The Forbidden Fruit: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Barriers Preventing BYD's Entry into the U.S. Passenger Vehicle Market

 

The Forbidden Fruit: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Barriers Preventing BYD's Entry into the U.S. Passenger Vehicle Market

Introduction

By Apirate Monk

A central paradox defines the current global electric vehicle (EV) landscape. BYD, a Chinese automaker, has surpassed all competitors to become the world's largest manufacturer of EVs, with its affordable and technologically advanced models rapidly gaining market share across Europe, Asia, and Latin America.¹ Yet, in the United States—the world's second-largest automotive market and a critical hub for the EV transition—BYD's acclaimed passenger cars are conspicuously absent. For the American consumer, the question is simple and direct: Why can't they buy one?.³

The answer is not a single issue but a confluence of four formidable and interlocking barriers. These obstacles have been constructed through deliberate policy, shaped by unique market forces, and reinforced by BYD's own strategic calculations. The primary barrier is a wall of prohibitive geopolitical tariffs designed not merely to level the playing field, but to lock Chinese EVs out of the market entirely. Beyond this wall lies a deep and complex moat of uniquely American safety and environmental regulations, which demand costly, market-specific engineering. Should an automaker cross that moat, they face the American battlefield: a hyper-competitive, capital-intensive domestic market where brand loyalty and vast dealer networks are paramount. Finally, there is the strategic calculus of BYD itself, which has rationally chosen to prioritize more welcoming global markets over a costly and uncertain fight in the U.S.

This report will dissect each of these four pillars in detail. By examining the political, regulatory, market, and corporate dimensions of this issue, it will provide a definitive and comprehensive explanation for why the world's leading EV brand remains unavailable to American consumers.

Part I: The Great Wall of Tariffs: Geopolitics as the Primary Barrier

While multiple hurdles prevent BYD's entry into the U.S. passenger car market, the most immediate and insurmountable obstacle is the tariff structure. This is not a conventional trade tool designed to adjust economic incentives; it is a political instrument of exclusion, functioning as a definitive lockout that renders the business case for importing Chinese-made EVs untenable.

Deconstructing the 102.5% Tariff: An Unprecedented Economic Deterrent

The central mechanism preventing BYD's entry is a staggering tariff rate. In May 2024, the Biden administration announced a quadrupling of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs, raising the specific duty from 25% to 100%.¹ This is levied on top of an existing 2.5% general tariff on most imported cars, creating a combined duty of 102.5%.⁶

The economic effect of such a tariff is not to make Chinese vehicles less competitive; it is to make them commercially non-viable. The primary advantage of many BYD models is their remarkable affordability. For example, the BYD Seagull, a model that has drawn global attention, retails for approximately $12,000 in China.⁷ A 102.5% tariff would instantly inflate its price to over $24,000 before accounting for shipping, federalization, and other costs. A more typical Chinese EV with an average unit value of $23,100 would see its price surge to over $46,800, placing it in direct competition with established domestic offerings like the Tesla Model 3 or Ford Mustang Mach-E.⁶ This effectively neutralizes BYD's core value proposition by design.

The legal foundation for this action is Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This domestic law grants the U.S. Trade Representative the authority to impose trade sanctions on foreign countries that are found to violate trade agreements or engage in "unjustifiable" or "unreasonable" acts that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.⁸ Crucially, this is a unilateral action taken outside the multilateral framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), signaling a U.S. policy based on its own domestic laws and national interests.⁸

The Stated Justification: Countering Unfair Subsidies and National Security Risks

The U.S. government has articulated a two-pronged justification for these severe tariffs, blending economic protectionism with national security concerns.

The primary economic rationale is to counter what the U.S. describes as China's "unfair trade practices".⁸ According to U.S. officials, the Chinese government provides massive subsidies to its domestic industries, which are estimated to be three to four times higher relative to GDP than those in the U.S. or major European economies.¹⁰ This support, the argument goes, leads to industrial "overcapacity," allowing Chinese firms to "flood global markets with artificially low-priced exports" that threaten the viability of domestic industries.¹ The tariffs are therefore presented as a defensive measure to protect the nascent American EV manufacturing sector from what is perceived as predatory, state-driven competition.¹¹

More profoundly, the policy is framed as a matter of national security. In an era of "smart" and connected vehicles, modern cars are no longer just mechanical devices; they are sophisticated data-gathering platforms on wheels. The Biden administration has voiced explicit concerns that Chinese-made EVs could be equipped with software and sensors capable of collecting vast amounts of sensitive data on American citizens, their movements, and critical infrastructure, potentially transmitting this information back to Beijing.⁷ U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has highlighted these espionage risks, transforming the issue from a simple trade dispute into a matter of national defense.⁷ This framing makes the policy far more politically durable and less susceptible to negotiation or reversal.

