savingusmanufacturing.com

The 2025 Reshoring Report Shows Reshoring is Gaining Momentum

August 25th, 2026

The long-awaited 2025 Reshoring Report was published on the website of The Reshoring Initiative recently. For those of you who don’t know the meaning of reshoring, it is returning manufacturing to the U.S. from being outsourced overseas, particularly to China.

For the past three decades, “outsourcing” aka “offshoring,” was the cornerstone of U.S. manufacturing. First, manufacturers outsourced to Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Then, manufacturers started outsourcing to China after China was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000.

The Reshoring Initiative helps American manufacturers reshore by providing their proprietary Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Estimator, which “is a free online tool that helps companies account for all relevant factors —overhead, balance sheet, risks, corporate strategy and other external and internal business considerations — to determine the true total cost of ownership.”

The 2025 Reshoring Report is the first report that breaks down the evaluation of the survey responses separately for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Contract Manufacturers (CMs), “The 2025 Reshoring Survey was created to determine where U.S. manufacturers are with respect to reshoring and the key factors influencing those decisions.”

Key Takeaways of the report:

“The largest segment of “OEMs use Landed Cost, which ignores about 15% of additional offshoring costs and risks as compared to TCO. A smaller number use ExWorks, which ignores about 25%.
“Shifting all OEMs to a full-bodied TCO system could reshore $200B of manufacturing with no government subsidies, no supply chain shock, no retaliation and no impact on inflation after factoring in all global risks and costs.”
“OEMs placed much higher priority on a skilled workforce than on tariffs, currency, tax rates or regulations.”
“40% of OEMs were willing to pay 10% to 20% more for components if they could arrive 5 weeks earlier.”
“OEMs place considerably more emphasis on engineering’s proximity to manufacturing
(45%) versus CMs (22%).”
“On the possibility of China invading Taiwan, 77% of OEMs claim to be concerned, yet only 38% have worked with CMs to identify products to reshore as insurance.”
“OEMs’ benefits of reshoring will come significantly from reductions in risk, enhanced customer satisfaction and improved balance sheets.
“CMs will experience greater increases in sales volumes as OEMs source more components first for current domestic assemblies and then for reshored assemblies.

The report was divided into responses by OEMs and CMs, so the different responses to the questions asked are noted below:

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)

When asked if they had reshored or are considering reshoring, the answers were:

37% have not reshored nor plan to do so
19% have reshored
18% don’t buy any imported components or parts
16% are considering reshoring
7% have reshoed and actively considering more reshoring

The problem is that “Only 30% of OEMs use the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) estimator in comparing domestic to offshore sourcing. 17% continue to use Ex-Works or plant level costing, and 37% use Landed Cost. 17% use some other form of costing for their suppliers. “

Sadly, “32% of OEMs plan to offshore some work in next 2 years. The top reasons for offshoring were cost (69%), availability of product/components (39%), workforce availability (31%), closely followed by process knowledge, defined as how to make the product (28%).”

China is still the main country from which companies are reshoring (34%), followed by Southeast Asia (23%, Europe (20%), Taiwan (11%) and North America, i.e., Canada (9%).

The top three reasons OEMs gave for reshoring to the U.S. were:

45% benefit from manufacturing being located close to engineering
45% reduced freight and duty costs
38% avoid potential political risk

Other important reasons mentioned were:

28% supply chain disruptions
21% Intellectual Property risk
21% Robust Supply Chain
17% “Made in USA” image of company’s products

The good news is that “96% of OEMs that had reshored said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the results.”

In answer to the question of how much of their products would they consider reshoring if certain conditions changed, the responses were:

30% if there was an abundant, highly skilled workforce available in the U.S.
23% if 15% tariffs were applied to all imports
21% if value of USD was reduced by 15%
18% if corporate taxes were reduced from 21% to 15%
17% if regulations were set to match those offshore

Contract Manufacturers (CMs)

When asked if they have reshore for their customers, the responses were:

28% have reshored
28% has not reshored
14% have reshored and are actively considering more reshoring
14% are quoting reshoring

With regard to what scenarios best fits your reshoring cases, CMs responded:

66% of customers had been assembling end-product in U.S. and switched component sourcing from offshore to domestic
34% of customers reshored assembly and sourced components domestically

The following were the answers to the question “On what basis are most of your customers comparing offshore vs. domestic options?”

29% Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) covering about 20 costs and risks beyond Landed Cost
29% Landed Cost
26% FOB, Ex Works price or plant level costs
17% Other

The report states that CMs believe that their customer reshored for the following reasons:

Quality/Rework/Warranty (61%)
Delivery Time (54%)
Less risk of] Supply Chain Disruptions (50%).
Geopolitical Risk (24%)
Manufacturing Near Engineering (22%)
Brand/Image Made in USA (22%)
Freight and Duty (22%).

Other minor reasons are:

Section 301 Tariffs (15%)
Proximity to Customers (15%)
Intellectual Property risk (13%)
Government incentives (9%)
Automation & Technology (7%)

I am surprised that Intellectual Property risk has dropped down to such a low percentage. When reshoring started, it was one of the top five reasons.

Thus far, reshoring by CMs hasn’t had much impact as “47% of contract manufacturers said a very small percentage of their work has been reshored (1 to 5% of their work), while 27% responded that 6 to 20%+ of their work had been reshored.”

The obstacle to more reshoring by CMs is that “As a weighted average, CMs were competing with imports on about 31% of quotes, with only 7% facing no offshore competition, and 3% competing with imports on every quote.”

In addition, “91% of respondents indicated that a primary reason they lost orders to imports was price.” The pricing difference is substantial as “68% of contract manufacturers responded that for orders they lost to imports, the import FOB price was 20 to 50+% lower than their own

Thus, it was no surprise that “Contract manufacturers earn 77% of their revenue from domestic customers.”

The report states:” CMs have lost the most business due to offshoring to China (41%) in the past two years, with India (26%) and Mexico (17%) taking the total to 84% of business lost. The remaining 16% is split between Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, South Korea, Japan, and Canada.”

As a sales representative for small American manufacturers that perform custom fabrication services, I can substantiate that the major reason we lose orders is price when competing with offshore sources. Often, the pricing is 50% lower than our domestic price and sometime equals the cost of the materials alone for our domestic company. Our competitors are nearly always Chinese companies.

The report concludes with recommendations for policy makers at the national policy level that would increase reshoring.

Create a talent pipeline to improve the availability and skill of the American workforce, which is critical to reshoring and is the #1criterion for U.S. manufacturing site selection.
Dramatically reduce federal loans for students seeking degrees in over-supplied fields, and shift resources to apprenticeship and trade school loans.
Create a Small Business Administration (SBA) investment loan guarantee conditional on workforce development.
Dramatically reduce federal loans for students seeking degrees in over-supplied fields, and shift resources to apprenticeship and trade school loans.
Lower USD.
Lower corporate taxes, especially continuing the expiring tax breaks for immediate expensing of capital equipment.

OEMs and CMs can help increase reshoring by utilizing the Total Cost of Ownership estimator instead of Landed Cost, ExWorks, and other rudimentary methods that fail to capture the hidden costs.

More suggestions are available in the Reshoring Initiative’s Competitiveness Toolkit. I agree with the recommendations of The Reshoring Initiative and also made several recommendations in the chapter on Reshoring in my book, Rebuild Manufactur8ng – the key to American Prosperity available on Amazon.

We need to do whatever it takes to rebuild our manufacturing industry to ensure that we have the commercial and military/defense products needed to keep Americans healthy and safe. Reshoring is one of the fastest ways to build back the American manufacturing industry.

Posted in General, Reshoring | No Comments »

How American Manufacturers Contributed to Chinese Military Buildup

August 4th, 2026

Over the last 25 years, we have become dependent on goods from China because American manufacturers outsourced manufacturing of parts, components, and assemblies to China to save money and increase their profits. Then, they transferred the manufacturing of whole products to China more money even though they had to agree to transfer their technology to their Chinese partners. Finally, they invested into setting up their own manufacturing facilities in China to make whole products.

American industrial participation, joint ventures, and dual-use technology transfers that began in 2002 have China was allowed to join the World Trade Organization in 2001 have aided China’s technical base, while Beijing systematically executed a multi-decade military transformation.

American Manufacturers and Technology Transfer

Under early joint-venture rules, American firms shared industrial know-how with Chinese partners, such as:

General Motors: Formed joint ventures like Shanghai GM, transferring advanced automotive production, metallurgy, and precision machining expertise that boosted local dual-use vehicle and mobility manufacturing.
Intel: Supplied microprocessors and server architectures utilized across Chinese

commercial and institutional clients with state ties.]
Cisco Systems: Partnered with Chinese networking firm Inspur in a $100 million venture to build information technology infrastructure and data centers.]

As a result, our trade deficit with China was $83.1 billion in the year 2000 to a high of $418.2B in 2018. Our deficit dropped to $344.3B in 2019 and down further to $310.2B in 2020 because of the effect of the Trump Administration’s Phase One trade deal tariffs on certain goods and the COVID pandemic disruptions and shutdowns. The trade deficit was back up to $352.8B in 2021, $382.2B in 2022 before dropping down to $279.6B in 2023. It went back up to $297B in 2024 before dropping to $202.6B in 2025 due to increased tariffs by the Trump administration. The trade deficit year-to-date through May is only $58.3B so this year’s deficit may end up as low as $140B.

A November 12, 2019 article titled, “China’s Grand Plan To Take Over The World” in Forbes, by John Mauldin states: “In The Hundred-Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury marshals a lot of evidence showing the Chinese government has a detailed strategy to overtake the US as the world’s dominant power. They want to do this by 2049, the centennial of China’s Communist revolution.”

Mauldin comments, “Xi’s vision of the Chinese Communist Party controlling the state and eventually influencing and even controlling the rest of the world is clear. These are not merely words for the consumption of the masses. They are instructions to party members.”

He adds, “Over the last 20–30 years, we have equipped the Chinese with almost everything they need to match us, technologically and otherwise. Hundreds of billions of Western dollars have been spent developing China and its state-owned businesses.”

We are now seeing the results of these hundreds of billions of dollars in the form of a massive buildup of China’s military power.

China’s Peoples Liberation Army Military Buildup (2010–2025)

Between 2010 and 2025, China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and Air Force (PLAAF) shifted from regional defense forces into advanced power-projection structures capable of challenging the U.S. military in the Western Pacific.

