Major Automakers Say China Poses 'Clear and Present Threat' To US Auto Industry (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0180369487
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/12/12/141238/major-automakers-say-china-poses-clear-and-present-threat-to-us-auto-industry
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/major-automakers-say-china-poses-clear-present-threat-us-auto-industry-2025-12-11/
> The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents General Motors, Ford, Toyota Motor, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis and other major automakers, sounded the alarm and said Congress and the Trump administration needed to act.
>
> "China poses a clear and present threat to the auto industry in the U.S.," the group wrote in a statement for a U.S. House hearing on Chinese vehicles. The group also said lawmakers should maintain the U.S. Commerce Department's prohibition on importing information and communications technology and services from China that effectively bars the import of vehicles from Chinese manufacturers. "No amount of investment by automakers and battery manufacturers operating inside the U.S. can counter a China that is enabled by subsidies to chronically oversupply around the world. This is a recipe for dumping that Congress and the Trump Administration must prevent from happening inside the U.S.," the auto industry group said.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/major-automakers-say-china-poses-clear-present-threat-us-auto-industry-2025-12-11/
Couldn’t have been clearer: OEMs over consum (Score:5, Informative)
They were as upfront as you could have wished for. No mention of the pros or cons for American consumers and drivers. Nope, it’s all about the interests of the manufacturers who managed to get in the castle and are trying to pull the drawbridge up after them. The extraordinary chutzpah of Japanese OEMs being in this group is something to behold. The 80s was absolutely dominated by debate about Japanese OEMs trying to enter the US auto market, and US OEMs trying to keep them out.
I’ve said it before and will say it again: the US is going to diverge from the rest of the world’s auto markets even more, just as Cuba has. But it’s been forced on Cuba by the US, while here the US is doing it to itself. Crazy stuff.
Re: Trying to corner the market (Score:3)
China has been manipulating the lithium market the same way they've been manipulating the rare earths market (ie, poor environmental standards and anti-competitive practices by trying to build a monopoly). No other car company can acquire batteries at the same low cost as Chinese car producers. As soon as the supply chains are fixed (for both lithium and rare earths) this won't be a problem anymore.
China's dumping practices are well documented in the car industry. They overproduced and are now selling bel
Re: (Score:3)
Even if all this were true, which I strongly dispute, how does the US OEM response prevent the cornering of the Li market? It doesn't begin to. If anything, the US OEMs have been pushing for divergence, a recommittment to ICE drivetrains. If ICE drivetrains provided any kind of meaningful defensive moat, there wouldn't need to be this call for protectionist measures. It's all stuff and nonsense. OEMs produce giant crappy ICE vehicles with fat margins for the US market and want to keep it that way. They want
Re: (Score:2)
The point of an economy is to provide goods for the people of that economy. Firstly the essentials, food, shelter, clothing. Then luxuries. China's economy is achieving that increasingly well. America's economy is getting worse at it. Capitalism is a decent method to raise an economy up from a level of scarcity to a level of reasonable comfort for the population, but once that level is reached it becomes an increasingly poor method. In fact once a reasonable level of comfort is reached Capitalism becomes ac
Overheard in the boardroom... (Score:1, Insightful)
Senior Exec: "China's going to completely destroy us, their cars are better, cheaper and they can make them faster and better than we can"
Junior Exec: "We could try and make better cars, maybe make them so good we can export them to other countries and open up our market a little?"
Senior Exec: "We need to lobby the government. The way things are, if we grease the right palms, we can lock China out of the USA completely"
(rapturous applause from all the other fat balding while men in the room)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Junior Exec flying out a high-rise window.
No worse than (Score:2)
Trump's own tariffs destroying the US' auto industry.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they were doing a pretty good job themselves before that. In no small part by building almost nothing smaller than a truck, and then not building them to the same standards as other manufacturers.
You will buy this, citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
So they refuse to make affordable vehicles. They disallow anyone else to sell an affordable vehicle. They block the construction of alternate modes of transport, mandating that you buy their vehicle, at whatever price they command.
I do believe private industry is capable of producing worthwhile vehicles, but not when you allow them to act like this.
Re: You will buy this, citizen (Score:2)
Hyundai isn't bringing its smallest cars like Inster to the US, but Kia models are pretty affordable and as small as I suspect will sell on the US market.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Toyota sell their three "bread and butter" models, the Camry, Corolla and Yaris, on the US market? Does Mazda sell their equivalents, the 6, 3, and 2, there?
