The Maze and Illusion of Revitalizing Manufacturing in the United States
In April last year, the Trump administration introduced so-called "equivalent tariffs", stating that the key goal of this move was to revive the US manufacturing industry. Over the past year, the US government has continuously promoted the "performance" of new investments and created a scene of "comprehensive recovery" in the manufacturing industry. But upon careful examination, it is not difficult to find that many projects and commitments are either "old wine in new bottles" or suspected of being "empty promises".
Analysts believe that factors such as cost disadvantage and outdated infrastructure in the US manufacturing industry have long hindered the return of multinational corporations. The uncertainty of US government policies further affects the willingness to invest in the United States. The so-called revitalization of the US manufacturing industry is still far away.
There are tricks in the investment of 'Feast'
In the past year, some governments and companies of countries have announced investment plans in the United States to avoid becoming a key target of US tariffs. According to US President Trump's statement at the end of last year, the cumulative amount of investments or investment commitments received by the United States in 2025 exceeds $20 trillion. This number cannot be verified or confirmed by any media or institution, and is far higher than the total amount of new investments in the United States announced by the White House.
According to the latest list on the White House website, as of March 10th, the United States has attracted over $4 trillion in corporate investment commitments and over $4.6 trillion in government investment commitments. Among them, technology giant Apple and social media giant "Yuan" have both pledged to invest $600 billion in the United States during Trump's four-year presidency, which is the largest investment plan at the corporate level. SoftBank Group of Japan, Open AI Research Center of the United States, and Oracle Corporation of the United States have pledged a joint investment of $500 billion to build infrastructure supporting the development of artificial intelligence in the United States, which is comparable in scale to Nvidia's commitment to investment.
However, the total investment of $8.6 trillion announced by the White House has also been widely questioned as "injecting water". Many media and institutions believe that there are several hidden tricks in the White House investment list:
One is that the investment intention of enterprises is inflated, and the White House's accounting is either high or low. For example, the $600 billion investment by Apple and "Yuan" company has been accused of being unrealistic. Apple's global capital and research and development expenditures in 2024 are only $10 billion and $31.4 billion, respectively. The Washington Post reported that Apple had also announced similar investments during Trump's first presidency and a $430 billion investment plan during Biden's presidency, but ultimately failed.
In addition, the Japanese government has agreed to invest $550 billion in the United States, but the "bill" recorded by the White House is $1 trillion.
The second is to extend the commitment investment cycle and avoid execution risks. Some media have found that some companies and foreign governments' investment commitments have crossed the Trump presidency, seemingly intended to provide a window of escape for possible failure to fully implement the commitments. For example, the UAE government has pledged to invest $1.4 trillion in the United States over the next decade; IBM、 Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb have respectively committed to investing $150 billion, $23 billion, and $40 billion in the United States over the next five years. Steve Scala, an analyst at TD Securities, questioned, "If a company decides to expand on a large scale, why not start earlier
Thirdly, there are many instances of "new bottled old wine" and "secondary packaging". Some well-known technology companies' investment commitments include a lot of regular business expenses, which are not new investments, but are "packaged" and submitted by the companies, and the White House tacitly "accepts them in full.
Roman Yangboliski, a professor at the University of Louisville in the United States, believes that these astronomical investment announcements often promise too much and are not fulfilled enough. These promises have a performative nature, like a political show
Industry data truth
The one-year anniversary of 'Liberation Day' did not liberate American factories, "the British magazine The Economist described the situation of the American manufacturing industry one year after the introduction of the so-called" equivalent tariffs ".
In sharp contrast to the inflated investment commitments, the actual situation of the US manufacturing industry is far from expected, and real investment, construction, and labor market indicators have not shown signs of recovery.
Firstly, the employment situation in the manufacturing industry remains sluggish. According to federal government data, over 200000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the United States since 2023. Since Trump took office, the manufacturing industry has lost about 100000 jobs.
According to the latest data from the US Department of Labor cited by the Congressional Hill Daily, employment in the US automotive and timber industries has decreased by 29900 and 18000 respectively over the past year. These two industries are exactly the ones that the Trump administration is trying to protect through tariff barriers. A study by the US Tax Foundation suggests that large-scale tariffs have not led to a recovery in the US manufacturing industry. On the contrary, there has been no significant increase in manufacturing jobs, and the previous trend of layoffs in the industry continues.
Secondly, there has been no significant rebound in the actual output of the manufacturing industry. According to data from the American Institute of Supply Management, the manufacturing industry in the United States continued to shrink in the 26 months ending December 2025, with only a slight rebound in early 2026. Chris Snyder, Executive Director of Morgan Stanley, stated that tariff policies have not translated into more factories in traditional manufacturing industries, and most manufacturers are simply striving to increase the output of existing factories.
Thirdly, the actual implementation of new investment projects is limited. Ron Stolp, a geo economics analyst at The Hague Center for Strategic Studies, believes that construction spending on new industrial projects and private fixed investment levels in the United States, as two important indicators of US manufacturing, will decrease by 11.1% and 4.6% respectively from April to December 2025.
Multiple dilemma constraints
International observers believe that the US government is attempting to boost the manufacturing industry through protectionist policies, but the reality is that unfavorable factors such as investment costs and policy environment hinder international investment from entering the United States, posing a systemic constraint on the development of the US manufacturing industry.
Firstly, 'Made in America' faces a long-term lag in supporting software and hardware facilities.
One is that the infrastructure required for large-scale advanced manufacturing, such as stable power grids, high-speed communication networks, and efficient supply chain networks, is not satisfactory. The latest assessment report by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2025 gives a C rating to infrastructure in the United States, significantly lower than other manufacturing nations. Secondly, there are long-term shortcomings in the supply of labor and skill levels in the manufacturing industry. Apple CEO Tim Cook once complained that holding an engineer conference in the United States was "uncertain if the conference room could be filled".
Secondly, 'Made in America' is facing serious drag from policy uncertainty.
Normally, it takes 3 to 10 years to transfer manufacturing to the United States, and the long construction period is accompanied by many risks. Represented by tariffs, various policies of the US government have repeatedly fluctuated, becoming one of the biggest concerns for corporate investment.
Ann E. Harrison, former dean and economics professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, stated that long-term consistency is necessary for policies to succeed. The repeated policies of the Trump administration have greatly weakened the hope of revitalizing the manufacturing industry.
Thirdly, the image of 'Made in America' in the minds of consumers has fundamentally changed.
The Congressional Hill Daily reported that "Made in America" used to represent "durability" and "quality", but now only a "high priced" shell remains, and "high price does not necessarily mean high quality". The American people support American manufacturing, but have little savings to purchase expensive "Made in America" products and can only choose foreign goods.