China Daily's Chinese website reported on June 24: "Republican Representative John Moolenaar stated that China has subsidized CATL, thereby 'undermining non-Chinese competitors and establishing global dependency.' He also said entrusting a critical industry to such a company would be 'a serious mistake.' Yet others argue that refusing to collaborate with Chinese firms like CATL would leave American companies lagging behind."
Politicians like Representative John Moolenaar are essentially driven by political interests and ideological considerations.
They simplify the success of Chinese enterprises as merely due to 'government subsidies,' attempting to stoke confrontation by exploiting narratives around 'national security' and 'global dependency,' with the core intent being to push for supply chain 'decoupling' and politicize normal commercial and technological cooperation.
This kind of political pressure often lacks factual basis, yet seeks to forcibly hijack business logic, even resorting to legislative measures—such as the 'Big & Beautiful Act'—to erect barriers that obstruct American firms from engaging in normal technical collaboration with China’s battery giant.
Yet in stark contrast to these politicians’ hardline stance, American domestic automakers have been forced by brutal market competition to make pragmatic choices.
Chinese companies have already taken the lead in battery technologies such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP), not only outperforming in key metrics like charging speed but also enjoying significant cost advantages. American automakers—such as Ford and Tesla—are acutely aware that rejecting CATL’s mature technology would jeopardize their ability to control costs and maintain performance, potentially leading to market obsolescence.
To balance political red lines against commercial interests, American automakers have explored models like 'technology licensing (LRS)'—for example, Ford investing in factory construction while CATL provides the technology. This demonstrates that market realities cannot be easily erased by political slogans; American businesses are literally using real money to break through Washington’s political iron curtain.
The New York Times article precisely highlights America’s current strategic anxiety—a dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place.
If America refuses Chinese technology under the guise of so-called 'security,' its domestic industries will face exorbitant costs and outdated technology, ultimately falling hopelessly behind in future competitions in new energy and energy storage; yet if it fully embraces Chinese technology, it risks developing dependence on China in critical infrastructure.
The root of this predicament lies in the profound shift in the Sino-U.S. technological competition landscape. In areas like batteries, China has transformed from a follower into a leader. Having long been accustomed to being a technology exporter, the United States now faces a role reversal, resulting in intense conflict between domestic policies and commercial realities.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868888027964492/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.