Structural and Organizational Overhaul: Initiated sweeping 2015 reforms under Xi Jinping that cut 300,000 ground troops, established five unified Theater Commands, and created dedicated high-tech branches later reorganized into Aerospace, Cyberspace, and Information Support Forces.
Naval Expansion (PLAN): Expanded shipyards to build the world’s largest naval force, commissioning advanced guided-missile destroyers, amphibious assault ships, and multiple aircraft carriers to enforce Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) in regional seas.
Strategic and Hypersonic Capabilities: Accelerated production of medium-range ballistic and hypersonic glide vehicles (such as the DF-17), alongside a major expansion of its nuclear warhead inventory past 600 operational warheads by 2024.

The Evolution of Chinese Naval Power (PLAN)

The PLAN executed a massive shipbuilding program, constructing the world’s largest navy by total hull count with more than 700 vessels.

PLAN Major Surface Combatant Modernization (2010 vs. 2025)

Carrier Strike Group Development: China expanded from zero carriers to three. The evolution progressed from the ski-jump Liaoning and Shandong to the Fujian, a supercarrier featuring advanced Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS). “With far greater launching power than Liaoning’s ski jump, catapults will enable larger aircraft and payloads…” as noted by the U.S. Naval War College via LinkedIn.
Surface Firepower & VLS Expansion: China rapidly closed the maritime missile gap by aggressively fielding Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells. The crown jewel of this effort is the Type 055 guided-missile destroyer, which acts as a heavy air-defense and anti-ship platform armed with hypersonic YJ-21 “carrier-killer” missiles.
Logistics and Blue-Water Reach: To sustain long-range operations outside the First Island Chain, the PLAN commissioned large Type 901 integrated supply ships and built its first overseas naval base in Djibouti.

The Evolution of Chinese Air Power (PLAAF)

The PLAAF transitioned from a legacy fleet dominated by 3rd-generation Soviet clones to an independent, high-tech force built around 5th-generation stealth architecture and integrated networks.

Stealth Fighter Maturation: The J-20 “Mighty Dragon” stealth fighter advanced from its 2011 maiden flight into a mass-produced backbone fighter. Early models relied on Russian engines, but by 2025, China mass-produced them with indigenous WS-10C and next-generation WS-15 high-thrust engines, scaling the fleet toward an estimated 500 active airframes.
Carrier-Based Aviation: To support its new EMALS-equipped carriers, China developed the J-35 stealth fighter (analogous to the U.S. F-35C) alongside the KJ-600 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft, giving carrier strike groups localized radar and command superiority.
Strategic Bombing and Power Projection: The PLAAF upgraded its bomber fleet with the H-6N, capable of carrying air-launched ballistic missiles. It also massively scaled up tactical airlift via the indigenous Y-20 transport aircraft, vastly improving its rapid deployment capabilities.,
Force Consolidation: In a sweeping reorganization, the military transferred the majority of the Navy’s shore-based fighter-bomber and radar units directly into the Air Force, allowing the Naval Air Force to focus strictly on aircraft carriers and maritime unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Sources: Policy Paper No. 35 by TRENDS Research & Advisory titled The Evolution of the Chinese Navy: People’s Liberation Army Navy in the Age of Great Power Competition

https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/the-growth-of-chinas-navy-past-present-and-future

Between 2018 and 2026, U.S. export control policies underwent a historic shift, transitioning from traditional narrow restrictions to an aggressive, sweeping strategy meant to directly sever China’s military-civil fusion network and limit its progress in advanced semiconductor manufacturing and artificial intelligence.

Phase 1: Institutional Overhaul & Entity Blacklisting (2018–2021)

The opening phase focused on targeting specific corporate threats and restructuring the legal authority governing trade barriers.

The Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) of 2018: Signed into law to give the Department of Commerce statutory power to permanently regulate “emerging and foundational technologies” critical to national defense.
Targeting Telecom Giants: The U.S. weaponized the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List, adding tech giants like Huawei and ZTE, effectively cutting them off from receiving critical U.S. software, electronic components, and Google services.
Blocking EUV Machinery: Beginning in 2018 and ramping up through 2019, Washington pressured the Dutch government to restrict ASML from exporting its Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems to China’s leading semiconductor foundry, SMIC, preventing Beijing from printing sub-7-nanometer silicon.

Phase 2: Chokepoint Controls & AI Restrictions (2022–2024)

Instead of just blacklisting individual firms, the U.S. government enacted structural, industry-wide restrictions.

The October 2022 & 2023 Rules: The BIS instituted rules that banned the export of advanced computing chips (such as Nvidia’s AI chips) and sophisticated semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China based on compute thresholds.
The Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR): The U.S. asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction, stating that any advanced chip or equipment built anywhere in the world using U.S. software or machinery could not be shipped to China without a U.S. government license.
Restrictions on U.S. Persons: For the first time, U.S. citizens and green card holders were legally banned from supporting, servicing, or facilitating the development of advanced chip manufacturing at Chinese facilities without explicit government permission.

Phase 3: Loophole Closures & Geopolitical Bargaining (2025–2026)

Recent actions have focused on blocking workarounds, policing global subsidiaries, and utilizing export laws as diplomatic leverage.

Targeting Global Subsidiaries (June 2026): The Commerce Department closed a persistent gap by mandating that export controls on advanced AI chips apply to all Chinese-owned subsidiaries and affiliates operating globally (including the Middle East and wider Asia). This prevented firms from bypassing mainland embargoes by renting or routing cloud compute power through international branches.
Shift to Annual Fab Approvals (January 2026): The U.S. eliminated broad, sweeping waivers for non-Chinese semiconductor firms operating mega-facilities inside China (like Samsung, SK Hynix, and TSMC). These were replaced with a tighter year-by-year approval framework to monitor hardware flow closely.
Mandatory U.S. Testing (Early 2026): The BIS instituted rules requiring advanced semiconductors bound for international trade to undergo independent, third-party testing labs inside the United States to confirm they do not reduce global production capacity or support unauthorized end-uses.
The BIS “Affiliates Rule” Debate (Late 2025–2026): In late 2025, the BIS announced a strict rule automatically blacklisting any unlisted foreign firm that was at least 50% owned by an entity already on the U.S. Entity List. “The new BIS Affiliates Rule prohibiting dealings with companies that have 50%+ ownership ties to blocked parties on pause through November 2026 due to the U.S.-China Deal.” as noted by Benesch Law. This implementation was subsequently suspended for one year until November 2026 as a key negotiating chip during trade talks, prompting China to temporarily pause its retaliatory export bans on critical rare earth minerals.

These steps are a good beginning to address China’s threat to our national sovereignty and freedom. However, it’s time for all Americans to wake up to the danger of continuing our dependence on goods from China. We must decouple our economy from China’s economy, change our trade policies, and rebuild our manufacturing base to the point that we are self-sufficient again.

While there is no simple solution, there are some immediate actions that can be taken:

Manufacturers: Stop offshoring manufacturing to China and stop investing in facilities in China. Instead return manufacturing to America using the free Total Cost of Ownership worksheet provided by The Reshoring Initiative.

Consumers: Stop buying Made in China products wherever possible.

Many more suggestions are contained in my book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, published in 2017 and available on Amazon. My book outlines how to rebuild American manufacturing through reshoring, new trade and tax policies, and workforce training and development. Now, it’s not just time to create prosperity; it’s time to save our national sovereignty and freedom.

Tags: American manufacturing, trade policy
Posted in General, Manufacturing, National security | No Comments »

American Manufacturing Helped Protect our Freedom for 250 Years

July 14th, 2026

Our country celebrated the 250^th anniversary of our founding as a nation on July 4, 2026. Many men and women lost their lives fighting for our independence and many more have died since then protecting our freedom. This article will describe how the development and technical achievements of our domestic manufacturing industry contributed to our ability to maintain this freedom for 250 years.

In my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved – Why we should and how we can, I wrote that while our nation was fighting for its freedom and becoming a constitutional republic, the Industrial Revolution was occurring. In 1769, two new inventions – James Watt’s steam engine and Richard Arkwright’s water frame – heralded the start of the Industrial Revolution. It was a major shift of technological, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions. It began in Britain, spread to America, and gradually spread to the rest of the world in a process called “industrialization.” During this time, an economy based on manual labor was replaced by one dominated by industry and the manufacture of machinery. It began with the mechanization of the textile industry, the development of iron-making techniques, and the increased use of refined coal. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads, and railroads.

In colonial America, products and goods were mainly produced by what is called “cottage industries,” in which individual artisans or craftsmen working at home or in small shops made a unique product, mostly for personal or household use, or for a specific use within a trade. Some of the products made in this manner were: home furnishings; brass, copper and silver serving dishes and utensils; farm implements; and buggies and wagons.

There was at least one colonial manufacturer that helped win the Revolutionary War. One of my ancestors was Paul Revere, and he wasn’t just a silversmith. While serving in the Massachusetts militia, he set up a powder mill in Stoughton, MA, and the mill produced tons of gunpowder for the patriots. Then, “In the late 1790s, Paul Revere expanded his successful Boston metalworking and bell-casting business into the production of copper bolts, spikes, and fittings for shipbuilding… In 1801, Revere purchased the former Kinsley Iron Works on the Neponset River in Canton, Massachusetts, and successfully developed a proprietary method for rolling copper into large, malleable sheets” for coating the hulls of ships. His foundry expanded into iron casting, brass casting of bells, and canons used in the War of 1812. “His copper and brass works eventually grew, through sale and corporate merger, into a large corporation, Revere Copper and Brass, Inc…” Brian O’Shaughnessy bought the company in January 1989 and changed the name to Revere Copper Produces. He established the business as a private, employee-owned company and distributed stock to the employees. “Today, Revere Copper Products operates a rolling and extrusion facility producing copper and alloy products for heavy industries, including data centers, power distribution, and architectural.”

One key element of America’s Industrial Revolution was the development of the “American system of manufacturing.” This involved semi-skilled labor, using machine tools and templates (or jigs) to make standardized, identical, interchangeable parts, manufactured to a specific, precise measurement.

When the U.S. War Department established the armories at Springfield and Harper’s Ferry, machinists used the American System to create rifles with interchangeable parts in the 1820’s. The idea of interchangeable parts migrated from the armories to industry as machinists trained in the armory system were hired by other manufacturers.