This protectionist stance is a core component of a broader U.S. industrial policy. Through initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, the U.S. is attempting to reshore the entire green energy supply chain, from raw materials to finished products, with a focus on creating high-paying American, preferably union, jobs.⁵ The tariffs are designed to buy the domestic industry time to build capacity and become competitive without being undercut by low-cost imports.⁵

A Bipartisan Consensus: Why Protecting the U.S. Auto Industry Unites Washington

A critical factor for any foreign automaker to consider is the political stability of U.S. trade policy. On this issue, there is a rare and powerful bipartisan consensus. The tariffs on Chinese goods were initiated by the Trump administration and have been dramatically escalated by the Biden administration.⁵ Both political parties, along with influential labor groups and the domestic auto industry, support a hardline stance against Chinese EV imports.⁵ This unity signals to companies like BYD that the 102.5% tariff is not a temporary political maneuver subject to change with election cycles. Instead, it represents a fundamental and long-term feature of American economic and national security strategy, making any capital-intensive plan to enter the U.S. market via direct importation an exceptionally high-risk proposition.

A Tale of Two Wests: Contrasting the U.S. Tariff Wall with the European Union's Measured Duties

The uniqueness of the U.S. position is thrown into sharp relief when contrasted with the European Union's approach. The E.U. also has concerns about Chinese subsidies but has responded in a fundamentally different manner. Following a formal investigation under WTO principles, the E.U. imposed provisional countervailing duties that are specifically calculated and tailored to individual manufacturers.⁴ For instance, BYD faces a duty of 17.4%, Geely faces 19.9%, and the state-owned SAIC faces a higher rate of 37.6%.⁹

This reveals a profound difference in philosophy. The E.U.'s tariffs, while significant, are designed to be corrective—to level the playing field by offsetting the calculated value of unfair subsidies. The U.S. tariff is designed to be prohibitive—to eliminate competition from the market entirely. The contrast makes it clear why an automaker like BYD might attempt to compete in the E.U. market by absorbing a manageable tariff, while viewing the U.S. market as effectively closed.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of U.S. and E.U. Tariffs on Chinese EVs
Jurisdiction	Base Tariff Rate	Additional Tariff Rate	Total Tariff Rate (for BYD)	Legal Basis	Stated Objective
United States	2.5%	100%	102.5%	Domestic Law (Section 301, Trade Act of 1974)	Market exclusion to counter "unfair trade practices" and mitigate national security risks 7
European Union	10%	17.4% (for BYD)	27.4% (for BYD)	WTO-Style Anti-Subsidy Investigation	Leveling the playing field by imposing countervailing duties against "unfair subsidization" 4

The existence of the 102.5% tariff is the single most powerful reason why BYD passenger cars are not for sale in the U.S. It is a deliberate, bipartisan, and long-term "lockout" strategy justified by national security concerns, signaling to BYD that there is no viable business case for direct importation under the current political paradigm. The U.S. has made a conscious choice to sacrifice the potential consumer benefits of lower prices and greater choice in the short term to pursue a long-term, protectionist industrial policy aimed at rebuilding its domestic manufacturing base and ensuring supply chain resilience.⁵

Part II: The Compliance Gauntlet: Navigating America's Formidable Regulatory Landscape

Even in a hypothetical world without tariffs, BYD and other new entrants would face a second, formidable barrier: the uniquely complex, stringent, and expensive U.S. regulatory system. This regulatory "moat" reinforces the tariff "wall," creating another layer of structural protectionism that insulates the domestic market. Any foreign automaker must be prepared to invest hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in market-specific adaptation before selling a single vehicle.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS): Engineering for the World's Toughest Market

The United States operates a vehicle safety system that is fundamentally different from most of the world. Instead of a "type approval" model, where a government agency tests and approves a vehicle design before it can be sold, the U.S. employs a "self-certification" system.¹² Under this model, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the manufacturer is solely responsible for testing its vehicles and certifying that they comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).¹²

These standards are not only comprehensive but also often unique to the U.S. market. The FMVSS dictate specific requirements for everything from bumper strength and side-impact protection to the design of headlights and the inclusion of side-marker lights.¹⁴ This means a vehicle engineered to meet top safety ratings in Europe or Asia cannot simply be imported and sold in the U.S. It requires significant and costly re-engineering to create a U.S.-specific variant.

