alt.hn

6/28/2026 at 1:55:21 AM

Feds Killed Polestar and Spared Volvo

 https://www.thedrive.com/news/feds-killed-polestar-and-spared-volvo-that-should-terrify-you

by mraniki

6/28/2026 at 5:10:19 AM

The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China.

Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here.

But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.

by WarmWash

6/28/2026 at 5:59:53 AM

Do you have an official announcement this is the case or are you just making excuses for this administration?

by stephbook

6/28/2026 at 6:15:05 AM

He's just saying the article does not even discuss this vital distinction, let alone bring evidence either way.

by pegasus

6/28/2026 at 8:20:59 AM

It's impossible to prove the nonexistance and mentioning hearsay wouldn't be good.

The onus is on the commentator to substantiate his claims of there being a rationale.

by stephbook

6/28/2026 at 9:06:39 AM

Well, that is not true. The 'nonexistance' part. All new car phone home, and that is somewhere on the world.

by juliusceasar

6/28/2026 at 11:47:52 AM

Ironic coming from the country with three domestic OEMs, and routinely threatens economic annexation of my country

by xethos

6/28/2026 at 9:04:57 AM

It also doesn't discuss if the polestar was made of asbestos or if it was dangerous to unicorn spawning habitat.

by idiotsecant

6/28/2026 at 9:23:57 AM

Honest question: what would prevent the CCP from buying telemetry on the open data market via intermediaries, from cars that were made in the USA?

by consumer451

6/28/2026 at 10:36:37 AM

Nothing but there they don't get to pick and choose what they want to log.

But yeah this thing is likely more protectionism.

by wolvoleo

6/28/2026 at 4:32:56 PM

Last I checked everything is logged in the USA. If you want to make a data play in the USA, why wouldn't you log and sell everything? IIRC, the Subaru US EULA even included intimate activity.

by consumer451

6/28/2026 at 9:24:06 AM

But having my Tesla made in Europe phone the US is totally fine right?

by jruz

6/28/2026 at 9:39:25 AM

It's crazy to me there hasn't been a backlash against that yet

by vrganj

6/28/2026 at 9:40:07 AM

.... but having all of EU defense including F35s calling in home in Trump US before every mission is totally fine right?

by m2f2

6/28/2026 at 1:43:17 PM

There is no such thing as EU defence - EU states have their own forces. The main defensive alliance in Europe is NATO, and the most important NATO country is the US.

by graemep

6/28/2026 at 3:23:06 PM

For Northern Europe there's UK led JEF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Expeditionary_Force

by type0

6/28/2026 at 5:04:29 PM

Less important than NATO, and not EU either - 10 countries, six of which are in the EU, three including the lead country are not.

by graemep

6/28/2026 at 9:09:10 AM

This is a remarkable opinion.

If we have problems with consumer-hostile behaviour like tracking users, remotely disabling vehicles, or other things like that we should outlaw those behaviours in products used in the US.

We will never do that because Western auto manufacturers want to be able to behave badly in the same way Chinese manufacturers might and they have a firm grasp on the American governments leash.

'Its from China' is a dumb reason not to allow a product into the market. If there are specific features, standards, etc that should be followed, enforce those.

by idiotsecant

6/28/2026 at 10:12:59 AM

I agree with you that consumer hostile behaviour should be illegal. Realistically, governments want this because it gives them more control so its not going to happen.

"its from China" is a good reason for many countries. A lot of countries are currently worried about their dependence on the US. They would have a lot more to worry about if they were dependent on China. Is it a good idea for European countries to put themselves in a position where China could disable half the vehicles in their country? The same for every Asian country that might have a dispute with China. Just borrowing money from China has proved to be a disaster for some Asian countries even without a dispute.

by graemep

6/28/2026 at 1:57:28 PM

I'm gonna blow your mind here... Perhaps we need open firmware in our devices so we know if China, the US government, or Google is adding backdoors to the hardware we own?

Why is it that when we deal with China it's acceptable not to trust the vendor but when we buy from literally anyone else we have to accept the enormous number of backdoors and implicit spying that comes with it?

China isn't the problem. The perverse incentives created when we don't own our own gear is.

by idiotsecant

6/28/2026 at 3:11:13 PM

> I'm gonna blow your mind here... Perhaps we need open firmware in our devices so we know if China, the US government, or Google is adding backdoors to the hardware we own?

Yes, dream on. How are you going to politically push through something very few people even understand? I covered this is in the first line of my comment.

> Why is it that when we deal with China it's acceptable not to trust the vendor but when we buy from literally anyone else we have to accept the enormous number of backdoors and implicit spying that comes with it?

You have to accept it from someone. You seem to have missed my point that for many people (and countries) trusting Chinese vendors is worse than trusting the alternatives.

by graemep

6/28/2026 at 5:10:16 PM

Why do we have to accept it? People assume so many distasteful aspects of our society are inviolable features of reality and not just something some people decided.

by idiotsecant

6/28/2026 at 11:41:54 AM

It has nothing to do with consumer hostile behaviors. Its bad when a hostile foreign government has control over and information about (think blackmail, not ads) your citizens.

A junior engineer on the x-500 future fighter jet drives a polestar and seems to be visiting the house of a single woman (which they know from tiktok days) while his family would probably think he would be at work. Will this guy throw away his family or start handing over USB keys?

Any even mildly intelligent politician is going to try and block this ability.

by WarmWash

6/28/2026 at 11:58:01 AM

> Its [sic] bad when a hostile foreign government has [...] information about [...] your citizens

How many domestic automotive manufacturers does America have, and how many times has the current administration threatened annexation of their Northern "ally"?

This is, at best, hypocrisy; and being on the recieving end of the annexation threats, I'm disinclined to use the most generous interpretation of America's "Rules for me but not for thee" attitude

by xethos

6/28/2026 at 12:38:01 PM

You don't have to buy any American products, and can vote for politicians that want to ban American access to Canadian markets.

Countries have been spying on each other (and their citizens) for centuries. Its not hypocrisy so much as run of the mill geopolitics.