No one... (Score:2)
... has forced american consumers to buy ridiculously oversized SUVs and pickups for the last 2 decades. The best selling car in the US? F150. Don't tell me someone living in the suburbs needs one of those gas guzzling and impractical (unless you really need to chuck half a ton of building material in the bed) vehicles. Manual trades yes, most people? No.
To every other car industry ... (Score:3)
... other than the chinese. MKBHDs review of the Xiaomi SU7 is a real eye opener. If this really is the new bar for cars and not just China trying to get some stop on deflation. then it's certainly not just the US car industry that is in deep trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just subsidies; it's the batteries. CATL and BYD have engineered affordable LFP batteries. The USA has not been able to develop better batteries. The only option is to license battery tech from China for production in the USA. Until then the USA will be stuck with outdated ICE vehicles.
Dumping isn’t just selling cheap / subsidisi (Score:2)
Dumping means *selling cheaper abroad than you do at home*. Chinese EVs are definitely *not* sold cheaper in export markets than at home.
This difference really matters, because without it, anti-dumping measures can be broadened to prevent legitimate price competition. Which is exactly what’s being attempted here.
Re: (Score:2)
The economic and legal definition of dumping is as I stated it. Subsidies don't affect this, unless the subsidies are only for cars bound for the export market. This is how the WTO operates and its member states. For example, in the UK, here's what the legislation says:
"(2)For the purposes of this Act imported goods shall be regarded as having been dumped—
(a)if the export price from the country of origin is less than the fair market price there (whether the country of exportation is the same or a diff
Re: Dumping isn’t just selling cheap / subsi (Score:1)
" It is not a free market where supply and demand rule pricing and sales figures."
What happens to rational price theory when you drop assumptions like the Law of One Price?
Re: (Score:2)
While you're correct, this isn't the full picture. Automaking in China is complicated and there is a tangle of let's-call-them-subsidies and other weird perverse incentives that have led to Chinese manufacturers focusing on ICE exports [1]https://www.reuters.com/invest... [reuters.com] for example. The EV side of the equation is weird too, it's massively oversupplied and Strange Things are happening: [2]https://insideevs.com/news/763... [insideevs.com] and also [3]https://www.theatlantic.com/in... [theatlantic.com] are fun reading - none of this is sustainable.
Fr
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-floods-world-with-gasoline-cars-it-cant-sell-home-2025-12-02/
[2] https://insideevs.com/news/763687/china-zero-mile-used-evs/
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2025/11/china-electric-cars-market/684887/
Re: (Score:2)
There's tons of weird incentives from the Chinese state, for sure. But it doesn't amount to dumping. And of course the US has long provided incentives (and bailouts!) to its own OEMs.
Agree re Toyota / Geely and local manufacture. But obviously the US government is, erm, not very committed to encouraging overseas direct investment in the auto sector at the moment, as amply demonstrated by the Hyundai fiasco, and the specific route you describe ain't open to Chinese OEMs and doesn't look like it will ever be
Re: Dumping isn’t just selling cheap / subsi (Score:2)
Dumping means selling below cost, they are doing the same in China. Involution and all, except they keep wages so small even dumping can't always move the product.
Re: (Score:2)
No, dumpging doesn't mean selling below cost. That's not a definition you'll find in any legal or economic textbook, it's not the definitions used in any laws or treaties, etc. It's a misconception.
Dumping is what I described above. Here's what is written into UK law, for example:
"(2)For the purposes of this Act imported goods shall be regarded as having been dumped—
(a)if the export price from the country of origin is less than the fair market price there (whether the country of exportation is the sam
'Big 3' can't compete globally (Score:3)
Even if they get substantial subsidies and trade protection in the US, their products can't compete in the rest of the world.
Now there's significant defense value in the domestic auto industry. But we can't maintain the defense value without an economically viable industry that includes both R&D and production.
This goes to the heart of why the Trump Tariffs are a failed economic strategy. They're all stick, with no carrot to establish and maintain the domestic industries that Trump claims he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the blunt truth that this all amounts to self-imposed diseconomies of scale for the big 3. Not just tariffs, but the move away from EVs. It means parts are amortised across the scale of a 330m person market, ignoring billions of people elsewhere. Of course, Americans drive more than others and are very rich relatively as a society, and spend a lot. But still, that's not enough. Screws being produced for a market of billions are going to be cheaper than screws produced for a market of hundreds o
Re: (Score:3)
The "move away from EVs" is not a unique US phenomenon. It's pretty much global - apart from some EV-hot pockets, enthusiasm for full electrification has absolutely waned. The current discussion that the EU 2035 ICE ban will be lifted is a good illustration of this. Of course, US automakers never got very far INTO electrification to begin with, which may have ramifications down the line.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much a EU move away from EVs is motivated by EU auto companies having the same problems competing with Chinese EV manufacturers that US automakers are having. My guess is that EU countries, particularly Germany, are even more dependent on their automakers (as a percentage of GDP) than the US is.