Notable inventions in the first phase of the Industrial Revolution were spinning mills and the cotton gin, benefiting American fledgling textile industry. The invention of the mechanical reaper for farming accelerated the nation’s westward expansion.

Another major industry of the first industrial revolution was gas lighting. The process consisted of the large-scale “gasification” of coal in furnaces, the purification of the gas (removal of Sulphur, ammonium, and heavy hydrocarbons), and its storage and distribution. Gas lighting had a major impact on social and industrial organization, because it allowed factories and stores to remain open longer than with tallow candles or oil lamps.

Locomotives began the Second Industrialization phase in American manufacturing, putting the U.S. at the cutting edge of technology and manufacturing as their construction created a large market for mass-produced items, such as iron rails, wheels, and spikes. More importantly, they provided the means by which to transport goods to a larger national market. The manufacturing of locomotives launched a whole new phase of invention in the U.S., grew our industrial base, and sparked the imagination to inspire more invention and migratory expansion across America.

A critical factor in the development of American manufacturing was the establishment of patent rights by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Known as the Patent and Copyright Clause, it grants Congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing exclusive rights to inventors for a limited time. Congress made patents affordable and easy to obtain in America whereas previously, patents required a good deal of money and influence to obtain in England.

The first patent was issued on July 31, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins for a new method of making potash, an important ingredient used in making soap and fertilizer. Patents provided inventors the ability to protect and benefit from their creations. It laid the foundation for generations of innovation, entrepreneurship, and the spirit of invention that helped shape the American economy.

The first Treasury Secretary of the United States, Alexander Hamilton, formulated a plan to foster the development of American manufacturing to end U.S. dependence on Europe. In his “Report on Manufactures,” delivered in 1791, Hamilton wrote, “Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation … ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense.”

During the latter years of the 1800s, the invention of electric lighting and the modern electric motor had a dramatic effect on industry. Electric lighting was safer (no gas line explosions) and cheaper than gas lighting, enabling manufacturers to economically extend the working day to two or even three shifts. The modern electric motor invented by Nikola Tesla in 1889 permitted manufacturers to power their machines economically using AC (alternating current) that Tesla had invented in 1988.

A major breakthrough in manufacturing came from the innovations in assembly-line techniques of the Ford Motor Company, founded by Henry Ford in 1903. The new factory in Highland Park, Michigan in 1913 used standardized interchangeable parts and a conveyor-belt-based assembly line. This was the beginning of what is called mass production. This new technique incorporated a moving assembly line, which allowed individual workers to stay in one place and perform the same task repeatedly on multiple vehicles that passed by them. Over the next thirty years, most of the manufacturers of high-volume products for the consumer market adopted Ford’s assembly line system to produce such products as radios, phonographs, telephones, washing machines, refrigerators, stoves, etc.

By the beginning of the 20^th Century in 1900, the United States had become the dominant economic power of the world surpassing the productivity of the British Empire This ranking continued into the 21^st Century, and it wasn’t until 2010 when China surpassed the United States in overall manufacturing output (gross production).”

American manufacturing won World War II by functioning as the “Arsenal of Democracy.” Through total economic conversion and mass-production techniques, U.S. factories outproduced the Axis powers, supplying vital equipment to the Allied forces. This avalanche of production overwhelmed enemies that could not match the sheer scale and speed of American industry. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1940 call to mobilize the nation’s industry, the United States executed one of the most rapid and comprehensive economic shifts in history. Major consumer industries, such as the automotive sector, entirely ceased civilian production. In a matter of months, automobile assembly lines were retooled to build tanks, aircraft engines, and military trucks.

The scale of this output was unprecedented. By the end of the conflict, American manufacturing provided nearly two-thirds of all military equipment used by the Allies. Over the course of the war, U.S. factories churned out staggering quantities of materiel:

Aircraft: More than 296,000 planes
Military Vehicles: Over 86,000 tanks and 2.4 million trucks
Naval Vessels: Thousands of cargo ships, landing craft, and combat ship

Several innovations and systemic shifts defined the American manufacturing effort. Henry Kaiser applied assembly-line principles to shipbuilding, reducing the time required to construct cargo “Liberty Ships” from months to mere days. Meanwhile, companies like Ford Motor Company mastered mass production, famously building B-24 Liberator bombers at their Willow Run complex at an unparalleled rate.

American manufacturing won the Cold War by sustaining a superior economic engine that forced the Soviet Union into a ruinous technological and spending race it could not afford. While World War II was won through the rapid mass production of heavy weaponry, the Cold War was won through sustained innovation, high-tech manufacturing, and the sheer economic output of a consumer-driven capitalist system.

During the Cold War, U.S. manufacturing shifted from temporary wartime mobilization to a permanent, high-tech defense industrial base. This system consistently outpaced the Soviet industry by delivering superior equipment:

Technological Edge: U.S. industry pioneered advanced electronics, computing, radar, and stealth technology, ensuring American forces maintained a qualitative advantage over numerically superior Soviet forces.
The Military-Industrial Complex: Private aerospace and defense contractors competed to build advanced fighter jets, nuclear submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), driving rapid innovation.
Massive Logistics: American factories reliably produced the transport, communication, and logistical hardware needed to maintain a global military presence across NATO and other alliances

The climax of this industrial competition occurred in the 1980s under the Reagan administration. The U.S. launched a massive military buildup, highlighted by the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “Star Wars.”

Faced with the prospect of competing against American high-tech manufacturing and computing power, the Soviet leadership realized their economic model was obsolete. Their efforts to modernize the economy to match U.S. industrial capabilities with reforms actually destabilized the regime and led its dissolution in 1991.

For 250 years, the American manufacturing industry provided the goods to supply the military with the essentials needed to defend our country, including weapons, tanks, airplanes, fighter jets, ships, submarines, and other high-tech equipment. The same advances in technology that consumers take for granted support the military, particularly when there are soldiers fighting overseas.

The American manufacturing ensured that the U.S. had a strong industry base to support its national security objectives for 250 years. The question is – will we be able to protect our country for another 250 years. To do so, we cannot rely on other countries to supply our military because their interests may run counter to ours. America cannot risk being held hostage to foreign manufacturers when it comes to products that are essential for its national security and the U.S. military. It is crucial that key components and technologies that are critical to the production of U.S. weapons and the related industrial capacity to produce such items be located within the United States. We need to produce the goods that allow us to defend America if we want to be able to preserve our national security.

Tags: American manufacturing
Posted in General, Manufacturing, National security | No Comments »

How American Manufacturers Are Using AI – The Era of Robots Building Robots

June 30th, 2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed the landscape of American manufacturing. Once characterized by manual labor and repetitive assembly lines, factories across the United States are now leveraging AI-driven automation, smart robotics, and data analytics to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and remain competitive on a global stage. The most fascinating evolution is the use of robots—guided by AI algorithms—to design, build, and assemble other robots, creating a self-sustaining ecosystem of automated production. This article explores how American manufacturers are adopting AI, highlights case studies and applications, presents statistical data on company sizes, discusses which firms stand to benefit most from this technological revolution, and whether or not it will decimate manufacturing employment.

The Scope of AI in American Manufacturing

AI technologies are deployed across virtually every stage of manufacturing—from design and prototyping to assembly, maintenance, quality assurance, and logistics. Key use cases include:

Predictive Maintenance: Using machine learning to predict equipment failures before they happen, minimizing downtime.
Quality Control: Automated vision systems to identify defects more accurately than human inspectors.
Supply Chain Optimization: AI-powered analytics enable real-time decision-making to manage inventory and logistics.
Collaborative Robots (Cobots): Robots that work alongside humans, learning from their behaviors and optimizing workflows.

Example: Tesla’s AI-Driven Manufacturing

Tesla, headquartered in Fremont, California, extensively incorporates AI in its Gigafactories. According to Elon Musk, “The factory is the product,” emphasizing the centrality of automation in their production process. AI-equipped robots not only assemble vehicles but also maintain and upgrade themselves, reducing the need for human intervention and increasing production speed.”

However, a recent article by The Manufacturing Institute warns, “As artificial intelligence moves from experimentation to execution, manufacturers face a leadership test on the factory floor. AI’s potential to improve safety, quality, productivity, and decision-making is clear. Its success, however, will depend on how effectively frontline leaders introduce, explain, and integrate AI into daily work. Their role extends beyond supporting adoption.”

Robots Building Robots: A New Frontier

The concept of robots building robots is no longer science fiction. Today, American manufacturers utilize AI-driven robotic arms, automated guided vehicles (AGVs), and 3D printers to produce new generations of robots and components autonomously.

Example: FANUC America

FANUC America, a major robotics manufacturer based in Michigan, operates the CRX Collaborative Robot line. These robots are built with “smart factories” that use AI to self-diagnose issues, optimize production, and even coordinate with other robots for assembly [source][FANUC White Paper].

Visual: Robots Building Robots

Statistics of Adoption Across Company Sizes

To understand which American manufacturers, benefit most from AI adoption, it’s essential to examine the distribution of company sizes.

Total manufacturing establishments in the USA (2021): Over 250,000 [U.S. Census Bureau]
Large manufacturers (500+ employees): Approximately 3,700 companies [2021 Annual Survey of Manufactures]
Small manufacturers (<100 employees): Over 200,000 companies

Company Size	Number of Establishments	Percentage
500+	~3,700	~1.5%
<100	~200,000	~80%
100-499	Remainder	~18.5%

In fact, according to the National Association of Manufacturers’ Facts About Manufacturing, “around three-quarters of these firms have fewer than 20 employees, and 93.1% have fewer than 100 employees.”

Case Studies: AI in Action

1. General Motors (GM): AI Optimized Assembly

GM has partnered with AI platform provider Drishti to track assembly operations through computer vision, identifying process bottlenecks and improving line efficiency. Their plant in Arlington, Texas, uses AI-based robots to weld, assemble, and inspect car bodies—creating a flexible and adaptive system capable of building multiple models on a single line [source].

2. Boston Dynamics: Robot Production

Boston Dynamics, renowned for robots like “Spot,” employs AI-guided robots to produce robotic frames and components. Their factory floor utilizes machine vision, predictive analytics, and self-calibrating machines—accelerating production and reducing error rates [source].