For a foreign manufacturer, the administrative process is rigorous. Before offering any vehicle for sale, the company must formally designate a U.S. agent for service of process, submit detailed manufacturer identification information to NHTSA, and provide the agency with the logic to decipher its Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) format.¹⁶ Furthermore, every vehicle sold must bear a permanently affixed certification label explicitly stating that it "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards".¹⁶

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mandates: Clearing the Air and the Paperwork

In parallel to NHTSA's safety regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposes its own strict set of requirements for vehicle emissions. All vehicles imported and sold in the U.S. must be covered by an EPA-issued Certificate of Conformity and must have an official EPA compliance label in the engine compartment stating that the vehicle conforms to U.S. regulations.¹⁸

The importation process itself is a bureaucratic exercise. At the port of entry, an importer must file specific documentation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including EPA Form 3520-1 (for emissions) and DOT Form HS-7 (for safety) for every shipment.¹⁸ A vehicle arriving without the proper self-certification labels and paperwork is considered non-conforming and can be denied entry or even seized.²¹ While there are exemptions for vehicles older than 21 years (EPA) or 25 years (DOT), these are designed for classic car collectors and are irrelevant for a manufacturer of new vehicles.¹⁹

The "Federalization" Cost: The Billion-Dollar Hurdle of Market-Specific Adaptation

The process of bringing a non-conforming vehicle into compliance with all U.S. standards is known as "federalization." For an individual importing a single specialty car, this is an expensive and complex undertaking that requires hiring a DOT-Registered Importer (RI), who performs the necessary modifications. The importer must also post a customs bond for 150% of the vehicle's value to ensure the work is completed.¹⁹

When scaled to the level of a global manufacturer like BYD, the cost becomes astronomical. It necessitates a massive, multi-year investment in research and development, crash testing, supply chain adjustments, and potentially dedicated production lines to build a U.S.-specific version of each model it wishes to sell. Automotive industry analysts confirm that these "substantial federalization costs" are a major deterrent for new brands entering the market and must be factored into any business plan.¹⁵ A company cannot simply "test the waters" in the U.S.; it requires a massive, high-risk, upfront capital commitment to re-engineer its products and establish a compliance infrastructure, all before it can even begin to confront the 102.5% tariff.

The sheer bureaucratic complexity of this process is daunting, as summarized below.

Table 2: U.S. Automotive Market Entry Requirements for Foreign Manufacturers
Regulatory Body	Key Requirement	Required Documentation/Action	Relevant Source(s)
NHTSA (Safety)	Designate U.S. Agent	Letter designating agent for service of process.	16
NHTSA (Safety)	Manufacturer Identification	Letter identifying manufacturer name, address, and products.	16
NHTSA (Safety)	Self-Certification	Affix permanent FMVSS certification label to each vehicle.	16
NHTSA (Safety)	VIN Compliance	Submit VIN format and logic to NHTSA 60 days prior to sale.	16
EPA (Emissions)	Certificate of Conformity	Obtain EPA Certificate of Conformity for vehicle models.	19
EPA (Emissions)	Emissions Labeling	Affix permanent EPA compliance label in engine compartment.	19
CBP (Import)	Entry Declaration	File DOT Form HS-7 and EPA Form 3520-1 at port of entry.	18
CBP (Import)	Bond for Non-Conforming	Post bond for 150% of vehicle value if importing via an RI.	17

This divergence of U.S. regulations from established global norms represents a powerful non-tariff barrier to entry. While its stated purpose is to ensure safety and environmental protection, the practical effect is a form of structural protectionism. It insulates the U.S. auto market from global competition by making it impossible for a manufacturer to sell a standardized global product. Instead, it forces any potential entrant to make a specific, high-stakes, and capital-intensive bet on the American market, a bet that becomes nearly impossible to justify when layered underneath a prohibitive tariff.

