Ford's Michigan Battery Plant and EV Tax Credits: Navigating Policy Risks in a Shifting Landscape

The future of Ford's $3.5 billion battery plant in Michigan hangs in the balance as U.S. lawmakers debate sweeping changes to electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. The proposed cuts, embedded in the One Big Beautiful Bill, threaten to unravel a project that once symbolized American manufacturing's green-energy pivot. For investors, this is no longer a theoretical debate—it's a critical test of how policy instability is reshaping capital allocation in the EV supply chain. The stakes are high: Ford's Michigan plant, now 60% complete, embodies the risks of tying multibillion-dollar investments to shifting regulatory winds.

The Threat to Ford's Michigan Project: Policy Uncertainty Meets Geopolitical Tensions

The Senate's consideration of the One Big Beautiful Bill—which would end EV tax credits by 2026—directly imperils Ford's Marshall plant. Originally valued at $3.5 billion and poised to create 2,500 jobs, the project has already been scaled back to $2 billion and 1,700 jobs due to reduced state incentives and market headwinds. Now, the plant's viability hinges on whether lawmakers exempt it from the tax credit cuts.

.

The plant's reliance on technology from China's CATL—a firm now classified as a “foreign entity of concern” (FEOC) under the bill—adds another layer of risk. Ford's partnership with CATL, which provides advanced battery chemistry, has become a geopolitical flashpoint. If the Senate retains FEOC restrictions, the plant could lose eligibility for federal subsidies altogether, despite its strategic role in domestic EV production. Ford's warning that “retroactive policy changes undermine investment confidence” underscores the broader problem: policy instability is deterring capital from long-term EV projects.

Policy Chaos: A Recipe for Supply Chain Fragmentation

The Senate's dithering over tax credits reflects a deeper issue: U.S. energy policy lacks the coherence needed to sustain EV manufacturing competitiveness. The One Big Beautiful Bill's abrupt cuts contrast sharply with the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) original vision of a decade-long transition to clean energy. This whiplash creates a high-risk environment for companies like Ford, which must now weigh the costs of U.S. manufacturing—already $2,000 per vehicle due to tariffs—against the possibility of losing subsidies.

The ripple effects extend beyond Ford. Automakers such as Hyundai and General Motors, which similarly depend on federal incentives to meet EV mandates, face production cuts if credits expire. Meanwhile, Tesla, with its brand loyalty and carbon-credit revenue streams, may weather the storm. .

Investment Imperatives: Prioritize Stability, Avoid Regulatory Whiplash

Investors must act decisively to mitigate exposure to policy reversals. Here's the playbook:

1. Favor Firms with Diversified Supply Chains: Companies like Tesla, which source critical minerals domestically or via stable partnerships, are better insulated from FEOC restrictions.
2. Advocate for Policy Certainty: Engage with firms pushing for stable incentives—such as those lobbying for IRA extensions or FEOC carve-outs.
3. Short-Term Plays on Senate Dynamics: Monitor the Senate's July deadline to finalize the bill. If amendments soften tax credit cuts or carve out exemptions for U.S. projects, EV equities could rebound.

Conclusion: Act Before the Senate Acts

The Senate's July vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill is a pivotal moment. Investors who wait risk missing the window to position portfolios for a post-tax-credit landscape. Prioritize firms like Tesla (TSLA) or those with geographically diversified supply chains, while avoiding automakers overly dependent on fading incentives. The Michigan plant's fate is a stark reminder: in the EV race, policy stability is as vital as battery chemistry.

The time to act is now—before regulatory uncertainty reshapes the sector irreversibly.