3. Voodoo Manufacturing: “Lights-Out” 3D Printing

Voodoo Manufacturing, a Brooklyn-based startup, developed a factory staffed by robotic arms that load and unload 3D printers. The entire process operates “lights-out,” meaning it can run without human presence, overseen by cloud-based AI monitoring systems. [Source]

Benefits for Small vs. Large Manufacturers

Large Manufacturers

Advantages:

Ample resources for R&D and integration of cutting-edge AI.
Ability to deploy custom, highly-specialized robots.
Scale benefits from AI-driven optimizations.

Challenges:

High capital expenditure and long implementation cycles.

There is a danger in thinking that AI and robotics can take the place of people with special skills and expertise in critical areas of the company. Ford learned this the hard way. “”Ford has admitted to rehiring hundreds of human workers after its aggressive AI adoption strategy backfired. The US automaker hired over 350 veteran engineers, referred to internally as “gray beards”, over the past three years in order to address mistakes made by automated systems.”

Small Manufacturers

Advantages:

Access to affordable, plug-and-play AI solutions (e.g., SaaS-based robotics, cloud platforms).
Rapid productivity gains aiding survival in competitive markets.
Greater agility in process changes.

Challenges:

Limited budgets and technical expertise.
Need for accessible training and support.

While large manufacturers may possess the capital and scale to pioneer AI-driven robotics, small companies are limited by labor and capital, making AI unaffordable for most. In addition, many small companies manufacture products in low to very low volume compared to larger manufacturers.

My company, ElectroFab Sales, has been representing American manufacturers that perform fabrication services to make mechanical parts and assemblies for Original Equipment Manufacturers for 40 years. The largest company we’ve represented had 25 employees, and the smallest had four employees. Most of the metal fabrication companies that we have represented consistently get orders for 5, 10, 25, and 50 of a particular part. If the P. O. volume is the hundreds, the total quantity is divided into monthly shipments. Even the orders that the rubber molder and plastic molding company we represent get orders for hundreds and low thousands compared to quantities of high thousands and millions that goes to China.

These small companies don’t have the production volume or capital to be able to afford to use AI and robotics to boost their productivity, quality, and competitiveness. The employees of these small companies must be cross trained and wear “many hats” as part of their contribution to their employers.

Industry Outlook: The Road Ahead

Media headlines about AI-driven job losses reveal a massive shift in corporate strategy, with U.S. employers attributing nearly 90,000 layoffs to artificial intelligence. Major tech companies are actively replacing entry-level white-collar and middle management roles to reallocate capital toward expensive AI infrastructure and data centers

On June 8, 2026, Fox Business Reported, “AI remains top reason for US job cuts for third straight month as employers axed 97,000 workers in May; AI accounted for 40% of all job cuts…”

According to a 2023 report by Deloitte on smart manufacturing:

89% of surveyed American manufacturers have already increased AI/robotics investments post-pandemic [Deloitte 2023 Manufacturing Industry Outlook].
The U.S. manufacturing AI market size is projected to exceed $20 billion by 2028.
According to “The Impact of Technology in 2026 and Beyond: an IEEE Global Study,” 52% of technologists expect robotics to be among the areas most influenced by AI, while 35% cite supply chain and warehouse automation as top AI use cases.

If you are employed in manufacturing, you may be asking yourself, “Will AI eliminate my job?”

I share the outlook that Carolyn Lee, President of the Manufacturing Institute expressed in the State of the U.S. Manufacturing Workforce Address, she gave on February 26, 2026 in Plano, Texas. She said, “AI won’t take your job. But jobs will go to people who know how to use AI. People who can leverage new technologies into the way they operate—who can use it to help them solve problems, make better decisions and get more done—will succeed in the job market and power the future. And as AI evolves the way work is done, it’s opening doors to roles and opportunities we’re only beginning to see. Just as past technological shifts have changed the workplace, they’ve also created new paths for people to grow and contribute.”

This outlook is based on the facts that the 2023 Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte workforce report revealed that “workforce challenges are among the top concerns for U.S. manufacturers, and have been since Q4 2017, except during the pandemic. The MI and Deloitte projects that as many as 3.8 million additional employees could be needed in manufacturing between 2024 and 2033. Filling open positions — and keeping them filled — is a top concern for many manufacturers, 65% of respondents in the National Association of Manufacturers’ 2024 Q1 outlook pointed to attracting and retaining talent as their primary business challenge. As the need for higher-level skills grows, the MI and Deloitte predict that as many as 5 in 10 of the skilled open positions, 1.9 million jobs could remain unfilled if manufacturers are not able to address the skills and applicant gaps.”

As I have written in previous articles, workforce training by manufacturers, community colleges, trade schools and programs such as the Manufacturing Institute’s FAME program, and SME’s ToolingU curriculum are training the next generation of manufacturing workers.

While other industries are scrambling to figure out how to adapt, manufacturers have been integrating machine learning, data analytics, robotics and smart automation for decades. Long before AI was a headline, it was on the shop floors of manufacturers —powering machine vision, digital twins, predictive maintenance and advanced robotics.

AI and robotics are redefining American manufacturing, with “robots building robots” symbolizing the dawn of the self-reinforcing industrial revolution. Whether it’s Tesla’s AI-driven Gigafactories or small shops leveraging plug-and-play automation, the benefits—improved productivity, quality, and flexibility—are clear.

Tags: American manufacturing, innovation, Manufacturing jobs
Posted in General, Innovation, Manufacturing, Technology, Workforce Development | No Comments »

What is the Status of Legislation that Would Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

May 26th, 2026

This past January, I wrote an article titled, “Has the 119^th Congress Passed Legislation to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?” in which I gave an update on whether or not Congress passed any of the legislation I had recommended in my article of January 2025, “What Legislation Should Congress Pass to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing? to fulfill their campaign promise to support President’s Trump goal to Make America Great Again and help rebuild American manufacturing.

We are now nearly six months later, so it’s time to examine if any of the bills I recommended have passed.

Number one on my list was legislation to establish a Market Access Charge (MAC), defined as a proposed fee on foreign purchases of U.S. financial assets (like stocks, bonds, and treasuries)—intended to manage large capital inflows, influence exchange rates, and promote economic stability. This is a concept promoted by some economists and organizations like the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA).

Legislative Activity:

As of May 2026, no bill specifically titled “Market Access Charge” or directly imposing such a charge has been introduced in the 119th Congress (2025–2026).
The concept is discussed in economic policy circles but has not yet reached the stage of formal legislation.
Related proposals may occasionally surface in hearings or working papers, but have not led to a standalone bill. Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees have occasionally heard testimony on capital flows and financial stability, where the MAC is sometimes raised, but to date there is no active bill establishing a MAC.

2. H.R. 5811 – Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2023 (RALIA)

Status: Introduced 10/24/2025 by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Summary: This bill aims to reform the U.S. patent system, making changes to post-grant proceedings and patent eligibility.
Latest Action: As of May 2026, H.R. 5811 was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No further action (such as a hearing or vote) has been reported.

3. H.R. 694 – The Restoring Trade Fairness Act

Status: Introduced January 23, 2025 Rep. John Molenaar (R-MI)
Summary: A bill to address perceived unfair trade practices, particularly relating to China.
Latest Action: H.R. 694 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. There have been no further reported actions or movement out of committee.

3. S. 206 – The Restoring Trade Fairness Act

Status: Introduced on January 23, 2025 by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Summary: Companion bill to H.R. 694 in the Senate.
Latest Action: S. 206 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No additional reported activity at this time.

4. Legislation to Reduce the Allowed Value of De Minimis Imports

Status: Multiple bills have been introduced in Congress to reduce the de minimis threshold (the value below which imports can enter the U.S. duty-free and with minimal documentation).
Latest Action: None have passed either chamber or advanced beyond committee.

5. S. 1053 – FIGHT China Act of 2025

Status: Introduced on March 13, 2025 by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
Summary: This bill is aimed at countering economic and national security threats posed by China.
Latest Action: Introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No additional major actions have been reported.

6. H.R. 3946 – FIGHT Act of 2026

Status: Introduced on March 13, 2025 by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY)
Summary: Similar in intent to S. 1053, but focuses on U.S.-China relations and economic policy.
Latest Action: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Awaiting further action.

7. S. 1357 – SAFE Act (Secure America’s Financial Exchanges Act)

Status: Introduced April 8, 2025 by Rep. Rick Scott (R-FL) Marsha Blackburn (R), Bill Cassidy (R), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R), and John Neely Kennedy (R) are co-sponsors.
Summary: Seeks to ensure the security and integrity of U.S. financial exchanges.
Latest Action: Referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. No additional committee activity reported.

8. S. 1358 – TASK Act (Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act)

Status: Introduced
Summary: Aims to improve the transparency of financial transactions crossing U.S. borders.
Latest Action: Referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. No further movement to date.

Summary Table

Bill Number	Title	Latest Status	Committee
H.R. 5811	Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act	Referred to Judiciary	House Judiciary
H.R. 694	Restoring Trade Fairness Act	Referred to Ways & Means	House Ways & Means
S. 206	Restoring Trade Fairness Act	Referred to Finance	Senate Finance

S. 1053	FIGHT China Act of 2025	Referred to Finance	Senate Finance
H.R. 3946	FIGHT Act of 2026	Referred to Ways & Means	House Ways & Means
S. 1357	SAFE Act	Referred to Banking	Senate Banking
S. 1358	TASK Act	Referred to Banking	Senate Banking

You can use the links provided for each bill to read the bill text, see the sponsors and cosponsors, view all actions and amendments, and sign up for alerts by creating a free account on Congress.gov. These Congress.gov pages are updated in real time.

There was one bill that I had overlooked previously: S.99 – Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act introduced into the Senate on January 15,2025 by Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI).

“This bill requires the Department of Commerce to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to study and report on the offices and bureaus of the department that are relevant to critical supply chain resilience and manufacturing and industrial innovation.

The report must evaluate the purpose, statutory authority, effectiveness, efficiency, and limitations of each such office and bureau and provide recommendations to improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and impact.” This bill passed the Senate on October 23, 2025 without amendment by Unanimous Consent, but hasn’t been voted on by the House.

It’s not enough just to introduce a bill; the bill’s sponsor needs to recruit as many co-sponsors as possible to gain support to hold committee hearings so that the bill can get enough votes to be passed out of committee for a vote by the House or Senate. Then, the sponsors and co-sponsors have to work to gain enough support for the bill to pass the House and Senate.