Part III: The American Battlefield: Assessing the U.S. Electric Vehicle Market

Even if the tariff wall were dismantled and the regulatory moat were crossed, BYD would face its third major barrier: the American market itself. It is an intensely competitive, uniquely demanding, and astronomically expensive battlefield to enter. Success requires more than just a good product at a good price; it demands immense capital, a trusted brand, and a vast physical footprint for sales and service.

A Crowded and Fiercely Competitive Arena

The U.S. EV market is far from an open field waiting to be claimed. While it continues to grow, it is an arena of fierce competition among established and well-funded players.²⁵

Tesla, the pioneering force, remains the market leader. However, its once-unchallenged dominance is eroding, with its market share falling from over 60% to around 50% as new competitors flood the market.²⁶ Legacy American automakers like General Motors and Ford are in the midst of an aggressive counter-offensive, investing billions of dollars to launch a slew of new EVs, particularly in the highly profitable truck and SUV segments.²⁶ They are joined by formidable international incumbents like Hyundai, Kia, and the Volkswagen Group, as well as German luxury brands such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi, all of whom are rapidly gaining EV market share.²⁶ Adding to the complexity are new, pure-play EV companies like Rivian, which has successfully carved out a profitable niche in the adventure vehicle segment.²⁶

This dynamic creates a challenging environment for any new entrant. BYD would not be competing against one or two rivals, but against a dozen established brands fighting for every percentage point of a market that is showing signs of slowing growth after its initial boom.²⁸

Table 3: Competitive Landscape of the U.S. EV Market (2023-2024)
Manufacturer	Key Models	Approx. 2023 Market Share/Sales Growth	Strategic Focus/Niche	Source(s)
Tesla	Model 3, Model Y, Cybertruck	~50% market share (declining from ~62%)	Technology leadership, in-house software, direct sales model	26
Ford	Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning	Growing share, strong in electric trucks	Electrifying iconic American nameplates	25
General Motors	Chevrolet Bolt/Blazer EV, Cadillac Lyriq	Aggressive growth plans, targeting profitability by 2025	Broad portfolio across brands (Chevy, GMC, Cadillac), Ultium battery platform	25
Hyundai/Kia	Ioniq 5/6, EV6/EV9	Strong growth, gaining significant traction	Design leadership, advanced 800V architecture, value	26
Rivian	R1T, R1S	Established niche player, market cap ~$18B	Adventure/premium trucks & SUVs, Amazon partnership	26
VW Group	VW ID.4, Audi Q4/Q8 e-tron	11.5% of VW sales, 11.0% of Audi sales were EV in 2023	Leveraging global platforms to serve multiple segments	26

The American Consumer: High Expectations for Quality, Technology, and Service

The American car buyer is notoriously demanding. Legally meeting the minimum FMVSS is not enough; a vehicle must also score highly in independent crash tests from organizations like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to be considered competitive.¹⁵ U.S. consumers have extremely high standards for "perceived quality"—the fit, finish, and feel of a vehicle—as well as for the latest in-car technology and infotainment systems.¹⁵

Furthermore, the market is transitioning away from tech-focused early adopters to more pragmatic and cautious mainstream buyers. This new wave of consumers is more concerned with traditional values like reliability, convenience, long-term support, and the availability of public charging infrastructure.²⁸ For an unknown brand like BYD, earning the trust of this demographic would be a long, arduous, and expensive process.

The Billion-Dollar Footprint: The Prohibitive Cost of a Nationwide Dealer and Service Network

Perhaps the most significant market-based barrier is the astronomical cost of establishing a physical presence. A car is a complex machine that requires ongoing service, and American consumers expect a convenient, nationwide network of dealerships for sales and certified technicians for maintenance and repairs.

Building this from the ground up is a multi-billion-dollar endeavor that can take decades.¹⁵ New entrants face a stark choice. They can attempt to replicate Tesla's direct-to-consumer sales model, but this approach is legally banned or heavily restricted by franchise laws in many states, limiting market access.¹⁵ The alternative is to partner with large, established dealership groups, but this requires ceding control and a significant portion of the profit margin.