Also, this rule is from the Biden administration, not Trump.

by WarmWash

6/28/2026 at 1:41:08 PM

What’s your actual point here? Is it that no country should ever trust another because they can one day turn hostile? Are you advocating that all global trade of electronic-based products should be banned?

by riskd

6/28/2026 at 1:54:03 PM

You're being confused by nationalism into not seeing that you're making exactly the point I just did. The bad thing here is not that China knows where you are 24/7. It's that anybody does. Why is it bad for China to be able to spy on you but acceptable that Google can? The US government? How about we just STOP THE SPYING? Regardless of who is doing it?

by idiotsecant

6/28/2026 at 4:59:14 PM

Great. But the solution is not to let china just do it while we work on the solution. Block them, and work on blocking local suppliers.

Don't double the problem before you try to fix it.

by mikrotikker

6/28/2026 at 7:47:14 PM

You have a bacterial infection of the toe and of the finger. If i cut off your toe your foot problem is solved. Or...you can take antibiotics and not cut off anything.

Like it or not, China is the world's factory now. The west has decided it doesn't want to dirty it's hands making things anymore, so it is what it is. Make reasonable, standard daylight firmware a required feature of all these devices and you simultaneously solve about a thousand problems.

by idiotsecant

6/28/2026 at 4:16:28 PM

But GMs security of their tracking information is 100% perfect and no foreign adversary will gain access? BS. Either we need to ban it completely for all manufacturers, or we don't actually care.

by _DeadFred_

6/28/2026 at 7:52:41 AM

What does it even mean to "get updates from China"?

Software these days is distributed and globalized in virtually every sense. Polestar is headquartered in Sweden and much of their software development is in the UK.

by mrtnmcc

6/28/2026 at 8:57:26 AM

It means that Polestar's ultimate owner is a state-aligned Chinese conglomerate.

The devs, in the UK or not, will do what it tells them to do.

by eps

6/28/2026 at 9:24:56 AM

Volvo's ultimate owner is the same state-aligned Chinese conglomerate.

The question isn't "why ban Polestar", it is "why ban Polestar without banning Volvo". They are both headquartered in Sweden, they are both owned by the same conglomerate, and they are often even both manufactured in the same factories. So what makes them different enough to warrant banning only one of them?

by crote

6/28/2026 at 4:51:55 PM

Because Polestar isn't a household name in the US. Most people have no clue they are even selling Polestars here. Volvo is very well known brand that has been established in the US for many years. and most people don't know it's Chinese-owned now. If someone said "ban Volvo" people would actually stop and wonder WTF is going on. You say "ban some brand of Chinese EV that you've never heard of," people aren't really going to care that much.

by olyjohn

6/28/2026 at 10:17:25 AM

From other comments where telemetry goes to, and possibly the level of remote control in the cars.

It appears to be a general ban on "connected vehicles" controlled from certain countries even if built in the US[1], so I would guess that Volvo does not meet the criteria for that.

1. https://www.topgear.com/car-news/usa/polestar-has-been-banne...

by graemep

6/28/2026 at 10:51:32 AM

My Polestar has the word "Volvo" on several parts. They share a software stack and get the same updates.

by neogodless

6/28/2026 at 1:43:13 PM

Who deploys and controls it? Do they operate separately, use the same servers etc.

by graemep

6/28/2026 at 5:00:40 PM

Nice pivot.

by mikrotikker

6/28/2026 at 6:38:12 PM

That's some extreme paranoia. Don't you think the devs are competent or ethical enough to call out an ask like that?

by mrtnmcc

6/28/2026 at 8:05:57 AM

There are no concrete guidelines or rules as this article illustrates.

by chvid

6/28/2026 at 5:45:18 AM

The audacity of the USA to do this to the entire world but banning anything foreign that does it to them.

by Anoian

6/28/2026 at 5:01:39 PM

It's good to be on top.

by mikrotikker

6/28/2026 at 3:22:12 AM

If you waited until today to get terrified... Then I guess you're one of today's unlucky 10,000. Congratulations, or something.

by jfengel

6/28/2026 at 6:05:31 AM

Well but they were one of the lucky ones not living in terror for all the days past. Truly lucky, no irony here.

by illiac786

6/28/2026 at 3:39:05 AM

What makes a car ‘made in China’ (therefore over 100% tariffs) vs ‘assembled in the USA’ (therefore no tariffs)?

The battery, engine and everything else is absolutely Chinese made. I don’t know how much assembly there is honestly but i feel the Geely, err i mean Polestar was a little close to that line.

I will say the laws around this indicate just how ridiculous tariffs can be. There’s always some line to press up against and honestly if electric motors, batteries, car bodies and wheels from china have different tariffs to a car as a whole it’s always going to lead to china shipping those parts in an easy to bolt together way to ‘make a car’.

by AnotherGoodName

6/28/2026 at 4:18:54 AM

Read up on the "chicken tax" for how long the auto industry has navigated weird assemvly games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

by mixologic

6/28/2026 at 4:51:21 AM

I think my favorite part would be where they were unbolting entire seats and feeding them directly into industrial shredders.

"Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts.[1] The vehicles were exported from Turkey on ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrived in Baltimore, and were converted back into light trucks at WWL's Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. facility by replacing rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seat belts.[1] The removed parts were not shipped back to Turkey for reuse, but shredded and recycled in Ohio.[1] The process exploited the loophole in the customs definition of a light truck; as cargo does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, presence of those items automatically qualified the vehicle as a "passenger vehicle" and exempted the vehicle from "light truck" status. The process cost Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but saved thousands in taxes.[1]"

by walrus01

6/28/2026 at 5:12:56 AM

Ford ended up paying $365 million (roughly $2200 per van) to settle a lawsuit from the government over that.

by khuey

6/28/2026 at 5:11:12 AM

I wonder if manufacturers are using LLMs to find all the dumb loopholes in the laws that they can.

by bagels

6/28/2026 at 7:09:33 AM

If the law was that simple, we wouldn't need the rest of the judicial system.

by sublinear

6/28/2026 at 4:19:36 AM

Reminds me of this.

There's a whole industry around reverse engineering tariff classifications to find ways to minimize all-in manufacturing cost.

For example, let's say you sell air purifiers.

Option 1 is to import an air purifier and pay the 25% tariff (or whatever the actual duty rate is) on air purifiers.

Option 2 is to import a widget that gets classified as a fan (with 5% duty) and import a widget that gets classified as an air filter (with 10% duty), then put them in the same box somewhere in the US.

Both are sold to consumers as an air purifier. But one of the options minimizes total cost to the manufacturer.

by mattas

6/28/2026 at 5:56:30 AM

Radiolab[0] had a story about this involving "toys" vs "dolls".