We need to stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities. The bills listed above would be a big help in rebuilding American manufacturing’s capacity and eliminate dependence on China. They would help rebuild manufacturing capacity in industries that are critical to U.S. economic and national security. They would help to create prosperity for our children and grandchildren and ensure that they will continue to live in a free country.

Because of the shorter legislative cycle caused by the mid-term elections in November, we only have a few months for Congress to pass these critical bills. Each of us needs to pick one of the above bills that we support and then call our Congressional Representative and Senator to urge them to support that bill.

Remember, “We the People” are supposed to be the basis for our Constitutional form of government. If “We the People” are silent and do nothing, then the lobbyists for the multinational globalist corporations and organizations will have the power to influence our elected representatives to support their interests to the detriment of the American people as a whole. If we want to remain an independent country, we need to be citizen activists and urge our elected Representatives not to allow us to become an economic vassal state of China.

Tags: American manufacturing, legislation
Posted in General, Legislation, Manufacturing | No Comments »

The Globalization Trap: Reclaiming American Prosperity

April 29th, 2026

Michael Collinsadded to his extensive body of work as an American Manufacturing advocate with a fifth book, The Globalizaton Trap: Reclaiming American Prosperity. This book is about “how neoliberalism and globalization were adopted by American Corporations and the U.S. government and how they radically changed the American economy and exploited the working class…globalization and the rise of neoliberalism as a political ideology turned out to be a trap where the average middle-class citizen bore the brunt of the economic changes through job losses, stagnant wages, and not being able to keep up with inflation.”

The preface sates: “From 1940 to 1980 the growth of the middle class increased with productivity growth and all boats rose with the tide. He explains that “Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes globalism, free trade, and letting the markets regulate the economy…The resultant deindustrialization has led to the decline of the middle class, and sacrificing jobs, industries, technologies, suppliers, and communities.”

Chapter One, “The Rise of Neoliberalism,” describes how Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek developed a new theory called neoliberalism.” Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes globalism, free trade, privatization, and deregulation. Neoliberalism was a 180-degree reversal from Keynesian economics used in the New Deal…” It incorporated Freidman’s dictum “An entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.”

I believe this theory is fallacious because recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), shows that “approximately 98% to 99% of American manufacturing firms are privately owned” and “98.6% are classified as small businesses (fewer than 500 employees),” meaning that less than 2% of companies are benefiting. which Michael calls Multi-National Corporations (MNCs).

Also, “Neoliberalism was the theoretical foundation for radical economic changes and was closely connected to the strategy of outsourcing and globalization.”

He then documents the role Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama played in advancing neoliberalism and globalism. He concludes the chapter writing that “The good news is that the era of neoliberalism, free trade, and globalism is coming to an end.”

Chapter Two, “The Middle-Class Decline,” quotes a Pew Research Center analysis of government data, showing that “the middle class, has steadily contracted in the past five decades. The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61 percent in 1971 to 50 percent in 2021.” He attributes the decline to the following major reasons:

Automation
Outsourcing
Job losses in manufacturing (since 1979, 7.5 million jobs were lost due to automation and outsourcing)
Trade Agreements
Decline of Unions
Deregulation of Financial Industry
Rising prices for essential costs like housing, energy. health care, education, and food

In Chapter 3, “Winners and Losers in the Free Market,” he shows how globalization and free trade has led to: worker insecurity, abandonment of cities and towns in the Heartland, middle class despair, and evidence of the failure of the Service Economy. As a result, he writes “since 1990, job quality as measured by the income earned by workers, has significantly declined. Less hours worked with less pay and little room for growth is becoming the norm.”

In Chapter four, “The Decline of American Manufacturing,” he presents these facts:

“U.S. manufacturing has fallen from 21 to 25 percent of Gross Domestic Product, in the 1950s to about 10 percent today.”
“American manufacturers have lost 11 percent of our domestic market since China was given most favored nation status in 2002 [now down to a Domestic Market Share Index of 66.9 percent.”
“In 1979, manufacturing jobs represented approximately 22% (19.7 million) of the total U.S. nonfarm workforce. By 2025, that figure had fallen to about 8% (12.7 million).”

He discusses why economists don’t think manufacturing is important to the U.S. economy, the damage caused by granting China Most Favored Nation Status (MFN), Free Trade Agreements, and outsourcing. He concludes the chapter with a discussion of Why America must have a strong and growing manufacturing sector, much of the information corroborating information I have included in my three books and hundreds of blog articles. I agree with his declaration, “The decline of manufacturing is the high price we pay for cheap imports.”

Chapter five, “The Disintegration of American Industry” discusses what has happened to the critical sectors of the manufacturing industry that all other manufacturing industries depend on, such as machine shops, tool and die makers, Industrial mold companies, Ferrous, Iron, Steel Foundries, Nonferrous Foundries, Forging and stamping shops, Cutting tool accessories, and the plastic and rubber industries.

Representing manufacturers in these sectors is how I have made a living as a sales representative for over 40 years, so I have personally experienced the decline of these manufacturing industry sectors.

He also documents the decline in other industries, such as automobiles, shipbuilding, semiconductors, magnetic media, communications equipment, paper, textile and apparel, ceramics, pottery, tile, hardware, cutlery and hand tools. I agree with his two major conclusions: “We won’t remain the number one economy and a world power if we allow the continued disintegration of American manufacturing industries and transition to the postindustrial service economy, and we can’t maintain national security and weapon systems if materials like aluminum, steel, and rare earth have shortages and cannot be controlled by the United States.”

In Chapter Six, Michael opines that the policy of Globalization that led to deindustrialization, redistribution of wealth, stagnant wages, the decline of living standards, and insecurity not experienced for generations, resulted in the backlash that resulted in the election of Donald Trump as President in the 2024 election when the middle class voted for their pocketbook.

In conclusion, he recommends, “If we are to have a chance of reducing inequality and reindustrializing the country, the United States needs a more robust industrial policy that protects key industries, manufacturing jobs…with a general goal of increasing manufacturing’s share of GDP to at least 15 percent. Perhaps the best solution is for millions of workers who are struggling financially to vote out their congressional representatives and elect politicians that are more sympathetic to the middle-class problems.”

In Chapter 7, “Protecting our Technologies,” he poses the question “How many technologies and industries are we willing to lose, before we lose our ability to compete using innovation as our primary strategy?” He describes the problem and then examines the pros and cons of outsourcing. He discusses the importance of protecting the Advanced Technology Industries (ATIs), which are at the forefront of economic growth.

Chapter 8, “Critical Minerals and Metals Shortages,” is a well-documented and thorough discussion of this major problem. Two glaring statistics stood out the most:

“The United States remains fully import-dependent for rare earths and 14 critical minerals and more than 50 percent dependent for another 34.

The United States currently imports roughly half, or about 47 percent, of the aluminum consumed in the United States.”

Michael provides suggestions to solve these problems that are too complex and numerous to cite. You will have to read them yourself.

The shortages of American-made pharmaceuticals are equally if not more critical than minerals and metals, and this topic is thoroughly discussed in Chapter 9. Two points to ponder are:

“The United States is dependent on imports for two-thirds of generic medicines, which are 90 percent of all prescriptions.

In 2002, U.S. manufacturers produced 84 percent of domestically consumed pharmaceuticals. In 2023, the number declined to 37 percent of the domestic market.”

He concludes, “The collapse of U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturing is the result of decades of free trade, increased market penetration due to state-sponsored subsidies and dumping, and the absence of government protection or and industry strategy.” Michael proposes a number of solutions that you need to read for yourself.

Chapter 10 discusses the many other industries and products that are also facing shortages, such as semiconductors, auto parts, rechargeable batteries, aviation components, solar panels, magnets. Michael asserts” Losing control of the supply of many critical products has made us susceptible to price manipulation and economic extortion…we must reclaim supply chains from China and other countries for everything from pharmaceuticals to semiconductors. I don’t think it is possible without some kind of monetary pressure on:

U.S. companies to reshore products
Foreign countries to reduce exports to the United States, running surpluses, manipulating currencies and dumping products into the United States below their production costs
The government to help find new sources of products that can’t be sourced from the United States.”

Chapter 11 discusses the role the overvalued U.S. dollar and finalization of the economy have played in the globalization trap. The concepts of the value of the dollar, currency manipulation, and unfair trade practices by China are too complex to describe in this article. I like his support for a Market Access Charge to balance the value of the dollar and achieve a current account balance within five years, about which I have written articles previously.

Chapter 12, “How Will We Solve the Problems Caused by Free Trade Policies,” Michael writes. “America must abandon free trade and globalism, bring manufacturing back to the United States, reduce our trade deficit, and protect our industries and technologies. We will also have to incentivize U.S. multinationals to stop outsourcing and incentivize both foreign and U.S. companies to establish manufacturing operations within the United States.”

After summarizing the main problems caused by free trade policies, he concludes, “I think it can be done and will require a combination of tariffs, tax credits, quotas, selecting key industries, and adjusting the value of the dollar.”

In Chapter 13, “Productivism – A Plan for American Manufacturing,” he explains that “A new economic policy that favors production and investment is called “productivism.” The term was invented by Dani Rodrik of Harvard…Productivism is a supply side strategy to boost the most productive industries so it is important to select and prioritize the key industries that must be protected. “

He states, “Productivism using tariffs, tax credits, quotas, key industries, technology protection and training will generate economic growth, create jobs, raise household incomes, and with a forecasted one-time increase in consumer prices. But productivism also needs to be part of a federal plan that defines the goals and measurable objectives.”

With regard to tariffs. Michael echoes what I have expressed, “Tariffs are the first step in developing a new industrial policy…If using tariffs to incentivize U.S. corporations to reshore products is to work, the government must convince the corporations that tariffs are permanent and that the government is in it for the long haul.” He reminds us that “In fact, the U.S. tariffs averaged 30 to 40 percent from 1890 to 1945.”

