs.
The political and commercial context
The Trump administration has been pushing American manufacturers across multiple industries to reduce their dependence on foreign suppliers, using tariffs, public pressure and regulatory levers. Letters to CEOs are a tool of that public pressure campaign rather than a legal directive.
The public dismissal is unusual in terms of how directly it challenges the administration. Large manufacturers typically respond to government pressure with some diplomatic softening. The wrongheaded characterization suggests Ford’s leadership does not view the letter as a serious regulatory concern that requires accommodation.
Ford’s Lincoln production timeline and the Geely partnership are commercial decisions that reflect global automotive market realities, where manufacturing capacity and overseas partners have become significant in the electric vehicle segments that the company and others are trying to scale.
Whether the administration pursues any formal action beyond the letter, including regulatory changes or tariff escalation, was not indicated in the Sept. 8 news release.