  "Dolls," which represent human beings, are taxed at almost twice the rate of "toys," which represent something not human - such as robots, monsters, or demons. As soon as they read that, Sherry and Indie saw dollar signs. it just so happened that one of their clients, Marvel Comics, was importing its action figures as dolls. And one set of action figures really piqued Sherry and Indie's interest: The XMEN, normal humans who, at around puberty, start to change in ways that give them strange powers.

  So Sherry and Indie went down to the customs office with a bag of XMEN action figures to convince the US government that these mutants are NOT human. That argument eventually became a court case that went on for years.
[0] https://radiolab.org/podcast/177199-mutant-rights

by 3eb7988a1663

6/28/2026 at 5:19:38 AM

The solution is to tax the capital account instead (tobin tax) or at the very least put the same tariff on everything.

But politicians can never resist exceptions and carve outs and then the game starts again

by ifwinterco

6/28/2026 at 5:34:24 AM

> The solution is to tax the capital account instead (tobin tax)

Isn't that just going to further advantage multinational corporations that don't have to move currency in order to move resources because they're all within the same corporation?

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 10:12:28 AM

I think you could only avoid it indefinitely if your operations are balanced, i.e. you make some stuff in China and sell it in the US, but also make something in the US and sell it in China.

Otherwise if you make everything in China and sell it in the US you'll eventually have to transfer USD from your US operation to your Chinese operation to pay suppliers, labour, taxes etc.

by ifwinterco

6/28/2026 at 11:04:09 AM

You wouldn't have to make it in the US, or even make it at all, you would only have to pay for it there. You also wouldn't have to deliver it to the place you want the money to end up, only to the location of someone willing to pay you there. You could be paying US dollars at a bank in New York to a company based in Australia to have them deliver iron ore to a company in India willing to pay you for it in China.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 12:18:06 PM

I think actually Tobin tax is the wrong word sorry. I don't mean just taxing FX transactions, I mean taxing all cross-border capital flows. So yes you can do everything in dollars (and a lot of the time the dollars never need to leave New York)

But eventually you do have to pay the workers and taxes in China in yuan, and ultimately that money comes from the US consumer, making some kind of US capital account transaction inevitable?

Maybe I'm missing something but I think it does work because ultimately a current account deficit mathematicaly has to be exactly balanced with a capital account surplus. You can attack the current account side with tariffs, but it's actually more elegant to attack the capital account surplus instead

by ifwinterco

6/28/2026 at 7:25:57 PM

> But eventually you do have to pay the workers and taxes in China in yuan, and ultimately that money comes from the US consumer, making some kind of US capital account transaction inevitable?

The thing you're missing is that money never actually has to cross the border when both parties to a transaction are on both sides of it. Corporation A gets money from the US consumer and pays it to Corporation B. The money is still in the US. It now belongs to Corporation B who invests it in US stocks etc. In exchange Corporation B provides <something> to Corporation A outside the US, which Corporation A can then convert into yuan outside the US.

It's equivalent to how money laundering works and why AML laws are a burdensome farce with a ~0% effectiveness rate.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 9:04:39 AM

Putting the parts in the same box, in the US, may cost more than the tariff for the whole thing being built in China or India.

by netfortius

6/28/2026 at 6:18:40 AM

the justification given for the ban (provided in other sources) is that Polestar's software stack is made in China. The theoretical spooky thing is China forcing some "evil" software update that stops all the Polestars.

The Volvo distinction is ... I mean maybe the Volvo software stack is in Europe or the US. Maybe it's also in China!

I do not really subscribe to this philosophy but what's going on isn't a "Polestar would be tar riffed" thing. It's an outright "you can't sell em" thing

by rtpg

6/28/2026 at 8:22:46 AM

I think there's a reasonable argument that modern cars are so full of cameras and other surveillance gear that there should be some rules about where this data is sent and how it's handled.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be that.

by InsideOutSanta

6/28/2026 at 8:35:38 AM

It could be that US would benefit from having a more generic GDPR law rather than individual enforcement.

by rvnx

6/28/2026 at 9:03:02 AM

The not-so-theoretical spooky thing is that the car requires an account to operate, and all its activity ends up being linked to a very concrete person, in most of the cases, and that's being vaccumed by China.

It's a perfectly valid concern, obviously. However in the current context of a blatantly corrupted government this might be a squeeze for money or just something done out of spite.

by eps

6/28/2026 at 6:10:48 AM

Some history for context:

In 1999 Swedish Volvo spins out and sells Volvo Cars to Ford (Volvo Sweden continues making trucks and heavy equipment) for 6.45 B USD.

In 2010 Ford sells Volvo Cars to Geely for 1.8 B USD.

iN 2017 Geely spins out Polestar from Volvo Cars. In 2021 Geely IPOes Polestar at NYSE for 20 B USD.

Leonardo DiCaprio-Backed Electric Automaker Polestar Valued At $20 Billion In SPAC Deal

https://deadline.com/2021/09/leonardo-dicaprio-backed-electr...

Polestar, the electric vehicle company backed by Volvo of Sweden and Leonardo DiCaprio was valued at $20 billion in a SPAC deal that will take it public.

by chvid

6/28/2026 at 4:57:50 AM

The policy of the United States is currently a roulette wheel suffering from dementia that believes that Siri is a Norwegian supermodel they can use to seed the future Herrenrasse.

by Eufrat

6/28/2026 at 7:28:33 PM

Siri was invented by a Norwegian (Dag Kittlaus), named after his own daughter!

Steve Jobs later called and bought his company.

by johaugum

6/28/2026 at 2:06:03 AM

Might it be that one sells EV’s and the other sells ICE cars? Or perhaps stupidity re Volvo’s ownership? Or a missing bribe?

by jleyank

6/28/2026 at 3:18:56 AM

Volvo also has BEVs, which are rebadged Zeekr (Geely) and mainly sold in China.

by linzhangrun

6/28/2026 at 3:13:39 PM

To be clear - most of Volvo's BEVs are their own designs, including all currently for sale in the US.

by Kon5ole

6/28/2026 at 4:05:34 AM

Volvo’s EX line of EVs is sold here in the U.S.

by dcrazy

6/28/2026 at 4:55:44 AM

Or maybe somebody at the decision table had sentimental feelings for Volvo. Like Kyoto.

by cuu508

6/28/2026 at 5:24:04 AM

I would be more terrified if they didn’t spare a manufacturer who designs and makes cars in Sweden and the US since decades just because the majority owner is Chinese.

by Kon5ole

6/28/2026 at 5:40:39 AM

Polestar designs cars in Sweden and builds then in the US for many years, it's still strange

by queenkjuul

6/28/2026 at 3:13:29 PM

I don't think Polestar should be banned, nor any other Chinese car maker for that matter, but I can understand why Volvo gets a different treatment.