The rest of the chapter discusses the pros and cons of tax credits, tax incentives, quotas, and protecting key industries. Then he asks the question: “Where Will We Find the Workers?He cites that “A recent study by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute found that U.S. manufacturing could need as many as 3.8 million new employees by 2033, and nearly 2 million of those jobs could be left unfilled.” The rest of the chapter provides suggestions on how to solve this problem

Chapter 14, “Economic Factors that Must Be Considered to Make the Trump Plan Work,” outlines the following factors and provides suggestions on how to address these factors:

Decline in federal basic research
Loss of Technology Dominance
Capital investment and Stock Buybacks
Growth of National Debt
Transshipping to Avoid Tariffs
Banning Specific Products or Specific Companies
Artificial Intelligence and Additional Energy

In Chapter 15, “Refloating the Boats – What do we Have to Do to Grow the Middle Class?” Michael summarizes some of the points he wrote about in previous chapters. Then, he posed the question: “is it still possible for the average worker to attain the American Dream and can the decline of the middle class be reversed? He states, “I think it is possible to grow the middle class, increase wages, and improve living standards and income for much of the middle class if the country can commit to production, not consumption.” This book was an easy read and holds your attention right up to the end. I highly recommend this book to everyone who is concerned about the future of the manufacturing industry, the decline of the middle class, and our country’s ability to protect our national security. Every Senator and Congressional Representative needs to read this book. I suggest you buy one book for yourself and one to give to your Representative.

Tags: American manufacturing
Posted in Economic Development, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Companies Reshoring Receive Awards for 9th Year

March 31st, 2026

For the past three decades, outsourcing was the cornerstone of U.S. manufacturing. First, manufacturers outsourced to Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Then, manufacturers started outsourcing to China after it was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000. As I have written in my three books and over 300 articles, returning manufacturing to America is critical to rebuilding America’s industrial base. This process became known as “reshoring” after Harry Moser founded The Reshoring Initiative in early 2010. Returning manufacturing to America through reshoring is critical to rebuild America’s industrial base to ensure that we have the commercial and military/defense products needed to keep Americans healthy and safe

I had the honor of being an early supporter/collaborator of The Reshoring Initiative after I wrote about why it was important to understand “Total Cost of Ownership” when selecting vendors to manufacture products. I based my opinion on the hard copy worksheets of the National Tooling & Machining Association and the American Mold Builders Association. Harry Moser called me after reading my article and told that he had just founded The Reshoring Initiative and “created the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator® – a free online tool that helps companies account for all relevant factors — overhead, balance sheet, risks, corporate strategy and other external and internal business considerations — to determine the true total cost of ownership.” He trained me in how to give presentations on TCO and authorized me to be a substitute speaker for him on the West Coast or when he had a scheduling conflict for a trade show or conference. Every year, Harry provides me with new data so that my presentations remain consistent with his presentations.

The good news is that reshoring is rapidly increasing and making a significant impact on U.S. manufacturing, driven by supply chain resilience, geopolitical risks, and government incentives. According to the 2024 Reshoring report by The Reshoring Initiative, “244,000 jobs were announced in 2024; 1.7 million jobs have been filled since 2010.” Reshoring is improving our country’s self-sufficiency capacity for goods essential to our economy and national security according to a number of surveys and reports that I highlighted in my article titled, “Is Reshoring Making a Difference and Increasing?” published March 19, 2025.

When I asked Harry why he started the Reshoring Awards, he responded, “We started the Awards, initially as a feature of the NTMA/PMA Purchasing Fairs that connected industrial buyers with contract manufacture providers of machined components and tooling. When the Fairs ended, we promoted the awards to the national industry and included AMT, SME and FMA as supporters.” He added, “We wanted to establish a Reshoring Award to “motivate more companies to reevaluate their offshoring and see that it is often more profitable to produce or source domestically. We hoped that other associations would choose to support similar awards to show that their industries are now successfully reshoring.”

On May 25, 2017, The Reshoring Initiative andPrecision Metalforming Association (PMA)invited companiesthat have “successfully reshored parts or tooling made primarily by metal forming, fabricating or machining to apply forthe First National Reshoring Award. There was one award for buyers and one award for suppliers.” To be eligible for an award, a product or component has to meet the following criteria:

Reshoring or foreign direct investment (FDI) of the work occurred between Jan. 1, 2010, and the year prior to the year’s award. April 30, 2026.
Work had to be returned to North America from outside North America.
The products, parts, or tooling reshored must be made primarily by forming, casting, fabricating, or machining, including additive machining.

The criteria for winning are:

Number of North American jobs created
Dollars per year of sales reshored or nearshored from further offshore
Capital investment
Product innovation
Process innovation
Success of the project
Completeness of application

Bonus points are awarded to PMA, AMT, SME, FMA, and NTMA members. Winners include companies ranging from 20 to 15,000+ employees.

On October 31, 2018, AMT (The Association For Manufacturing Technology) and NTMA (National Tooling and Machining Association) joined the Reshoring Initiative and Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) to invite “Companies that have successfully reshored products, parts or tooling made primarily by metal forming, fabricating, casting or machining, including additive manufacturing,” to apply for the award…the work must have been reshored between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018, from outside North America to North America.”

These four organizations have continued to grant Reshoring Awards every year since 2018. The winners by year are:

2018 – Mitchell Metal Products, located in Merrill, WI

2019 – Sherrill Manufacturing, located in Sherrill, NY

2020 – Die-Tech & Engineering, located in Walker MI

2020 – Trenton Forging, located in Trenton, MI

2021 – ACME Alliance, located in Tempe. AZ

2022 – Hardinge, located in Elmira, NY

2023 – Hobson & Motzer, located in Durham, CT

2024 – Sumitomo Drive Tech., located in Chesapeake, VA

2025 – Marlin Steel, located in Baltimore, MD

2025 – GE Appliances, located in Louisville, KY

The 2026 Award will be presented at IMTS 2026 to be held September 14-19, 2026 at McCormick Place, Chicago, IL. The event will take place on the Main Stage between the North and South Halls, probably at 9am on Sept 17th. Applications are due by May 31, 2026. The application form is located at https://www.amtonline.org/article/reshoring-award. You may email Harry Moser at <harry.moser@reshorenow.org> for a file for applying.

While each of the above recipient companies may have had a variety of different reasons for reshoring using the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator®, the reality is that companies will only bring back the majority of offshored work if the economics of producing in the U.S. justifies doing so.

In last year’s Reshoring Report cited above, The Reshoring Initiative issued a call for smarter industrial policy that included the following to increase reshoring:

Massive investment in skilled workforce development (modeled after German apprenticeships).
A 20% lower USD to improve global cost competitiveness.
Retention of immediate expensing of capital investments.

I agree with these recommendations and have expressed in previous articles that the actions needed to achieve more reshoring are the same as needed for rebuilding manufacturing in general. These include developing a national manufacturing strategy that encompasses corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, Border Adjustable Taxes (aka VATs), and a Market Access Charge while addressing the predatory mercantilist practices of other countries with regard to currency manipulation, product dumping, and government subsidies.

President Trump has addressed tax reform and regulatory reform, but the other recommendations still need to be addressed. While we can take advantage of tariffs being a key motivator for reshoring now, we need to have other beneficial policies in place for the future to have long-term growth of our domestic manufacturing base.

Tags: American manufacturing, reshoring
Posted in General, Made in America, Reshoring | No Comments »

Why it is Critical to Reshore IT Services

March 9th, 2026

The Reshoring movement is gaining momentum as recent surveys show that a majority of U.S. manufacturers have either reshored or are actively evaluating reshoring portions of their production. President Trump’s tariffs are only one factor in the increase of reshoring. According to The Reshoring Initiative, the most common incentives for reshoring include shorter lead times, higher product quality and consistency, lower inventory levels, better responsiveness to changing customer demands, minimal intellectual property theft risk, and improved innovation and product differentiation.:

Data from the Reshoring Initiative shows “As of November 2025, we have recorded over 7600 cases of manufacturing companies that have brought work back to the U.S and from 2010 through November 2025. 2.3 million jobs returned from offshore vis reshoring and FDI.” This article will discuss why reshoring IT services is also critical to the success of American manufacturers and the protection of our national security.

The idea for this topic was presented to me by David Vickery, President of IT GuidePoint Corporation (or IT GuidePoint) who is a fellow member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America whom I used to see on our monthly member calls. He has been reading my blog articles regularly and contacted me after reading my previous article about Marlin Steel Wire Products. We met via Zoom last Wednesday and discussed why it is critical to reshore IT services.

David said, “I founded IT GuidePoint Corporation in May of 2008 after a decade as a principal at a publicly traded consulting firm in the Midwest that focused on $50 to $500 million manufacturing and distribution companies. My company focuses on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software optimization and new software selection for manufacturing and distribution companies mostly in the Midwest states of Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana. Let’s say you have a bad implementation and you need someone to review it and help you go through and say, why isn’t it working for us? The business system that you use on your computer to enter orders, ship things, check inventory, run the lines through the manufacturing plant all connects in some way, shape, or form to your planning or ERP system. I like to use the word business system because most people because most people just can’t get their arms around ERP unless they’re in the industry. I work with a network of specialized consultants, including former CIOs and CFOs, to provide practical solutions for clients facing challenges with their business systems.”

He told me, “I believe that your latest article has the same core principle highlighting the value of full domestic self-sufficiency. At least, that is my view because it is a repeated theme in your articles that America must stop outsourcing critical production and become self-reliant with no more depending on China for steel, baskets, chips, printed circuit boards, etc. I’m trying to take that message into the digital realm discussion: ERP and IT systems are now the “nervous system” of every modern manufacturer. Outsourcing those services to non-US citizens creates the same national security, IP, and supply-chain vulnerabilities that David Greenblatt warns about with physical goods. Defining “Made in the USA services” to require USA-citizen ERP/IT resources is simply completing the self-sufficiency picture you already champion.”

David shared his experience from MBA school in the 1990s, where a professor accurately predicted that outsourcing would eventually affect white-collar jobs, similar to how it had impacted blue-collar manufacturing jobs. He mentioned reading an Economic Policy Institute report that said “By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.”

I mentioned that a 2017 Economic Policy report stated, “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs.

He emphasized how the hollowing out of rural manufacturing towns leads to broader economic decline, affecting everything from infrastructure to educational systems when major manufacturing plants leave. He said that he wrote an article called Rural Manufacturing Perspective that talks about the little town that he grew up in where manufacturing and agriculture together kept the town going because it has a ripple effect. He said, “When a major manufacturing plant goes away, it can destroy a town. When you hollow out Main Street, you hollow out the churches, you hollow out the infrastructure, the educational system, the police, and the fire department.”

