General Motors Wrote This ‘National Security’ Bill and You Are About to Pay for It
They Are Calling Your Mercedes a Chinese Spy
A bipartisan Senate Commerce Committee bill would ban automakers from U.S. sales if Chinese investors own more than 15% of company shares. Mercedes-Benz has two passive Chinese shareholders sitting at a combined 19.7%. Under this bill, you could be banned from buying a new Mercedes in America unless regulators grant a waiver.
National security, they say. Protecting Americans from Chinese surveillance, they say.
Ted Cruz, the committee chairman, said General Motors pushed to set the ownership threshold at exactly this level because GM views Mercedes as a competitor to Cadillac.
That is the whole story right there.
Corporate Protectionism With a Security Costume
This is not complicated. When a domestic automaker helps write the ownership thresholds in a national security bill that conveniently targets its foreign competitors, that is not security policy. That is lobbying dressed up as patriotism, and Washington does this constantly.
The pitch to you is: Chinese entities could exploit connected vehicle systems to collect your location, audio, and video data. That concern is real. Modern connected cars do collect:
- Real-time GPS location data
- Audio and video from inside the vehicle
- Continuous software transmissions to manufacturers
- Driving behavior and personal use patterns
China did require EV makers operating there, including Tesla, to transmit real-time driver data to the government starting in 2018. That is documented and worth taking seriously.
But here is where the whole argument collapses.
The Contradiction Washington Cannot Explain
Polestar was recently barred from new U.S. sales. Polestar is owned by the Geely Holding Company, a Chinese conglomerate. Makes sense, right?
Except Volvo is also majority-owned by Geely. The exact same company. And Volvos are still being sold without any problem.
Somebody explain that to me. Because nobody in the Senate can. The rule is not being applied based on a coherent principle. It is being applied based on which brands have better lobbying operations and which ones General Motors wants eliminated.
What You Are Actually Losing
When the government bans a product from the market, consumers do not seamlessly migrate to the approved domestic alternative. What actually happens:
- Purchasing options shrink
- Competition decreases
- Prices on remaining vehicles go up
- Domestic automakers face less pressure to improve quality
- You foot the bill for all of it
And in this case, the idea that passive minority shareholders in a German company represent a meaningful espionage risk to the average person driving to work is, let’s say, a stretch. I have asked the question plainly. What is China doing with my location data from the gym to my house and back? The answer in most cases is nothing, because most of us are not that interesting.
Government officials driving sensitive routes, Department of Defense vehicles, politicians, sure. Disable everything. That is a reasonable and targeted policy.
The Pattern You Should Recognize By Now
This is the same playbook used over and over. A genuine concern, in this case connected vehicle data, gets grabbed by corporate and political interests and stretched into legislation that serves those interests far more than it serves you.
Bipartisan does not mean good. It sometimes just means both parties found something they could each profit from. In this case, Republicans get to wave the China flag and Democrats get to look tough on tech surveillance, while General Motors gets a competitor quietly legislated out of the market.
The consumer, as usual, gets squeezed. And Washington calls it protecting you.