Volvo probably employs several 1000s of people throughout the US from decades of dealerships, workshops, second hand sales etc, and they have a relatively large factory in the US.

Polestar OTOH has no factories and use direct-sales instead of going through dealerships.

So it's likely that Volvo generates a lot more value inside the US than they extract, while Polestar probably doesn't.

by Kon5ole

6/28/2026 at 3:20:18 PM

The vast majority of the value provided vs extracted, for any business, is related to consumer surplus and gross margins, as opposed to payroll.

by hawkice

6/28/2026 at 7:06:11 PM

>The vast majority of the value provided vs extracted, for any business, is related to consumer surplus and gross margins, as opposed to payroll.

Not sure what you mean here but I suspect we're talking about different things. Payroll is obviously value created by the business that's directly given to the society where the business operates, and it's not uncommon that it's higher than the company profits.

Take Amazon for example, payroll costs are much higher than the profits.

Car companies also create a secondary maintenance and repair business, insurance and financing business, resale business and so on that generate more value in the country they operate as well.

So I find it likely that a well established car brand like Volvo generates more money that stays in the US than they generate money that is extracted out from the US.

by Kon5ole

6/28/2026 at 7:03:24 AM

Are they going to also ban Jaguar and Land Rover because they're owned by an Indian company?

by insane_dreamer

6/28/2026 at 5:30:59 PM

If course is nothing to do with true logic. It's dictator logic. If they didn't bribe = donate, to the dump family wealth fund, they don't rate access to production.

by pomian

6/28/2026 at 3:45:26 AM

the main point to me here is that such decisions should be fully public including all the input info and all the reasoning that is behind the decision, similar to a court case. Instead we have that guessing game.

by trhway

6/28/2026 at 4:05:31 AM

Corruption and transparency are polar opposites

by garyfirestorm

6/28/2026 at 5:04:25 PM

Not when it comes to issues of national security

by mikrotikker

6/28/2026 at 8:37:27 PM

lol public roads are mapped on Google Maps

by garyfirestorm

6/28/2026 at 5:32:05 AM

If you go to China you will see plenty of KFC, Starbucks, Apple, and Tesla. American companies that all make billions out of the Chinese market.

Yet the US government seems happy to play games like this; there must be someone thinking - hey the shoe could soon be on the other foot? Maybe we should cool it a bit ...

by chvid

6/28/2026 at 5:39:31 AM

Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. It's very difficult for US or Western companies in general to do business in China without opaque restrictions, corruptions, and share ownership hoops. If the US is playing games, then it's closer to kids playing soccer on weekends; China is already in the pro leagues.

by ronsor

6/28/2026 at 5:43:58 AM

The simple story is: If you go to China you will see US brands everywhere. If you go to the US, you will see Chinese brands nowhere.

by chvid

6/28/2026 at 12:03:49 PM

Anker/Ugreen, Shokz, Insta360, RoboRock, League of Legends, Genshin Impact/Honkai Star Rail, Lenovo, TikTok, Shein, Temu.

> If you go to the US, you will see Chinese brands nowhere.

You'll see the above very commonly in people's homes and on people's phones in the US. You're making the mistake of limiting your view to "retail businesses on the street" when those have been going out of fashion in the first place. All of the above are brands that are commonly seen in the US and a lot of people (especially those under 30) are familiar with.

by deaux

6/28/2026 at 5:49:49 AM

Really, you will see TCL (and Hisense) nowhere in US? I recommend visiting any store selling TVs.

Same goes for Thinkpad/Motorola, but I guess there at could argue these are not original Chinese brands.

by Markoff

6/28/2026 at 7:37:22 AM

Yes - really. The presence of US companies in China is huge and everywhere whereas the presence of Chinese companies in the US is tiny.

by chvid

6/28/2026 at 7:45:47 PM

> If you go to the US, you will see Chinese brands nowhere.

is their presence tiny or are they nowhere? you can't have both, something something moving the goalpost...

by Markoff

6/28/2026 at 6:07:08 AM

Also Tencent, GE, Smithfield Foods, Legendary Pictures, DJI, AMC Theaters…

by busterarm

6/28/2026 at 7:34:26 AM

> DJI

Uh, about that.. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-416839A1.pdf

by 05

6/28/2026 at 3:59:37 PM

DJI makes a ton more than just drones.

by busterarm

6/28/2026 at 8:53:30 PM

Yes and unless they start making new ones without any electronics in them they're all still banned

by 05

6/28/2026 at 3:43:21 PM

We shouldn't trade privacy for fried chicken.

by wmf

6/28/2026 at 7:40:31 AM

Anyway - the answer to the rhetorical question - is there anyone thinking "it could be our turn soon" - seems to be a resounding "no".

by chvid

6/28/2026 at 2:55:08 AM

Probably the stupid politician behind it didn't get the memo that Volvo is no longer a swedish company?

by elzbardico

6/28/2026 at 3:34:30 AM

I think it's half this and half that Volvo is still a recognizable brand that Americans grew up with. My mother had a Volvo when I was seven. People would react if Volvo was banned. Polestar? What's that?

But Geely can throw down the gauntlet by building Polestars and relabeling them Volvos.

by scythe

6/28/2026 at 3:48:42 AM

This is probably the reason. Volvo brand is well established in the USA while Polestar is new. So not very Americans would complain if Polestar is banned as compared to Volvo.

by onesociety2022

6/28/2026 at 10:52:29 AM

That depends on which Volvo you’re talking about.

by hnarn

6/28/2026 at 5:36:52 AM

Maybe Volvo has some Swedish brand advertising running on Fox news?

by cookiengineer

6/28/2026 at 8:01:28 PM

The land of the free. What a joke.

by craftoman

6/28/2026 at 2:47:43 AM

The feds also controlling who has access to AI models. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692995

It's all just this lawless personal fealty shit.

by jauntywundrkind

6/28/2026 at 3:44:05 AM

It would be better if the AI censorship was lawless, rather than authorized by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, since that would allow the Article III branch of the federal government to be a defense against it. The lawfulness makes it worse.

by delichon

6/28/2026 at 5:44:47 AM

Some people have been pointing out for decades that granting unchecked discretionary powers to the executive branch is a hazard. Now there is an executive using them to do things a lot of people don't like.