I told him that I understood what he was saying as I wrote blog articles about small towns in North and South Carolina that were nearly destroyed by losing their furniture and textile industries. Everything gets hollowed out because you don’t have tax payers and the local businesses don’t have customers. Both of us agreed that the loss of these jobs in rural America is particularly crushing because there’s no other options for these people.

David mentioned that Deloitte’s 2026 manufacturing industry outlook predicted companies are going to invest another 20% in domestic computer systems. David said, “I’m trying to take that message into the digital realm discussion: ERP and IT systems are now the “nervous system” of every modern manufacturer. Outsourcing those services to non-US citizens creates the same national security, IP, and supply-chain vulnerabilities that David Greenblatt of Marlin Steel warned about with physical goods. There is a security risk when you outsource your ERP and IT systems, which are basically the brains of your business, Intellectual Property, trade secrets, and all that kind of stuff. You have to be really, really careful about who gets access to that information and from what country

He added, “Defining ‘Made in the USA services’ to require USA-citizen ERP/IT resources is simply completing the self-sufficiency picture you already champion. Modern Manufacturing firms like Marlin Steel depend on a sophisticated software implementation behind the scenes for things such as inventory, scheduling, finance, pricing, customer service, quality control, supply-chain management, robotics integration, etc. If that ERP/IT layer is outsourced to be delivered and supported by foreign providers or non-citizen contractors, the entire ‘Made in America’ claim has a hidden security leak.”

I said, “Definitely, because if China has access to your IT systems, they can steal your intellectual property from your CAD systems. They learn how you price your products, how you schedule production, what your wages are, et cetera. I can’t understand how American manufacturers can’t see that any foreign company that has access to all of your IT systems can get any data they want about you. Very few Chinese companies are privately owned companies. They’re either partially or fully-owned by the government or they have investors that are top-level government employees or CCP members.

David responded, “That’s right, and it’s so dangerous. Not only that, but the configuration of ERP systems takes specialization and knowledge of specific business functions. All of these programs take expertise. I could name 100 different ERP software programs besides the well-known NetSuite, Infor, Global Shop, and SAP. What we do is we listen to people. The software is made to be infinitely generic because it has to be able to support a very wide swath of companies. So, we have to come back and give them two or three options to configure the software to meet the needs of their company. If you have consultants from another country that don’t speak the English well, they aren’t going to be able to understand what you want and need. They may have a different thought process about quality. My thought process on quality is that it’s not done until it’s 100%, right, and I don’t care how long it takes.”

In closing, David said, “It seems like you have spent decades writing about how to save American manufacturing. I’m asking the ‘Made in the USA’ community to evolve their definition to include ‘Made in the USA’ by U.S. citizens when they select IT & ERP implementation resources for all the positive community and domestic self-sufficiency reasons you outlined.

We agreed that sourcing IT services with American companies will provide a company with the following tangible benefits:

In person consulting vs. consulting via Zoom, phone, and email
Personal interaction in configuring the ERP software to fit the needs of your company
Reduced risk of key company data being stolen

Compliance traceability
Domestic accountability

We need to do whatever it takes to rebuild our manufacturing industry to ensure that we have the commercial and military/defense products needed to keep Americans healthy and safe. Reshoring of IT services is another way we can ensure that we have a secure domestic supply chain.

Tags: American manufacturing, reshoring
Posted in General, Made in America, Reshoring | No Comments »

Made in America Manufacturer Prospers in Rust Belt

February 17th, 2026

Last November, I watched a video interview on LinkedIn where Drew Greenblatt, President of Marlin Steel Wire Products, was talking about how he was investing in his companies located in rural areas of Indiana and Michigan. I connected with him and asked him if he would be willing to let me interview him about his company’s success as I like to write articles about successful American manufacturers.

Our schedules final coincided last Friday, and to start the interview, I asked Drew to provide a brief history of Marlin Steel. He said, “The company was founded in 1968 by another fellow. I owned a company that made medical devices and burglar alarms. I did very nicely with it. It was hard hours, early in the morning appointments, late in the night appointments, and it was a business selling to consumers. It didn’t match my personal deportment. I like dealing and working with engineers that are very black and white, that are very precise. So, I craved working with more scientifically bent people.

We got an offer to buy my company, and I used the proceeds of the sale to buy Marlin Steel in 1998 when it was in a 3,000 sq. ft. building, The newest piece of equipment was from the 1950s. The company had no health insurance plan. The health insurance plan was going to the emergency room. They had no retirement plan. The retirement plan was Social Security. So, we’ve come a long way. Everybody has the same health insurance plan my wife and I have, and my three boys have. And we’re very fortunate. More than half the employees own a home. Most employees own at least one car, most have two cars, and they all have 401ks, and they’re very well paid. Manufacturing is fabulous for American workers, and they’re feeling it at Marlin. It’s great stuff. I moved the company to Baltimore, MD, and the plant is now 37 times bigger than the Brooklyn plant.”

I asked Drew what kind of equipment he has now. He said, “We have press brakes up to 230 tons and 10 ft. wide, laser cutting machines, and we just acquired a new Trumatic 3000 robotic laser punch combo machine that is 10x faster than our other machines. It’s going to enable us to cut brass, cut copper, as well as stainless steel, aluminum, and sheet metal like we’ve done in the past. Separately, in our Indiana plant, we also have a lot of wire equipment, three-dimensional benders. We have automated mesh welders. We do cable access trays, wire baskets, carts, point of purchase displays. We do a tremendous amount of Top-of-the-line quality production out of all these three facilities.”

I asked Drew when he acquired the plant in Orland, IN, and he answered, “Marsden Steel Wire Products was established in 1938, and it was a fabulous company in the rural Indiana. We I heard through the grapevine in 2021 that it was available for sale. We bought the company and put over $5 million dollars of cash into it: brand new bathrooms, brand new break rooms, brand new offices, brand new roof, just made the building sparkle. We now have 100,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing space and took the company from 33 employees to 80 employees We have wire fabrication equipment, 3D benders, and automated mesh welder. We are hiring people there, and we’re growing. “

I next asked Drew when he expanded to having a plant in Bronson, MI., and he responded, “In March 2023, we wanted Marsden Steel to have their own powder coating plant, and we heard about a building ten miles north of Orland in Bronson that was available. The building had been empty since the recession of 2008 when the company closed down after being the major employer of this small rural community. We bought this decrepit building and had a career fair where 350 people applied for jobs. We put millions of dollars into the plant buying equipment, modernizing the bathrooms, lunch break room, and offices. We are hiring more people and growing to become the major manufacturer in the community. We pay good wages and provide good benefits to our employees. We’re very excited. We love Michigan. We love Indiana. They have great manufacturing communities. We look at how fabulous the workforce is. It’s just tremendous. We’re just so fortunate and blessed to be in these communities.

I changed the subject to ask how tariffs are affecting his company. He responded, “Tariffs are fabulous for Marlin and Madsen Steel Wire because we only make in America and we only use American steel. So, entities that build in America don’t have a tariff problem. I would recommend to people that are having a hardship with tariffs, build in America, and then you don’t have to pay a tariff.

It’s really good for the local community because what happens is you hire locals. And then these locals buy homes, and they buy cars, and they go to the local dry cleaner, and they go to the local barbershop, and they’re gainfully employed, and they’re making a nice middle-class living. I implore communities to encourage manufacturing. This policy is about time because it gives us an opportunity to make a level playing field with people that have been subsidizing their steel, subsidizing their currency, despoiling their environment. You know, we treat our environment A++. I live right by the Chesapeake Bay in Baltimore. I love eating Maryland crabs. We want to have a clean environment. It’s not right that people bring in things from dirty factories that are putting smog in the world and despoiling the Yangtze River and their environment, and then shipping to us for a ‘low price.’ The low price is despoiling our environment. They’re using slave labor, and it’s just not a fair fight competing with state-owned enterprises over in China. I believe that we have to recalibrate our thought process, buy from the hometown heroes in Maryland, Indiana, Michigan, and other American local communities so that they can support a middle-class lifestyle.”

Drew said, “I think there’s a dramatic change that’s about to happen. We are right now at a junction point. I contend that we are right now de-risking as a nation and decoupling from China. For decades, we’ve had a very poor policy description of outsourcing all of our factories to China and not making things as much as we used to. And that was a foolish policy.

We are now pivoting, thankfully, to a policy where we embrace American manufacturing because we need to make things here. We can’t be beholden to outsiders that they will make us ships and they will make us shoes and they will make us baskets and they will make us racks and they will make us carts when times get tough. We have to be self-sufficient. We have to make our own printed circuit boards. We have to make our own silicon chips. We have to make things here in America. I think there’s a realization by our policymakers that we have to re-look at how we did things in the past, and there is a fabulous, bright opportunity for the American people because there’s going to be a lot of new avenues to make a decent, solid, middle-class living again in our country. We can’t just be a nation of baristas and housekeepers and service workers at restaurants. We have to have very fulfilling jobs, jobs with dignity, making high-end pay with great benefits.”

I told him that couldn’t have said it better and have said it similarly in my books and articles. We have been outsourcing our pollution by sourcing manufacturing in China and other Asian countries. China is one of the most polluted countries in the world. What China and India have done to their countries is criminal. I agree that we need to make things in America because we make them in a non-polluting way because of beneficial environmental regulations.

Next, I asked if he was involved in any kind of industry association, and he answered, “Yes,

I’m a proud member of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Regional Manufacturing Institute. I am a former member of the NAM Executive Board, and I was the chairman of the small and medium-sized manufacturers comprising 14,000 members. I love NAM. I think they’re fabulous. I think there are discussions at NAM about the right way to approach the tariffs and some of these other policies. I think NAM is an important advocate for American manufacturing and think they’re doing a great job for our country.”

Finally, I asked him if his company practiced the principles of Lean manufacturing and done any training in lean. He replied, “I had the honor and privilege as the chairman of the Regional Manufacturing Institute here in Baltimore to introduce Ellie Goldratt on his last speech in public to a huge crowd in Baltimore, Maryland. He spoke at a local community college in a huge auditorium, and I was privileged to introduce him before his speech. He was unfortunately dying of lung cancer, and he gave a most beautiful speech for his class public speech.

