President Donald Trump has promised to revive American manufacturing, yet one of his sharpest critics now argues that his policies are doing the opposite for the auto industry. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is warning that Trump’s approach is undercutting U.S. auto jobs while giving China an opening to dominate the next generation of vehicles. I see in Buttigieg’s critique not just a partisan jab, but a deeper argument about whether the United States intends to lead or follow in the global race for electric and automated cars.

Speaking at the Detroit auto show, Buttigieg framed the stakes in stark terms, saying that decisions made in Washington are already reshaping where factories are built, which technologies are prioritized, and ultimately which country will own the future of mobility. His case rests on a simple but consequential claim: if the United States clings to yesterday’s engines and a narrow tariff strategy, China will capture the growth markets and American workers will be left fighting over a shrinking slice of the old one.

Buttigieg’s charge: tariffs, jobs, and a shrinking lead

When Pete Buttigieg accuses President Trump of “hurting U.S. manufacturing while helping China,” he is not speaking in abstractions. He points to the fact that, over the last year, manufacturing employment has fallen even as the White House has rolled out sweeping import tariffs on vehicles built outside the United States. In Buttigieg’s telling, those tariffs have not delivered a renaissance for American plants, but have instead injected uncertainty into investment decisions and complicated supply chains that automakers rely on to keep costs competitive.

Buttigieg argues that the administration’s focus on tariffs as a blunt tool ignores where the real competition lies. He notes that Chinese companies are racing ahead in electric vehicles and batteries, while Trump has signaled skepticism about aggressive electrification targets and has leaned into a culture war over internal combustion engines. From Buttigieg’s perspective, that combination, a protectionist shield around the old technology and a lack of strategic support for the new, risks ceding the commanding heights of the industry to China even as U.S. plants struggle to maintain existing jobs.

EVs as “the future” and the risk of ceding ground to China

I find Buttigieg’s insistence that electric vehicles are “still the future” central to understanding his broader critique. He is not simply defending a climate agenda, he is making an industrial argument that the country that leads in EVs will set standards, capture supply chains, and anchor high wage jobs. He has warned that Chinese manufacturers are already positioned to flood global markets with lower cost EVs, backed by state support and a domestic ecosystem that spans raw materials, batteries, and software. In that context, he sees any U.S. retreat from EV adoption targets as a strategic gift to Beijing.

Buttigieg has also highlighted how federal policy can either accelerate or slow that transition. He has pointed to tariffs as one tool to keep Chinese vehicles out of the U.S. market, but he stresses that tariffs alone are not a strategy. In his view, if Washington uses import barriers while simultaneously signaling ambivalence about EVs, it effectively walls off American consumers from foreign competition without building a domestic alternative at scale. That, he suggests, is how China ends up dominating exports to the rest of the world while U.S. automakers fight over a protected but stagnant home market.

Automakers’ political bet and Buttigieg’s warning

One of the more pointed elements of Buttigieg’s argument is directed not at Trump, but at the automakers that have aligned themselves with the president. He has noted that several companies have flocked to support Trump as he rolls out broad tariffs on vehicles built outside the country, apparently betting that short term protection will outweigh any long term downside. I read Buttigieg as warning that this is a risky wager, because it ties the industry’s fortunes to a policy mix that may shield some plants today while leaving them unprepared for the global shift to electrification.

Buttigieg has not shied away from vivid language to make that point. He has referenced an incident at a Ford factory, in which Trump’s behavior was widely interpreted as figuratively giving autoworkers “the finger,” and he has argued that this was not an isolated moment but a symbol of a broader pattern. In his view, the administration’s posture toward unions, its uneven support for worker training, and its rhetorical attacks on EV mandates all add up to a message that the long term security of auto workers is secondary to short term political theater. For Buttigieg, that is precisely how a country that once defined the automobile era ends up watching China set the terms of the next one.

Automation, safety, and the next wave of disruption

Electric powertrains are only one front in this contest, and Buttigieg has been equally vocal about automated driving. He has said that automated vehicles are now “safer” than human drivers in certain contexts, while warning that federal policy is lagging behind the rapid pace of technological change. I interpret that as a call for a more coherent national framework that can both protect the public and give companies the clarity they need to invest in large scale deployments. Without that, he suggests, the United States risks falling behind countries that are more willing to set clear rules and build the infrastructure that advanced vehicles require.

Here again, Buttigieg links policy drift to competitive risk. If Washington is consumed by tariff battles and cultural fights over traditional engines, it may neglect the regulatory groundwork for automated trucks, robo taxis, and connected vehicle networks. Chinese firms, backed by a government that has made advanced mobility a strategic priority, are already testing and deploying such systems in major cities. Buttigieg’s concern is that, absent a deliberate U.S. strategy, the software, sensors, and data platforms that underpin automated driving will be designed elsewhere, and American workers will be left assembling hardware for technologies whose most valuable layers are controlled abroad.

Clashing visions inside Washington

Buttigieg’s comments have not gone unanswered in the capital. The Department of Transportation, now led by Sean Duffy, has publicly pushed back, telling the former Transport Secretary to “stay in your lane” after his Detroit appearance. I see that response as more than a personal rebuke, it reflects a deeper divide inside Washington over how aggressively the federal government should steer the auto industry toward EVs and automation. The current DOT leadership has signaled a more skeptical view of mandates and a stronger emphasis on market choice, even as it defends the administration’s tariff strategy as necessary to counter unfair foreign competition.

That clash of visions leaves automakers and workers caught between competing narratives. On one side, Buttigieg is arguing that the United States must embrace EVs and advanced mobility as the core of its industrial strategy, or risk watching China lock in dominance. On the other, Trump and his allies present tariffs and a slower transition as a way to protect existing jobs and consumer preferences. As I weigh those arguments, I am struck by how much they hinge on timing: whether the country chooses to lean into disruptive change on its own terms now, or waits until global market forces, and Chinese competitors in particular, make that choice for it.

More from Fast Lane Only