Are the people who don't like it going to withdraw those powers the next time they have the opportunity? The main alternative is more of this.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 4:01:15 AM

The same kind of thinking was used on encryption algorithms in the 90s.

by malcolmgreaves

6/28/2026 at 5:10:40 AM

Only a few of us are big enough to fit an LLM on a tshirt

by uproarchat

6/28/2026 at 10:40:19 AM

You could fit all of Mythos on a t-shirt in microfilm size. But washing a microfilm shirt would be tricky.

by delichon

6/28/2026 at 7:07:52 AM

dammit, was planning on buying a Polestar at the end of this year when our Tesla lease runs out

by insane_dreamer

6/28/2026 at 10:46:23 AM

At least you have the R2 now!

by Schiendelman

6/28/2026 at 12:54:17 PM

With screen operated motorized vents. Eww.

by carlivar

6/28/2026 at 1:34:20 PM

Same as the Polestar.

Honestly, I think that ship has sailed, most users don't want the vents visible at all anymore, and that means no little tabs. I agree it's a bummer, but it's like 400th on my ranked priority list of things to care about when buying a car.

by Schiendelman

6/28/2026 at 6:30:13 AM

Terrify me? Really? There are other, genuinely terrifying things happening right now: climate change, human rights violations, animal rights, the spread of totalitarianism… that’s terrifying.

by ornornor

6/28/2026 at 6:38:45 AM

The spread of totalitarianism as, perhaps, exemplified by the US government arbitrarily deciding that certain cars can't be sold in the US, even if they're manufactured in the US and meet all applicable regulations?

by decimalenough

6/28/2026 at 9:16:38 AM

Totalitarianism on the rise in the global hegemon doesn't terrify you?

by solenoid0937

6/28/2026 at 6:52:51 AM

Granted, it seems inconsistent to treat Volvo different from Polestar. It might be just, that Volvo will get the Axe in a separate process, it might be sheer incompetence of the US admin, or it might be a deliberate negotiation tactic.

But what annoys me the most about the article is this constant praise of „China Speed“, Cost-Advantages and Love of the Free Market, as if not every single Chinese Automaker, including its Suppliers down to the tiniest screw is a State owned entity, massively subsidized and in general part of a rigged market.

This is not to take from the accomplishments of the Chinese, but a major part of the last 30+ years of development is just massive screwing and exploiting the western open market and its companies. Yeah, we’ve not forgotten the droves of people blatantly stealing IP on every trade show imaginable and a state completely absent from enforcing IP when ever another Chinese car is dropped to the market that looks 100% like a Benz, Porsche or Land Rover.

by woodpanel

6/28/2026 at 7:43:10 AM

Everytime the issue of Chinese state subsidies comes up, two things occur to me.

First, a "subsidy" is just govt tax money. In other words it comes from somewhere. It is, in effect, the Chinese people, contributing to the creation, or development of an industry. Clearly the Chinese govt thinks this is a sound commercial strategy, and certainly from here (considering their global dominance in manufacturing) it appears to be working.

Secondly, it's not like all countries don't subsidize industries of their own. Although their decisions of what to subsidy varys a lot.

For example the US subsidizes weapons production. To the tune of a trillion $ a year. That spills over a bit into commercial stuff (Boeing for example.) And sure, there is some export value (although that may decline in the long term given current political isolationism.)

Of course you can't spend a trillion a year if the storehouse is full. It's necessary to expend some munitions from time to time to make room for new ones. But I digress.

To go back, when people complain that US products are expensive because of Chinese (or other) subsidies- just be aware that the US subsidizes more than most. They just target industries that have little to no economic value to US citizens, and which can't be purchased by domestic or indeed foreign citizens.

The US could easily subsidize electric cars, or solar, or wind manufacturing but it chooses to subsidize airplanes and naval ships and tank builders instead. It chooses to spend money on 2 million employees (armed forces) rather than on 2 million factory workers, or day-care facilitators, or health-care workers.

by bruce511

6/28/2026 at 9:25:25 AM

Correct. Almost every country subsidizes domestic industry. Just off the top of my head: Boeing, Farm subsidies, CHIPS act (approx 52B), Oil drilling, GM & Chrysler bailouts, Airline bailouts, State tax breaks for Amazon, etc

by JSR_FDED

6/28/2026 at 11:40:31 AM

The scale is not even remotely comparable though to what China does

by woodpanel

6/28/2026 at 8:06:29 PM

I agree. Depending on what you measure,total US subsidies are far larger than Chinese ones.

I'd say you can certainly compare them though, and US ones are in the same order of magnitude- although it gets worse if you adjust for population size.

For example, the US subsidizes the defence industry to the tune of a trillion $ a year. (As a % of total federal budget the US spends about double that of China.)

by bruce511

6/28/2026 at 9:01:27 AM

> But what annoys me the most about the article is this constant praise of „China Speed“, Cost-Advantages and Love of the Free Market, as if not every single Chinese Automaker, including its Suppliers down to the tiniest screw is a State owned entity, massively subsidized and in general part of a rigged market

Do you think other countries do not subsidize their own automakers? What about the US government bailing out the entire US auto-industry during the GFC? To this day the French state owns 15% of Renault-Nissan and has given this company many tax breaks for the last 30 years or so just to keep some of the production in France.

It's too easy to dunk on China when the rest of the world has been doing the same exact thing for god knows how long but nobody had a problem with that as long as the EU/US auto-makers were making money hand over fist. Now, that it is changing, all of sudden everyone is screaming that China is the devil when it basically follows the same exact playbook.

As for free market argument, it is arguably harder to compete as a Chinese company in China given the cut-throat competition happening now than in the west and contrary to most of the western governments who would be too scared to let Ford or Renault fail for example, the Chinese government is very happy to see that some of its auto companies are failing because it means that the remaining ones are performing much better and have to keep innovating to succeed.

