Electric vehicles are no longer a niche innovation; they are becoming the backbone of the next generation’s transportation and energy infrastructure. As the United States debates the future of E.V. subsidies, the cost of inaction may extend far beyond lost market share. It could shift geopolitical influence toward China in ways that are difficult to unwind.
E.V. technology is tied to more than just cars. It connects to battery production, critical mineral supply chains, grid storage, and clean energy manufacturing—each a pillar of strategic national competitiveness. China has secured early dominance across nearly all of these sectors. It refines the vast majority of global lithium, controls over 90 percent of the world’s graphite supply, and manufactures more than 75 percent of all lithium-ion batteries.
These are not just economic advantages. They are points of leverage. If China decides to slow the export of refined materials or limit access to advanced batteries, it could create immediate supply shocks for any nation trying to build a domestic E.V. or energy infrastructure. That risk increases if U.S. policies discourage local investment in alternative supply chains.
So far, American policy has failed to provide consistency. Under the Biden administration, incentives helped catalyze more than $200 billion in investment across batteries, chargers, and mining projects. That momentum is now threatened by the new Senate bill that guts those programs. If those investments stall, it will be years before they can be restarted—and the window for catching up will narrow.
Meanwhile, Chinese carmakers are aggressively expanding into markets in Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Countries that once relied on American or European automakers are now choosing Chinese brands that offer cheaper, more advanced electric vehicles. As these brands build loyalty and infrastructure abroad, the U.S. risks losing not only exports but diplomatic and commercial influence.
There is also the question of energy independence. The U.S. spent decades trying to reduce reliance on foreign oil. Repeating that mistake with batteries and E.V. components would be a strategic error, especially when domestic production was finally starting to ramp up.
Policymakers often frame E.V. subsidies as handouts. But they may be better understood as insurance—an investment in ensuring that the U.S. plays a role in defining the future of transportation, not just buying it from others. Without that investment, the future will still arrive. It just will not be made in America.