Re: 'Big 3' can't compete globally (Score:2)
It's because most countries which aren't Norway are running out of money and are both too scared of losing more revenue from EU tax cuts and the political fallout of raising taxes on ICE's.
Re: 'Big 3' can't compete globally (Score:2)
Meant EV tax cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
The enthusiasm for electrification among European *OEMs* has waned for several of them, and was never very high to begin with. But not all of them -- eg Renault -- and the enthusiasm among European consumers, as evidenced by sales, continues to grow. After all, market share across Europe for 2025 YTD is about 18%, 4 percentage points higher than 2024. As more non-premium models become available, I expect things to accelerate further. Politicians care more than they should about OEMs and less than they shoul
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to respond to this without writing a long essay, because it's a complicated mille-feuille (word chosen advisedly) of consumer sentiment, infrastructure investment, lobbying, entrenched interests and so on which reaches very deeply into many expensive corners of the economy. And we have to separate Europe from the US because they are very different markets with very different governance, very different purported goals, and thought processes. They may converge someday, but they are very divergent to
Re: (Score:2)
This data is for 2025, from midyear.
Almost half of new car sales in China now consist of plug-in vehicles. Of these, approximately 55% were full-electric, 32% were plug-in hybrids.
In Europe, the share of rechargeable passenger cars was just over 20%, roughly the same level as the year before, due to decreased support of some governments.
In the US, the share of plug-in cars rose to just over 10%, more moderate than the previous year, due to decreased government support.
Clearly, China knows where
Re: (Score:2)
My take-away from the various comments on my parent post is there are clearly multiple auto markets: US/North America, Europe, China, Third World (and I'm sure that's an over-simplification, particularly that last category.) Those markets are defined by government policies, availability of various fuel sources, commitment to ecological goals, economics/consumer wealth, etc.
On a related note, I had a discussion with a classmate who owns a relatively large electrical contractor (residential/business/some
Shades of the 70s (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the 60s Detroit got complacent, built crappy cars with lousy gas mileage. Japan came in with cars with better quality, better MPG, and cheaper to boot. They ate Detroit's lunch.
Now everybody is complaining about the cost of cars, Detroit's answer is to quit making the small, inexpensive cars in favor of the $70k+ monster SUVs. China comes in with smaller, cheaper, cars with comparable or better quality. Of course Detroit is shaking in their boots. Their stupid plans work fine as long as the consumer doesn't have a choice. Give them the option to buy what they want, instead of what Detroit wants to sell them and of course nobody will buy the overpriced cars Detroit wants to sell.
The sad thing is Chinese cars are coming, Detroit can't or won't adapt, and the taxpayer will bail these idiots out again.
Re: (Score:2)
Detroit also wants to sell those monster SUV in EU/UK where they're street-illegal and ill-suited for European roads. Ford knew that and made different models for European and USA markets.
Stellantis is an interesting case, they are trying to sell the Peugeot 208 with different car bodies, but basically is the same model with the same options. They made the "new" Panda as one of these models. They are still selling the older MK IV Panda because it's the only model that sells, despite being basically a 2012
Re: (Score:3)
This is very much an oversimplification. First, to the US auto industry dollars are dollars. If they can make bank selling tiny cars, they will. They don't "care" what size of car they make. And the cars that they were "making" were often not even really their own product - for example look at GM basically reselling Daewoo tinycars here. But the US consumer market is not the same as Europe or even China - there is a strong predilection here for large vehicles (this was the case even when the "large vehicles
Re: Shades of the 70s (Score:1)
When labor is 5% of sticker price, how can you ignore arbitrary margin as much more significant factor?
It costs money to make cars (Score:2)
A good chunk of that is labor and environmental regulations. China doesn't have to pay for either of those things. We know damn well they have slave labor in their supply chains. And you can Google the phrase cancer villages and start reading.
American businesses cannot compete against the government that abuses its people as badly as China does.
This is not to say that the Auto industry doesn't have problems with affordability. They've gotten used to selling $60,000 SUVs as a base model and that's no
Re: (Score:2)
> EV don't even help climate change because of tire particulate
what's the CO2e number for tire particulate
What is "oversupply"? (Score:3)
From the summary:
> "No amount of investment by automakers and battery manufacturers operating inside the U.S. can counter a China that is enabled by subsidies to chronically oversupply around the world."