That is why the Chinese automakers are steamrolling the competition at the moment, they give people what they want: innovative products at a fair price point.

As it's been said many times in the past, don't hate the player, hate the game.

by rdm_blackhole

6/28/2026 at 5:16:59 PM

> the French state owns 15% of Renault-Nissan

"15% of a distressed key industry player" is a completely different ballgame than being an actual SOE, with insane amounts of subsidies let alone absense of any red-tape for these party-run corporations, and a market that forces foreign car manufacturers to set-up shop as a "joint-venture" were the "joint" is more akin to being sucked out, never allowed to be more than 49% owned by the foreign company and a general impossibility (unless you do some HK trickery) to transfer any profits made in China out of China.

What you are doing is not just intellectual dishonest, not just whataboutism, it is comparing apples with oranges.

Edit: And we haven'T even begun discussing the glaringly state promoted IP-theft.

by woodpanel

6/28/2026 at 6:53:49 PM

Your comment is all over the place and you are moving the goal posts quite a bit.

Since we are talking about Renault specifically, I will assume that you are not French otherwise you would not have written your comment.

Basically, it comes down to this, France is Renault and Renault is France. The French state has a 15% stake because it wants to influence the board, keep jobs in France and it will do that even if Renault loses money just like it did before Renault was privatized in 1996.

The French state will never let Renault fail and will always be there as a backstop if push comes to shove which is to say, it is there to make sure that if Renault needs cash it will give it. In 2021, at the height of the COVID period, the French state was ready to re-nationalize Renault instead of seeing it dissapear if necessary.

Then we have the countless subsidies and programs created all over the years so that French people buy newer vehicles from EU car makers. The same was done after 2008 when there was the massive cash for clunkers program to stimulate demand.

All of this money is coming from the state coffers, taxes paid to subsidize the purchase of new cars which benefits Renault and Peugeot immensely since these two brands are very strong in France.

So even though in practice the French state doesn't own a majority stake, it may as well because it will do anything it can to protect and help Renault keep it's market share.

Furthermore, nothing at Renault gets done without the French state's approval. If the French government thinks a merger is not good, it won't happen. If Renault wants to lay off people, it will have to through the government first, the unions second and only then will it happen.

As for the part of your comment regarding the profits out of China, that was not part of my response and not part of the original comment either so I am just going to ignore it.

Regarding the IP theft, every car makers steals from the competition. My uncle's job at Renault was to buy cars from their competitors and take them apart bit by bit to understand everything that was under the hood and then make recommendations to his bosses about all the new tech they found so that they could build their own version of it and include it in their newer models.

The point of the joint venture is moot. This is China's business model. If you want to sell cars there, you have to do it their way. It's the same exact playbook that the EU is using against the US tech companies by forcing them to comply with EU regulations if they want to keep distributing software and products here.

Don't want to comply, then no one is forcing you to do it. You just won't sell anything in China and that is that. Same goes for the EU.

Finally as another commenter said above, every country worth their salt on this planet is protecting to some extent their domestic champions, whether in the arms, space, car, food industry and whatever else. It's just the normal thing to do.

So you can complain about China all you want, it is doing exactly what the rest of the world has done for decades, but the difference now is that the Chinese brands are no longer the laughing stock of the car market.

They are leading in terms of price, quality and innovation and this reaction from the US government and the EU to apply tariffs on Chinese automakers is just a desperate attempt at stopping the flood of superior products.

That in itself is ironic because since Trump was elected and then re-elected, it's been a constant thing from the EU politicians to rally against the US tariffs just so that they can turn around and implement tariffs on China themselves.

When Germany sold millions of cars in China, that was just good business, when China does it in the EU, they are "dumping" their "over-production". When the US implements tariffs on EU companies and products, that is because Trump is an idiot who likes to start trade wars but when the EU does it on China, then it's simply "protecting" its industry.

I am honestly sick and tired of this double-speak, do as I say not as I do type of attitude coming from the most western countries. The western companies should stop whining and try to compete with China instead of crying because China just beat them at their own game.

by rdm_blackhole

6/28/2026 at 5:08:33 PM

The fact that this post is downvoted shows how bad the problem of Chinese bots on this site has gotten.

by mikrotikker

6/28/2026 at 3:30:15 AM

[flagged]

by catigula

6/28/2026 at 3:36:38 AM

Our cheap exports: competitive, free markets maximizing efficiency and delivering value to consumers

Their cheap exports: sinister pump and dump

by mullingitover

6/28/2026 at 4:07:20 AM

I think a national security argument is much more sound than an economic one, although costs are externalized in a way that isn't obvious, i.e. ecological disaster that shipping everything around the world and back (components, assemblies) is, and hollowing out a local supply chain takes virtually no time while the impact or limits of it are hidden until abrupt breakage (i.e. covid-era shortages on basic supplies, wars, or heavy handed statesmen dictating preferential access to silicon or whatever today). That is, every nation has to maintain some stake in not hollowing out completely while still participating in global commerce.

Once upon a time nations understood the issues better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_telephone_switches

by kev009

6/28/2026 at 4:51:15 AM

What about the telephone switches?

by catlikesshrimp

6/28/2026 at 5:06:43 AM

Notice how many brands there are, produced all over the world.

by BlaDeKke

6/28/2026 at 5:07:39 AM

Scroll down the list and look how many there are and where they were manufactured. Economic efficiency would mean only a few vendors.

by kev009

6/28/2026 at 6:19:42 AM

> Economic efficiency would mean only a few vendors.

This is a massive lie monopolists tell you to justify anti-competitive mergers.

Increasing entity size has economies of scale (amortizing fixed costs over more units) and diseconomies of scale (bureaucratic overhead, long-distance transportation costs, etc.)

Economies of scale peter out with increasing entity size. Amortizing a $1000 fixed cost over 100 units instead of 10 saves $90/unit. Amortizing the same $1000 fixed cost over a trillion units instead of a million saves less than one tenth of one cent per unit.

Diseconomies of scale metastasize with increasing entity size. Entity size exceeds Dunbar number, language barriers and timezone asynchrony, corporate politics, independent jurisdictions imposing mutually-incompatible legal requirements, insufficient competition compromises incentives for efficiency as long-term incumbents succumb to Iron Law of Bureaucracy, etc.

