On September 12, 2026, CNBC reported that General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) is in the early stages of developing next-generation battery cells that it says can reduce U.S. dependence on China, days after Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) faced Trump administration criticism over its own Chinese battery-technology ties.
GM has partnered with Denver-based startup Peak Energy to develop sodium-ion battery cells for stationary energy storage systems, using domestically available materials like sodium from soda ash instead of lithium and other inputs China dominates. GM vice president of battery and sustainability Kurt Kelty told CNBC the company is “developing a supply chain such that, two years from now, three years from now, it will be domestic.”
Don’t Miss: Ford (F) Answers Washington’s China Criticism with a $1 Billion Kentucky Bet
Bull Case
General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) could strengthen its domestic battery position by developing U.S.-based technology rather than relying heavily on Chinese intellectual property. GM vice president of battery and sustainability Kurt Kelty said the company wants to establish a domestic battery supply chain within the next two to three years. Its work with Peak Energy focuses on sodium-ion technology developed for stationary energy storage. GM says sodium-ion cells can operate across a wider temperature range and endure more cycles than incumbent chemistries. It gives the strategy a potential technical advantage alongside its supply-chain benefits.
Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) already has a more immediate path to U.S. battery production despite the political controversy surrounding its CATL relationship. Ford owns and controls its Marshall, Michigan battery plant and employs the American workforce there while licensing battery technology from CATL. Access to established technology could help Ford scale domestic battery manufacturing faster than companies that still need to develop and commercialize new chemistries. Ford retains operational control of the U.S. facility.
Both GM and Ford could strengthen their competitive positions if they successfully localize more of their battery supply chains in the United States. Washington is scrutinizing dependence on Chinese automotive technology and materials. China still dominates several critical battery supply chains. GM is pursuing more domestic technology development, while Ford is bringing licensed battery technology into a U.S.-owned plant. Successful execution could give both automakers greater supply security and more control over strategically important battery production.
Look Into: GM and Ford Take their Century-Old Rivalry to the Battlefield and the Power Grid
Bear Case
General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) still faces a long commercialization timeline, and its current sodium-ion program does not directly solve its near-term EV battery challenges. Kelty said GM needs another two to three years to establish the domestic supply chain it envisions, while GM designed its Peak Energy sodium-ion cells primarily for grid-scale stationary storage rather than electric vehicles. GM must still prove that its broader domestic battery investments can eventually improve EV costs, margins, and supply-chain independence.
Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) faces much greater immediate political risk because its U.S. battery strategy still depends on licensed technology from China’s CATL. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Republican lawmakers have criticized Ford’s CATL relationship and other ties with Chinese companies, even though Ford owns and operates the Michigan plant itself. Additional restrictions on Chinese automotive technology could force Ford to modify its battery strategy, increase costs, or find alternative technology if political pressure intensifies.
Both automakers still face a difficult and expensive path toward genuine battery independence from China. China controls large portions of global refining and battery-material processing, including about 98% of LFP cathode materials, so domestic cell production alone cannot eliminate supply-chain exposure. GM must commercialize new technologies at competitive costs, while Ford must manage political risk around licensed Chinese technology. Both companies ultimately need their localization strategies to lower costs and protect margins rather than simply shift where they assemble batteries.
Hedge Fund Sentiment
General Motors Company (NYSE:GM)’ hedge fund count fell to 75 in the second quarter from 77 in the first, with position value dropping to $4.87 billion from $6.08 billion, according to Insider Monkey’s database. Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F), the rival GM is implicitly contrasting itself against, held steady at 50 hedge fund holders, with position value slipping to $1.02 billion from $1.12 billion.
Conclusion
General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) and Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) are pursuing two distinct approaches to the same strategic challenge. GM is emphasizing domestic technology development and building expertise in sodium-ion batteries. Ford is using established CATL technology inside a battery plant that it owns and operates in Michigan. GM’s approach could reduce long-term political and technological dependence on China, while Ford’s approach could give it a faster route to large-scale U.S. battery production.
Nonetheless, GM still faces a lengthy development timeline, Ford faces significant political scrutiny, and both companies remain exposed to Chinese-dominated battery-material supply chains. Investors should watch whether each automaker can turn its respective strategy into competitive battery costs, stronger margins, and greater supply security.
Read Next: General Motors (GM) Commits Over C$1 Billion to Canadian Plants as Workers Ratify New Deal and Stellantis (STLA) and Ford (F) Bet Gas Engines Can Fix America’s EV Range Anxiety
