Ford and GM push competing tariff demands on Washington

Ford seeks higher Korean tariffs; GM targets Ford’s battery strategy

Ford and General Motors have presented a public united front as they grapple with a Trump administration trade policy that is costing automakers billions and scrambling global supply chains. Behind closed doors, the crosstown rivals are pressing policymakers for tailored relief that fits their own manufacturing footprints — and frequently puts them at odds.

Ford is pushing for higher tariffs on vehicles imported from South Korea, where GM produces some of its least expensive cars and ships them to the U.S. market. Ford executives have argued that roughly 80% of the vehicles it sells in the U.S. are built domestically, more than any of its competitors, and that imports from South Korea undercut that position. The Korean-built vehicles include models with already-thin profit margins, Ford has told policymakers.

At the same time, Ford is asking the administration to lower duties on imported parts and materials — especially aluminum, which is subject to 50% tariffs. Ford is the industry’s biggest buyer of aluminum, used in the bestselling F-150 pickup, and has been forced to rely more on imported aluminum after factory fires sidelined its biggest domestic supplier. Administration officials have so far rebuffed Ford’s requests for relief on aluminum.

GM has taken a different tack. The company is lobbying for curbs on Ford’s reliance on Chinese battery technology and last year tried to block federal funding for a large Ford battery plant in Michigan. GM argues that it is the larger overall contributor to the U.S. workforce once salaried employees are counted alongside hourly workers, and that the pint-size SUVs it imports from South Korea are popular and accessible to everyday buyers.

Kurt Kelty, GM’s vice president of batteries and sustainability, said in June that the company is “not licensing somebody else’s technology from China. We’re building on GM battery know-how in America,” as GM rolled out a plan to develop its own sodium-based batteries. GM is temporarily importing Chinese batteries to keep costs down on its Chevy Bolt EV while it scales its own battery program.

The two companies have also clashed over a bipartisan bill from Sens. Bernie Moreno (R., Ohio) and Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) that would ban internet-connected Chinese vehicles from the U.S. market. In its current form, the legislation bars many Chinese EV components but excludes batteries themselves, allowing Ford to retain its Michigan battery venture with Chinese firm CATL. GM has pressed for the bill to be tightened, according to a person familiar with the situation.

On one major front — the renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — Ford and GM, along with Jeep and Ram owner Stellantis, are presenting a united front. All three have pressed the Trump administration to renew the continental trade deal and to provide lower tariffs for cars and parts from North America than from the rest of the world, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Auto industry trade groups have separately advocated for the U.S. government to raise tariffs on overseas trading partners — particularly East Asian economies such as Japan and South Korea — whose vehicles remain competitive with North American-made models despite existing 15% tariffs.

The rivalry between the two companies stretches back more than a century. Ford was founded in 1903; GM followed five years later. Their headquarters sit about 15 miles apart. For much of their history, the two companies moved in tandem on union deals, product lineups, and other major decisions, but their strategies have since diverged on electric vehicles, affordable-car production, and battery technology. GM has branched into defense work; Ford has pared its small-car lineup to focus on its most profitable “iconic” vehicles.

In a statement, GM said vehicles made with North American labor and parts should receive preferential tariff treatment and that it was “encouraged by progress made on trade.” “Ultimately, this isn’t about one automaker vs another; it’s about ensuring our country and industry win long-term,” the company said.

Ford, in a statement, touted its position as the country’s top vehicle manufacturer and employer of hourly auto workers. “The Administration and Congress continue to be collaborative partners to ensure that Ford’s massive investment in America continues,” the company said.

Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group, a Michigan-based consulting firm, said the era of unified Big Three lobbying is over. “There was a day when you had the Big Three, and they acted monolithically,” Anderson said. “Those days are long gone.” Trade, he added, is “especially thorny because it’s political in nature.”