By the time you're operating something at the scale of the entire planet, having the benefits of scale still exceed the costs of scale will happen approximately never.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 6:29:31 AM

Maybe.. and "a few" was pulled out of thin air, but these machines were national treasures with immense R&D expense. Think rockets, heavy aircraft, and lithography.. not commodities or software. Having stuff in these categories is kind of "you have to be this tall to ride the ride"

The history is complicated and a side quest to the conversation here, but a free market did play out in the US and became fever pitched after AT&T was hand tied in the 1980s.

A free market means if you can do something better/cheaper/faster, or at least convince other people of the promise, you have a shot. The more that come (think of a gold rush), the potential returns diminish so it will eventually be hard to either acquire revenue/customers or funding for speculative approaches if they are capital intense.

Also, ironic to the conversation, the "best" machine vis a vis when and what, came out of the monopoly: the 5ESS. The Bell System was a reflection of a different culture and values system than what the US has today post leveraged buyout conglomerates and software company monopolies.

by kev009

6/28/2026 at 7:36:28 AM

> Maybe.. and "a few" was pulled out of thin air, but these machines were national treasures with immense R&D expense. Think rockets, heavy aircraft, and lithography.. not commodities or software.

Things with a large R&D expense are exactly like software. They have that specific problem with copying. If one company pays to do R&D and the others copy them, the one doing it can get out-competed because they have higher costs, and then there is a lower incentive to do it.

The problem comes after the government barges into the market and tries to address that problem with its inverse by granting the first company a monopoly. Then you have more incentive to do R&D, but only by trading the market for a czar.

The problem you have isn't that economies of scale couldn't support more manufacturers, it's that now other companies aren't allowed to make the product until the patent expires, and in many industries the incumbent will then use the profits from an existing patent to buy up other companies and patents and perpetuate a monopoly that was supposed to be temporary.

We don't currently solve that problem well, but the problem isn't that some things require too much scale. Markets where each of the patents required for a product are developed by more smaller entities who then license them like a patent pool is one structure that works as an alternative.

The actual problem is that governments are too shy about enforcing antitrust laws in patent cases, in part because it's counterintuitive to grant a monopoly on purpose and then prosecute over it. But the way it's supposed to work isn't that. Antitrust isn't about having a monopoly, it's about abusing one, e.g. leveraging a patent on one technology into a separate monopoly on an ancillary technology by tying the purchase of the patented product the other one. Or uncompetitive mergers, e.g. a company that already has a dominant market position in one market buying or exclusively (rather than non-exclusively) licensing patents that give it control over a different one.

We could definitely mess that up less than we currently do.

> The more that come (think of a gold rush), the potential returns diminish so it will eventually be hard to either acquire revenue/customers or funding for speculative approaches if they are capital intense.

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

If it's hard for new entrants to compete only because there are already so many incumbents, that's fine, because the number of existing suppliers is already large. The problem comes only when there is some artificial barrier to new entrants in a market that doesn't have enough providers as it is.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 4:26:17 PM

A lot of the reason Chinese goods are cheap has to do with their technical competence, low labor costs and a streamlined industrial system, but they also use a lot of subsidies, currency manipulation and forced investment so you can’t really say that just letting in Chinese goods is in accordance with free market principles without considering their domestic situation.

by ethanpailes

6/28/2026 at 5:07:37 PM

The opportunity to knock China for subsidizing domestic industries certainly died with the passage of the Chips and Science Act (long before that, really), and sincerely: good.

Whatever China is doing with their domestic industry, they're obviously doing it right and actually accomplishing things. There's nothing stopping the US from learning from that playbook rather than laying down and whining about it.

When the rival family across the street has its house in order it can certainly feel like unfair competition when you're too focused on fighting and stealing from your own household to get your head in the game and compete.

by mullingitover

6/28/2026 at 8:07:25 AM

Expats and immigrants, as long as we do it it's okay. Only possible when you lack self awareness and therefore can live with cognitive dissonance.

by scns

6/28/2026 at 7:28:03 AM

American cheap exports?

Government subsidised corn syrup in everything.

> Their cheap exports: sinister pump and dump

Hang on, are you just talking about American on both sides of the pros and cons

by happymellon

6/28/2026 at 4:12:29 AM

They have capital controls. Good luck moving yuan instead of Labubus.

by peyton

6/28/2026 at 4:06:21 AM

The alternative to Chinese goods is not locally made goods for the majority of people. It's either Chinese goods that we pretend are locally made, or it's nothing because they can't afford the local stuff.

Cheap good for decades has meant companies have been able to depress wages to the point no one can really live without them. Removing the cheap goods without also giving up massive corporate profits would just mean most people collapse into poverty.

by onion2k

6/28/2026 at 4:14:25 AM

Nobody wants to do the hard work of developing industry, reducing cost of living and doing business so workers are more competitive, and changing all the rules that make China 10x more attractive for this sort of thing.

They just want to ban even more things.

by dmix

6/28/2026 at 5:17:08 AM

If companies have been "depressing wages for decades" how come they're at an all time high? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

People make stuff like this abroad because wages are too high here to make a profit, not too low.

by YokoZar

6/28/2026 at 5:28:36 AM

real wages in western countries are down because 1. regressive inflation on essential goods like energy is faster than both wages and luxury goods and 2. rent and house prices (= mortgage costs) are up because of corporate lobbying and rich nimby homeowners.

that means if employers want to pay workers fairly they need to pay a lot more than in other countries with a cheaper economy. but even the inflated wages are not growing fast enough to catch up with cost of living. so yeah wages are too high compared to the rest of the world but also too low relative to the gdp and growth rate and corporate profits.

by tancop

6/28/2026 at 6:32:59 AM

> that means if employers want to pay workers fairly they need to pay a lot more than in other countries with a cheaper economy.

"Pay workers fairly" isn't something that companies in a competitive market can choose whether to do. If labor costs are high, they can either pay them, move operations to somewhere else, or stop operating. If labor costs are low, paying more than that would cause them to have higher prices than competitors.

What this implies is that countries with e.g. inflated housing costs will see operations to move to other countries whenever that's feasible, and indeed this is what we see. This isn't companies choosing to do this -- different companies will do different things, but then the ones doing the thing that requires them to have higher prices will be out-competed.

