The prevailing wisdom among the EV evangelists is rather simple: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are the undisputed future of global automotive mobility. They acknowledge that Chinese automakers lead the world in EV development and production. Yet, they seem blind to the simple fact that China’s massive state support cannot be successfully mimicked or countered by the U.S. system. In their rush to declare the internal combustion engine dead, these evangelists conveniently overlook the profound, negative impact an aggressive pivot to EVs by U.S. automakers has on competitiveness and our U.S. security.
China Doesn’t Just Lead EVs. It Owns the EV Supply Chain.
If EVs really are the next battleground for industrial power, then the first strategic question is: Who controls the ingredients?
China doesn’t merely lead. It dominates:
60–80% of the world’s refined lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite
The bulk of the midstream processing and battery-grade chemical production
Cathodes, anodes, separator films, and battery cell manufacturing capacity
The upstream logistics and mineral partnerships that feed the entire system
None of the above are the result of market forces by the way. It is the result of long-term, state-directed industrial policy - something fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. political and economic system.
Thus, why are some insisting that Detroit should try to win a race Beijing started 20 years ago and controls at every level? One of the most puzzling arguments from EV evangelists is that EV production itself is a national security exercise. Yet you almost never hear a coherent explanation of how.
When you strip away the speeches, what remains is usually:
“EVs reduce oil dependence,” or
“EVs are green,” or
“China is ahead, so we must catch up.”
But none of these are national security strategies. They’re aspirations.
If electrification was truly a security requirement, the priority would be securing critical minerals, processing capacity, and diversified supply routes. Instead, EV evangelists want automakers to electrify rapidly while relying on Chinese-controlled materials.
That’s not strategic resilience. It’s simply trading OPEC for Beijing.
These are the kind of blind spots I explored in a previous TaaSMaster update, “Bets, Billions, and Blind Spots.” When a technological narrative becomes a belief system, its followers stop seeing uncomfortable data. And there is plenty of uncomfortable data in the EV transition.
The U.S. Cannot Replicate China’s Industrial Model - And Shouldn’t Try
EV evangelists often point to China’s scale, pricing, and speed as proof that the U.S. must match their efforts. But China’s model works only because it is a command economy willing to:
Overbuild factories that operate far below capacity
Backstop unprofitable EV companies indefinitely
Absorb losses that would bankrupt American automakers
Deploy subsidies at a scope and duration impossible in a market-driven system
Detroit operates under constraints China does not: quarterly earnings, competitive capital, labor agreements, regulatory oversight, and the simple expectation that companies must eventually make money. To demand that U.S. automakers compete on China’s terms is to ignore the rules of our own system. What EV evangelists frame as bold industrial strategy actually creates a different kind of vulnerability: overconcentration.
If the U.S. pushes too fast, too exclusively toward BEVs, we risk weakening - not strengthening - our automotive base:
Consumers continue signaling they want hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and efficient ICE options
EV pricing remains elevated for mass-market customers
Charging infrastructure remains uneven is not improving uniformly
Battery materials remain geopolitically concentrated
Domestic automakers continue facing multi-billion-dollar losses on EV programs
A premature all-in bet on EVs risks hollowing out Detroit’s competitiveness just as Chinese automakers enter global markets at unprecedented scale. That’s not national security. It’s inviting long-term dependence in the name of short-term symbolism.
A Better Strategy: Compete on Terrain Where America Has Advantages
The U.S. does not need to copy Beijing’s model to stay competitive. In fact, it’s counterproductive. A smarter approach builds resilience and industrial optionality:
Hybrids and multi-pathway powertrains that meet consumers where they are
Advanced software, ADAS, connectivity, and UX - areas where U.S. companies excel
Battery innovation and alternative chemistries that reduce reliance on China
Strengthening North American mineral partnerships with Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Africa
Design, brand experience, and customer insight, where differentiation matters
Competing against a command economy by imitating it is a losing strategy. Competing through American strengths is how Detroit wins.
Closing Thought
The call for the U.S. to match China’s EV subsidies misunderstands both China’s industrial machinery and America’s. China’s EV dominance was built on decades of supply chain control, state intervention, and tolerance for inefficiency.
Copying that model would not only fail, it would distract us from building the diversified, resilient, competitive automotive ecosystem the U.S. actually needs.
The fundamental question isn’t whether EVs matter. They do. The real question is whether the U.S. should try to win a race designed by someone else.
Entering a race you cannot win is pointless. A race you design yourself is always the better strategy.