This challenge is magnified by the power of existing brands. A company like Toyota, for example, benefits from decades of built-up brand loyalty and a network of nearly 1,500 U.S. dealerships, giving it an enormous competitive advantage that a newcomer cannot easily replicate.¹⁵

In this context, BYD's key strength—producing a wide range of affordable vehicles—is partially blunted. Its most disruptive products, like the sub-$15,000 Seagull, would enter a small-car segment that is less popular in the U.S. than the SUV and truck segments where competition is most intense.²⁶ Even if priced competitively after tariffs and federalization, these vehicles would still need to overcome immense brand, quality perception, and service infrastructure hurdles. The U.S. market is currently at a difficult inflection point, with slowing growth and increasing consumer caution, making it arguably the worst possible time for an unknown foreign brand to attempt a costly mass-market entry.¹⁰

Part IV: The BYD Perspective: A Strategic Retreat or a Calculated Pause?

The final piece of the puzzle is the perspective of BYD itself. The company's absence from the U.S. passenger car market is not a result of inability or oversight. Rather, it is a deliberate, rational, and strategic business decision based on a clear-eyed assessment of the global landscape. BYD is choosing to deploy its immense resources where the returns are highest and the risks are lowest.

"Too Complicated": Decoding the Official Stance from BYD Leadership

BYD's public statements on the matter are both diplomatic and revealing. In a February 2024 interview, Stella Li, the executive vice president of BYD and CEO of BYD Americas, stated unequivocally that the company has "no plans to come to the US" with its passenger cars.³¹ Her reasoning was direct: the market is "too complicated".³¹

She elaborated that the U.S. market for EVs is experiencing a slowdown and is filled with "confusing noise" and "speech from different politic".³¹ This "corporate-speak" is a polite way of acknowledging the immense and interlocking barriers detailed in this report. "Complicated" is a catch-all for a politically hostile environment, prohibitively high tariffs, a burdensome regulatory system, and a market where the potential return on investment is too low and uncertain to justify the fight, especially when compared to more attractive opportunities elsewhere.

A Tale of Two Ventures: Contrasting BYD's U.S. Commercial Vehicle Success with its Passenger Car Absence

The most compelling evidence that BYD's absence is a strategic choice comes from its existing, successful operations within the United States. BYD has a significant commercial vehicle business in the U.S., centered around a large manufacturing facility in Lancaster, California, that produces battery-electric buses and trucks.²

This venture proves that BYD is fully capable of navigating the complexities of the American market when the business case is sound. The company has invested over $250 million in its U.S. operations, employs more than 800 American workers (many of them in union jobs), and builds buses that comply with stringent "Buy America" provisions for federally funded transit projects.³² This demonstrates a mastery of U.S. labor laws, supply chain management, and regulatory compliance. The fact that BYD can succeed in the highly regulated commercial bus sector makes its decision to avoid the passenger car sector a clear indication of choice, not a lack of capability.

Even this success has not been without political challenges. The company has been specifically targeted by competitors through language inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), further illustrating the politically fraught environment that Chinese firms face in the U.S., even when they are manufacturing locally.³³

Global Ambitions, Regional Focus: Why Mexico, Europe, and Other Markets are the Priority

Faced with the hostile U.S. environment, BYD is rationally allocating its capital and focus to markets that offer higher growth potential and lower political risk. The company is expanding aggressively across Europe (despite new tariffs), Southeast Asia, and Latin America, where its value proposition of affordable, high-tech EVs is met with strong demand and more favorable government policies.¹

A key element of this global strategy is BYD's plan to construct a major manufacturing facility in Mexico.³¹ While company leadership states the plant will primarily serve the growing Mexican domestic market, its strategic implications are undeniable.³¹ This move is a patient, long-term hedge against U.S. protectionism. By establishing a manufacturing beachhead within North America, BYD creates future options. If U.S. policy were to become more favorable in the distant future, or if BYD could engineer a supply chain that meets the extremely high rules-of-origin requirements of the United-States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), it would be perfectly positioned to supply the U.S. market from a cost-advantaged, potentially tariff-free location.⁹ This is not a plan for tomorrow, but a strategic chess move in a multi-decade game.