What exactly does it mean to "oversupply" something? The only way I can interpret that is they make so many cars and batteries that inventory hangs out in warehouses, unable to be sold at any price. How exactly is that bad for consumers?
You know who it's bad for? The Chinese people who are funding those subsidies. If they want to spend their precious resources to essentially give us free batteries, I'm not sure we should turn down the gift.
"But, but, but, monopolies!" I hear people sputter. Yes, companies trying to compete with them now may fail. That's hard for the people involved but good for the economy in the long run. Those people can grow other industries, ones the Chinese aren't subsidizing. When the subsidies stop, I'm confident new companies will pop up to fill the void.
In my perfect world, neither the US nor Chinese government would subsidize anything. Alas, we do not live there. Given the Chinese autocrats are bound and determined to engage in industrial policy, our best course is to take their money and run.
Re: What is "oversupply"? (Score:2)
It's bad once the gravy train stops.
Neomercantilism doesn't raise all boats, you just have a pretty good time while your boat is loaded down with cheap cars.
Irony (Score:2)
How ironic that a group called "Alliance for Automotive Innovation" is trying to quash competition so that its members don't have to innovate.
The elephant mole in the room (Score:3)
I'm surprised they're not pointing out that the US kicked Huawei out, and that these cars could present comparable concerns?
No shit. (Score:1)
American automakers have to pay union wages and can't just dump trash in the nearest hole.
Chinese factories get to pay slave wages and dispose of their waste by declaring it some piss-ant peasant's problem.
Why anyone thought it was a good idea to outsource all of our manufacturing to these people is beyond me. Let me clarify: I understood full well why people here thought they could get rich off of it.
What I fail to understand is why the nominal guardians of American freedom and prosperity, left right and c
What American Auto Industry? (Score:2)
Most automakers don't make cars. Ford only sells the Mustang, Mustang EV, and Trucks. The Camero is gone. Jeep is owned by the French. Tesla is unAmerican as it can get, and Elon is a world citizen, with a few other nationalities.
It's because they can't compete. (Score:2)
And we're not only talking about competing in the pricing. They cannot compete in the build quality or the design. Marques Brownlee [1]test drove the Xiaomi SU7 Max [youtube.com]. Ford's CEO has run one of those has his daily driver and has commented that if Chinese EVs are allowed to come to the USA US car makers are fucked.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb6H7trzMfI
The threat is stupid US auto management (Score:2)
Go ahead blame China for having the technical knowledge and market savvy to out compete US automakers who still think that ICE cars have a future.
China has to subsidize. (Score:1)
Tariffs or outright bans on Chinese cars won't keep them out of the USA for long. Those companies can open the same factories in the USA that they have elsewhere. They'll be vertically integrated dark factories that can crank out cars with a fraction of the labor costs of other brands. The cars will not be as inexpensive as they would be coming from China, but they will still be less expensive than comparable cars made in the USA by anybody else. Chinese brands are already building factories in South Americ
On the contrary (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst threat to the US automotive industry is the US government, by usually giving in to all their demands for non-competition. That they are now facing competition is not China's fault. That they call themselves "Alliance for Automotive Innovation" is quite hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just in Norway and was driven in a Nio SUV, a Chinese make made for the Norwegian market. Electric, $50K, and the most plush, silent car I've ever been in. Driver said it was perfect. And in China and Norway, there's a model that's $10K cheaper with a swappable battery. I'd buy one in a second.
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing the Chinese cars don't do better than American cars is meet our absurd addiction to cupholders.
Re: On the contrary (Score:3)
China keeps wages artificially low through currency manipulation (first just accumulating dollar bonds at the central bank, then hiding them at private banks, now more diversivied dollar assets and increasingly Euro assets as the US turns the screws).
A trade surplus can't be maintained by just having better shit for any significant amount of time, only by buying up foreign financial assets instead of goods. Otherwise their currency will just depreciate, preventing them from having enough money to run a trad
Re: On the contrary (Score:2)
PS. Also they are increasingly using FDI to get rid of their excess dollars/euros. Something the US/EU should not allow. The carmakers are correct in this, they are only going to build low on the value chain assembly plants. All the high value stuff will stay in China, the US/EU are just collaborating with an enemy by allowing Chinese investment.
US car companies are their own enemy (Score:2)
We've seen this play out numerous times. India had a highly protectionist market for motorcycles. It just led to companies selling 1930s designs because they faced no competition. The US "chicken tax" has led to a form of island gigantism in the US ute market, and also leads to inefficiencies to avoid the tariff, like Ford importing the Transit van in passenger configuration, then shredding the seats, or the Subaru BRAT being sold with carpet and seats in the tray.
At this point, it looks like Ford doesn'