You can't fix that by admonishing them to "pay workers fairly", you can only fix it by increasing the domestic supply of housing and energy.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 4:52:01 AM

They're banning Polestar cars that are designed in Sweden (I guess) and made in the US... because the car's Google firmware is Chinese-owned. This case isn't about saving jobs (that's what tariffs are for); it's a misguided attempt at privacy regulation.

by wmf

6/28/2026 at 4:03:55 AM

Might want to google “pump and dump”. Serious non-sequitur here.

by brookst

6/28/2026 at 4:12:38 AM

"Pump and dump" is when Trump talks up a stock he just bought and then sells it.

by DiogenesKynikos

6/28/2026 at 3:51:40 AM

You're going to be able to compare this new way with the old way. Careful what you wish for.

by lostlogin

6/28/2026 at 4:09:55 AM

We can’t even make expensive versions of those goods

by mslt

6/28/2026 at 2:03:23 AM

It does not terrify me.

by andsoitis

6/28/2026 at 4:22:03 AM

>Polestar is done in the U.S. market. Its sister brand Volvo, owned by the same Chinese parent company, was spared. No one has explained why. The U.S. Federal Government is meddling with the automotive industry, the free market, and capitalism.

I'm not saying "trust the government", not at all. But meddling in China trade is absolutely not meddling with the free market.

by fsckboy

6/28/2026 at 5:23:46 AM

How is preventing a Chinese brand from selling here not meddling in the free market?

by DangitBobby

6/28/2026 at 4:02:18 PM

>How is preventing a Chinese brand from selling here not meddling in the free market?

because trade balances are established by free markets, but China doesn't allow many of our goods and does not allow free market competition. Also "strategic dumping" to establish supremacy in markets which can later be exploited.

also, "free market" does not have anything close to a precise meaning; i used it because you used it but it's highly ambiguous, better to rephrase sentences to accurately include the phrase "market clearing price" while identifying external strictures which might move the market clearing price away from where it should be.

by fsckboy

6/28/2026 at 5:47:35 AM

"Free market" implies regulators aren't picking winners and losers etc. If China subsidizes their export industry to make manufacturing in other countries uncompetitive then it's already not a free market.

Ideally what you would want is to get China to stop doing that, but now propose a mechanism to get them to.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 6:40:41 AM

Have you seen Polestar's pricing? They're very much positioned as the premium EV option and their pricing is pretty much the opposite of dumping.

by decimalenough

6/28/2026 at 7:56:54 AM

Commercial airliners cost tens of millions of dollars, does that imply a company that makes them isn't being subsidized by their government?

China subsidizes (among other things) battery manufacturing, which is the biggest single cost for making EVs. If you get your batteries cheaper than competing companies then you can make premium cars with an electric range at the high end of the market and then use the subsidized cost to provide other amenities that cause customers to choose your product over alternatives even at a premium price. It allows you to take the high end of the market on value just as well as the low end on cost.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 7:22:40 AM

You make it sound like the US doesn't massively subsidise entire markets and then try to force other countries to accept these market distortions.

by happymellon

6/28/2026 at 7:43:52 AM

Expecting other countries to do the right thing while not doing it yourself makes you a hypocrite, it doesn't change what the right thing is.

by AnthonyMouse

6/28/2026 at 1:59:05 AM

It’s because the Polestar cars have a lot more electronic surveillance than the Volvo models, which have had only minor tweaks and have mostly not been updated for years.

by SilverElfin

6/28/2026 at 2:11:31 AM

If it were just about electronic surveillance, a bunch of other cars/manufacturers would be getting impeded or at least get some sort of negative scrutiny.

https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/cate...

by Terr_

6/28/2026 at 2:22:05 AM

None of those are Chinese-owned, as far as I can tell.

Polestar is predominantly Chinese-owned. Federal Connected Car Rules instituted a ban on the company selling cars in the United States.

by andsoitis

6/28/2026 at 2:39:27 AM

All of them are Chinese owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geely. Geely, Polestar, Volvo, Zeekr, Smart, Lotus. All the same group

by killingtime74

6/28/2026 at 3:27:19 AM

Did you mean to reply to a different comment?

I don't see any of those on the mozillafoundation page, per @andsoitis.

by caminante

6/28/2026 at 4:31:13 AM

Oops, indeed

by killingtime74

6/28/2026 at 9:16:08 AM

Huh? Polestar and Volvo’s electric models share a very large part of their software stack, see [1]. I’ve seen forum posts talking about where the service centre accidentally loaded the Volvo software onto a Polestar. There is really quite a lot shared between the vehicles of these two companies.

[1] https://insideevs.com/news/774024/volvo-software-ex90-fixes/

by IneffablePigeon

6/28/2026 at 3:23:45 AM

Correction: it is because a major Republican donor wants Chinese cars banned, because they beat the living shit out of his offerings on quality and value.

It is silly to credulously pretend that the excuse about Chinese software has even a whiff of legitimacy.

by mukbangpervert

6/28/2026 at 3:39:40 AM

It's hard to parse this without concluding that you are perhaps unaware that Volvo is Chinese.

by natch

6/28/2026 at 6:01:12 AM

They need to balance between the Silicon Valley oligarchs desires and the MAGA voters possible reactions. Banning Volvo would probably not be well received by MAGA, at least Trump would need a bit more time to build the case that these vehicles are now unreliable.

by dybber

6/28/2026 at 4:18:50 PM

Having spent some time in California and seen things town by town at a very granular level, I think woke voters are the ones driving Volvos.

So while I didn’t quite follow that reference, it’s true that if Trump were to ban them for simply being owned by China, then he’d be kind of screwed because he’d then have to ban all his own merch like the Trump phone and his made-in-China MAGA hats.

by natch

6/28/2026 at 4:04:12 AM

I should've said competitive Chinese EVs to be precise.

(Though I thought that anybody as smart as you think you are would've inferred that without issue)

by mukbangpervert

6/28/2026 at 12:56:04 PM

Isn't this using Biden administration guidelines?

by carlivar

6/28/2026 at 3:22:30 PM

Yes. Biden did it in his last month.

Disregard this parent's bias.

As I mentioned above, it's not fringe to ban Chinese hardware for security concerns. They've been surreptitiously planting undisclosed control equipment. [0] No company would knowingly add more costs and complexity for nothing in return. And if the Chinese maker didn't know about the trojan tech, then it's even more concerning.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-...

by caminante