Ultimately, BYD's decision is a straightforward act of capital allocation. Why engage in a costly, high-risk, politically charged battle for a small chance at a sliver of the U.S. market when the same resources can be used to dominate high-growth markets across the rest of the world?

Part V: Synthesis and Forward Outlook

The reason an American consumer cannot walk into a showroom and purchase a BYD passenger car is not due to a single cause, but rather a powerful combination of political, regulatory, market, and strategic forces. These four pillars of absence are not independent; they interlock and reinforce one another, creating a barrier so formidable that it makes U.S. market entry a practical impossibility for the foreseeable future.

The Four Pillars of Absence: A Synthesis of Political, Regulatory, Market, and Strategic Barriers

To synthesize the analysis, the four barriers can be visualized as a series of concentric defenses protecting the U.S. auto market:

1. The Great Wall of Tariffs: The outermost and most impenetrable defense is the 102.5% tariff. This is a political wall designed for total market exclusion, making the importation of affordable Chinese EVs economically irrational.⁶

2. The Compliance Gauntlet: Should that wall ever come down, an entrant would face the deep moat of U.S. regulations. The unique and stringent safety and environmental standards require a massive, high-risk upfront investment in "federalization" before a single car can be sold.¹²

3. The American Battlefield: Beyond the moat lies the market itself—a bloody battlefield characterized by intense competition, demanding consumers, and the astronomical cost of building a brand and a nationwide sales and service network.¹⁵

4. The BYD Calculation: Faced with these defenses, BYD has made a shrewd strategic calculation. It has chosen to focus its resources on more welcoming global markets where its competitive advantages can be fully leveraged, rather than waging a costly war of attrition in the U.S..³¹

Scenarios for Entry: What Would Need to Change for a BYD Car to be Sold in the U.S.?

While the current barriers are immense, it is worth considering the scenarios under which BYD passenger cars might one day appear on American roads.

• Scenario 1: Tariff Reversal (Highly Unlikely): This would require a fundamental reversal of a bipartisan U.S. policy consensus and a re-evaluation of the national security risks associated with Chinese technology. Given the current geopolitical climate, this is the least likely scenario in the short-to-medium term.

• Scenario 2: North American Production (Plausible, Long-Term): This is the most realistic, albeit most challenging, path forward. BYD could choose to build a passenger car factory in the United States, similar to its bus plant in California, or more likely, leverage its planned factory in Mexico. To bypass the tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it would need to develop a North American supply chain robust enough to meet the high and complex rules-of-origin thresholds mandated by the USMCA trade agreement. This would be a multi-billion-dollar, decade-long endeavor, but it represents a viable long-term strategy.⁹

• Scenario 3: Niche Entry (Possible but Limited): BYD could pursue a limited entry by partnering with or acquiring an existing U.S. entity that has a manufacturing footprint. However, this would not constitute the mass-market entry of its flagship affordable models that the core question implies.

Concluding Analysis: The Broader Implications for U.S. Consumers, Competition, and the EV Transition

The decision to exclude BYD and other Chinese EV makers from the U.S. market carries significant consequences.

• For Consumers: In the immediate future, American consumers will have fewer choices and will continue to pay significantly higher prices for electric vehicles than their counterparts in other regions of the world. The entire global segment of affordable, entry-level EVs, led by brands like BYD, is effectively off-limits.¹¹

• For Competition: The protectionist policies shield incumbent American and other foreign automakers already in the U.S. from a formidable and disruptive competitor. This could reduce the competitive pressure on them to innovate, improve quality, and lower prices as aggressively as they might otherwise have to.

• For the EV Transition: The policy creates a fundamental tension at the heart of America's climate strategy. While the administration's goal is to build a secure, domestic green energy industry, the exclusion of the world's most affordable EVs simultaneously slows the overall adoption of electric vehicles by keeping prices high and limiting choice. This prioritizes long-term industrial policy and national security objectives over the near-term acceleration of the transition away from fossil fuels.⁵

In the final analysis, you cannot buy a BYD car in the United States because the U.S. government, with broad bipartisan support, has made a deliberate strategic choice that you should not be able to. It is a choice that views the protection of the domestic auto industry and the mitigation of perceived national security threats as more critical than the consumer benefits of free trade and the rapid, low-cost adoption of electric vehicles.