Afterwards, he pulled me aside, and he said that he was touched by my intro because I expressed to the crowd that his book had changed my life and changed how we ran the business and saved my business because we followed his methods. He said that he was heading back to the hotel before he went to the airport and invited me to ride in his limo to talk. I accepted his offer even though I had my own car in the parking lot because I realized that this was one of the greatest opportunities of my life. For the next 20 minutes, he basically did an autopsy on me even though I was alive. All of his piercing, smart questions really dove deep into Marlon Steele and gave me some great ideas. Unfortunately, he soon passed after returning to Israel. It was a touching moment in my life, and we changed our business because of him. A lot of my success is because of his great advice.”

In conclusion, I asked him if he has any plans to expand to any other locations in the future. He responded, “Yes, absolutely. We are going to be growing in America, only in America. We need more thriving small and medium-sized manufacturers, but we also need big ones because, you know, I hope to be one of the big boys and keep on growing. We’re 37 times bigger than the day I bought the factory in 1998, and I want to be 37 times bigger than I am today. We are having discussions with several other entities. We are aggressively looking to acquire other manufacturers that make wire fabrications and sheet metal fabrications. We’re very optimistic about the future. We’re very bullish on America.”

I told him that his company was definitely the kind of company that I like to write about and he is the type of company owner we need to have more of in America — people that appreciate our country, appreciate making things in America in the communities in which they live, appreciate the people that work for them by giving them the right kind of benefits and safe working conditions, and training. I want more companies to be successful like his company because it’s beneficial to the communities you’re in and beneficial to our economy because manufacturing jobs create taxpayers instead of people who receive benefits.

Tags: Made in America manufacturing
Posted in General, Made in America, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Has the 119th Congress Passed Legislation to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

January 20th, 2026

should pass that fulfills their campaign promise to support President’s Trump goal to Make America Great Again and help rebuild American manufacturing. This article will examine whether or not Congress passed any of the legislation I recommended.

Impose a Market Access Charge (MAC) as proposed by Dr. John R Hansen, (PhD economist and Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.) “forcing foreigners to pay a market access charge (MAC) on inflows of all foreign-source money.”

The answer is still “no” as revealed in my article, “Why a Market Access Charge Would Have Greater Benefits Than Tariffs,” dated December 12, 2025. The passage of such a bill would address the problem of the U.S. dollar competing against the undervalued currencies of China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. It would moderate the gross inflows of “trash cash” into the speculative financial market of stocks and bonds and help American products be more competitive in the global marketplace, which would grow our manufacturing industry and create more higher paying jobs.

Pass a Patent Reform Bill to restore inventors’ rights and end abuses by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

As revealed in my November 18, 2025 article, “Legislation Protecting Inventors’ Rights Reintroduced to Congress,” the answer is “yes” as the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA) (H.R. 5811) was introduced in the 119th Congress by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) as a key co-lead, with its text filed on October 24, 2025, aiming to overhaul U.S. patent law, including abolishing the PTAB and restoring “first to invent” standards.

Revoke China’s Most Favored Nation Status (aka Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)

The answer is “no.” The 119th Congress has not yet revoked China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), but several bipartisan bills have been introduced: H.R. 694, The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced on January 23, 2025 by Rep. John Molenaar (R-MI) and S. 206, The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on January 23, 2025.

These bills represent a bipartisan effort to end China’s PNTR, applying Column 2 tariff rates (minimum 35%, strategic goods 100%) and eliminating duty-free de minimis treatment on small shipments. These bills are stalled in their respective committees in the House and Senate.

Reduce the Allowed Value of De Minimis imports

No, Congress hasn’t enacted legislation, but a White House Fact Sheet states that on April 2, 2025, “President Trump is ending duty-free de minimis treatment for covered goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong starting May 2, 2025.”

“All relevant postal items containing goods that are sent through the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption are subject to a duty rate of either 30% of their value or $25 per item (increasing to $50 per item after June 1, 2025).”

Them, on July 31, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order suspending duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments. “Effective August 29, imported goods sent through means other than the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption will be subject to all applicable duties.”

Executive Orders may be revoked by subsequent presidents, so it is important that Congress passes legislation to permanently suspend duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments.

Both : H.R. 694 the Restoring Trade Fairness Act and S. 206 The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, mentioned above would permanently suspend duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments in addition to revoking China’s PNTR status. It is important that these bills be approved by their committees to be voted on by the House and Senate.

Reauthorize a Reformed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)

The answer is “yes”. The Bloomberg Government newsletter of September 30, 2025, states “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), P.L. 119-21, makes permanent key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including lower individual tax rates, enhanced deductions, a higher estate and gift tax exemption, and the 20% pass-through deduction. Business tax breaks for research and development, property depreciation, and interest expenses are also now permanent…the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap rises to $40,000 for five years, then reverts to the $10,000 cap… The OBBBA also fulfills several campaign-trail promises with short-term measures, many set to expire after 2028 to limit their cost. These include new deductions for tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest on American-made vehicles, and an additional $6,000 deduction for individuals aged 65 and older.”

The manufacturing industry will also benefit from some of the other provisions of the OBBBA:

Authorizes sizable investments in technology and infrastructure
Automakers no longer face civil penalties for violations of fleetwide fuel economy standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Increases the advanced manufacturing tax credit, including for chipmakers, from 25% to 35%.
Restores the Federal Communications Commission’s authority (lapsed in 2023) to auction spectrum licenses through 2034
Authorizes $1 billion to fund the Defense Production Act
Prioritizes fossil fuel development, while renewable energy programs are to be phased out
Expands drilling on public land, including four onshore lease sales in nine western states, broader access to all leasable lands, and an extension of drilling permits to four years (up from three)
Mandates offshore lease sales in the renamed “Gulf of America,” Alaska’s Cook Inlet, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Directs the Interior Department to approve qualified coal leasing applications, offer 4 million acres for coal leasing, and increase annual federal timber sales through 2034
Lowers royalty rates on oil, gas, and coal; eliminates royalties on extracted methane; and ends fees for nominating parcels for leasing

Pass Legislation to Address China’s Exploitation of U.S. Capital Markets, Economic Incentives, and Trade Policy

Congress is actively considering the following bills to counter China’s economic influence, targeting capital markets, trade, and technology:

The FIGHT China Act of 2025 (S.1053) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on March 13, 2025. A sister bill (H.R.3946) was introduced in in the House introduced by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). The FIGHT China Act restricts American investment into Chinese Communist Party (CCP) military and surveillance companies and other sensitive technologies of adversarial nations. The December 17, 2025 press release by Rep. Barr states: “Today, the FIGHT China Act led by U.S. Congressman Andy Barr (R-KY) and U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) passed the U.S. Senate…The legislation is the strongest sanctions ever passed by Congress on China…This legislation will make President Donald J. Trump’s America First Investment Policy permanent and prevent American investors from unknowingly bankrolling military and tech companies that threaten U.S. national security.” Instead of being signed by President Trump as a separate bill, it was added to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Bill mentioned below.

The SAFE Act, Secure America’s Financial Exchanges Act (S.1357) has five co-sponsors in the Senate: Rick Scott (R), Marsha Blackburn (R), Bill Cassidy (R), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R), and John Neely Kennedy (R). It “would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address the issuance of securities by Chinese entities… would require Chinese companies seeking to list securities on U.S. exchanges to disclose detailed information about their relationship with the Chinese government. Specifically, companies would need to reveal any financial support received from the People’s Republic of China, including subsidies, loans, tax benefits, or procurement policy advantages. They must also describe the conditions attached to such support, such as requirements to meet export targets, purchase from specific entities, use certain intellectual property, or employ Chinese Communist Party members. Additionally, companies would have to disclose the presence and composition of Chinese Communist Party committees within their organization, and provide background on any officers or directors who currently or previously held positions in the Chinese government or Communist Party.”

The TASK Act, Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act (S.1358), introduced by Senator Rick Scott on April 8, 2025, aims “to enhance transparency by requiring public companies to report on supply chain due diligence, particularly concerning forced labor in Xinjiang, China, to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), bolstering investor protection and addressing human rights concerns through mandated disclosure.”

However, there was another bill that became law in late December that has provisions that benefit American manufacturers and helps rebuild American manufacturing. This is S.1071 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which includes significant provisions to benefit American manufacturers by boosting domestic production, funding advanced technologies, creating new networks like the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network, and focusing on key areas like semiconductors, shipbuilding, and munitions to strengthen the defense industrial base (DIB). Key measures are:

Defense Industrial Base Fund Expansion: Broadens allowable spending for materials, equipment, facility construction, and advanced manufacturing investments within the DIB.
Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network (CRMN): Establishes a system to rapidly qualify commercial factories to produce defense items during emergencies, increasing surge capacity.
Advanced Manufacturing & Technology:
- Funds R&D for next-gen tech and mandates DoD to adopt advanced methods like additive manufacturing (3D printing).
- Elevates advanced manufacturing in acquisition governance, co-chairing key groups.
Supply Chain Resiliency: Focuses on domestic production for critical items like semiconductors and aims to build advanced manufacturing facilities in the Pacific.
Workforce & Skills: Supports upskilling workers and creating pathways for military skills to translate to civilian manufacturing jobs.
Targeted Sector Investments: Allocates billions to shipbuilding, munitions, and drones to rebuild stockpiles and capacity.

Because the OBBBA and the National Defense Authorization bills passed, I am able to give Congress a grade of “B” instead of the “C” they earned because so many of the important bills mentioned above are stalled in their respective Committees. It is imperative that these bills be voted out of their respective Committees and brought forward into the House and Senate for a vote. My suggestion is to pick one of the above bills that you support and then call your Congressional Representative and Senator to urge them to support that bill. Remember, “We the People” are the basis for our Constitutional form of government. If “We the People” are silent and do nothing, then the lobbyists for the multinational globalist corporations and organizations will have the power to influence our elected representatives to support their interests to the detriment of the American people as a whole.

Tags: American manufacturing, legislation, trade policy
Posted in Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

savingusmanufacturing.com

The 2025 Reshoring Report Shows Reshoring is Gaining Momentum

How American Manufacturers Contributed to Chinese Military Buildup

American Manufacturing Helped Protect our Freedom for 250 Years

How American Manufacturers Are Using AI – The Era of Robots Building Robots

What is the Status of Legislation that Would Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

The Globalization Trap: Reclaiming American Prosperity

Companies Reshoring Receive Awards for 9th Year

Why it is Critical to Reshore IT Services

Made in America Manufacturer Prospers in Rust Belt

Has the 119th Congress Passed Legislation to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

Follow Us on

Pages

Blogroll

Categories

Archives

Meta