U.S. and allies move to build missiles and drones closer to Asia’s flashpoints

A U.S.-led defense manufacturing partnership agreed ⁠to launch a new missile motor production program with Japan, push forward a drone cooperation effort across Asia and explore building a new ammunition production line in the Philippines, the Pentagon ​said on Friday.

The Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience, known ‌as PIPIR, ‌is a group of nations working ​together to build up their weapons and defense manufacturing capacity in the Asia-Pacific region. The United States set it ⁠up in May 2024 to reduce supply chain risks and help ⁠allies produce and maintain military equipment closer to where it might be needed.

The Pentagon published a ​joint statement following ⁠a virtual meeting on Wednesday, where the group welcomed two new members — Thailand and the ⁠United Kingdom — bringing ​its total membership to 16 countries spanning ​both the Indo-Pacific and Europe.

The group said ​it had ‌agreed to set up a new program to produce solid rocket motors — the propulsion systems used in many guided weapons — with Japan taking the lead. The ‌move is seen as a way to boost production capacity outside the United States for a key weapons component.

On drones, members agreed on a series of steps to develop common ​standards ​and shared supply chains for small military drones ​across the region, including work on batteries and small motors ⁠that power them. The group also agreed to explore building drones together across a range of military uses.

On ammunition, members said they would look into ​the Philippines hosting a new facility to load, assemble, and package 30mm cannon rounds — a type of ammunition widely used by military aircraft and ground vehicles.

Source link

Let Everybody Know Where You’re From with American-made State Keepsakes

Totes! from Maptote. | Courtesy Maptote

Lots of state-themed gift shop accoutrements are imported. Not these options.

Pop in any nearby gift store and you’re sure to find a host of merch flaunting the state you’re in. State pride is serious business, and it can be fun to buy a memento of a state you’ve lived in or visited. But too often these products aren’t even made in the United States! If you want to support American manufacturers with your purchase of a state-themed keepsake, you’ve come to the right place. Whether you’re looking for something to represent a trip you’ve taken or just want to flaunt some pride for your home state, here are seven Made in USA companies with state-themed options.

Maptote

Want to get in on the tote bag craze? Then you’ll love Maptote. The company is run by a husband-and-wife duo. Michael Berick has a background in cartography, while Rachel Rheingold has a degree in fashion design. The combination of their passions has resulted in Maptote, which sells tote bags with highly detailed maps of different places. Each bag is sewn in Brooklyn, New York from U.S.-sourced cotton. You’ll find bags representing places across the country, from Cape Cod and Nashville to Colorado and Seattle and beyond. You’ll even find options for international cities. These bags are a fun and functional way to show off a favorite place.

Be sure to check out our podcast episode featuring Maptote coming out on Monday, March 23! (And keep in mind that Maptote sells other accessories on its website that may not be USA-made; always check labels!)

Found Image Press

If you’ve ever seen a fun vintage design on a magnet or a postcard, you’ve probably seen a Found Image Press product. This is a gift shop staple. Founded by a husband-and-wife duo in San Diego, Found Image prints all its products in the United States. Although wholesale is the company’s specialty, you can also shop at Found Image’s website directly. It’s got a large catalog with many themes, with a huge collection of regional images. Each design is available as a postcard, magnet, greeting card or art print. A great way to adorn your home with state pride or share it with someone else!

Courtesy True South Puzzle Company

True South Puzzle Co and White Mountain Puzzles

This is a two-in-one, since both True South Puzzle Company and White Mountain Puzzles offer a variety of puzzles themed around U.S. states. What’s different is their style. True South works with independent artists to create their designs. Each puzzle is generally centered around one image and is usually 500 pieces. White Mountain, on the other hand, is known for their collages of many different images. You’ll find options featuring many eclectic signs, license plates and more. Each White Mountain puzzle is usually 1000 pieces. What both companies have in common is that they’re 100% USA-made. True South is based in Nashville and manufactures in Indiana, while White Mountain is based in New Hampshire and manufactures in Massachusetts and Indiana.

 For more info on True South Puzzle Company, be sure to check out our blog featuring True South’s founder, Susan Taylor!

Sandlot Goods

Calling all sports fans! If you want a hat with your state or city on it that also subtly shows off your love for your favorite sports team, you have to check out Sandlot Goods. Its large collection of hats is simple but includes many options with various team colors. You will also officially find a licensed one, especially if you’re a fan of a university that’s near Sandlot’s home base in Kansas City, Missouri. Sandlot is committed to making each hat here in the United States — read more about its story in these blog posts! (Only Sandlot Goods’ hats are USA-made. Always check labels!)

Courtesy Oxford Pennant

Oxford Pennant

Want a more unique decor choice? A pennant flag is a cool choice. It’s a classic decoration that gives any space a preppy Americana feel. Oxford Pennant is reviving pennant manufacturing in the United States from Buffalo, New York. There are many different designs of pennants, flags and banners to choose from, including pop culture collaborations with Hamilton, Fall Out Boy and more. But today we’re focusing on state-themed gear, and Oxford Pennant sells a flag for each state with a special design. Pick out one from your state or collect one for each state you’ve been to! Check out our podcast episodes featuring Oxford Pennant here! (Oxford Pennant also sells state patches that may not be USA-made; check labels!)

North Drinkware

This last choice is far more unique. You won’t find anything with a state’s name on it from North Drinkware. Instead, you’ll find glasses with accurate 3D models of mountains molded into the base. You can browse the website by state or by mountain — options range from California’s Mt. Shasta to New Hampshire’s Mt. Washington. Each North Drinkware glass is handblown in Oregon, and each part is 100% USA-made. For anyone who loves the outdoors or just wants to highlight the natural beauty of their home state, North Drinkware might be the perfect choice.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing does not receive a commission from purchases made through the above links, nor was the organization or author paid for favorable coverage.

Labeling Note: This story is intended to highlight companies that support American jobs and that make great products in the United States. We rely on the companies listed to provide accurate information regarding their domestic operations and their products. Each company featured is individually responsible for labeling and advertising their products according to applicable standards, such as the Federal Trade Commission’s “Made in USA” standard or California’s “Made in USA” labeling law. We do not review individual products for compliance or claim that because a company is listed in the guide that their products comply with specific labeling or advertising standards. Our focus is on supporting companies that create American jobs.

For more on the Federal Trade Commission’s standards for “Made in USA” claims and California’s “Made in USA” labeling law, please also read this guest post by Dustin Painter and Kristi Wolff of Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP.

Source link

Trump promised a manufacturing boom, but factory jobs continue to decline

William Brangham:

The U.S. job market has been cooling recently, and government data shows it’s only getting harder for Americans to find a job.

One sector that has proved tougher than most is manufacturing. President Trump has promised a manufacturing boom in both his terms, but while he’s been able to get pledges for more factory investment, the actual jobs inside those factories tell a different story thus far.

Economics correspondent Paul Solman has this report.

Paul Solman:

The Ohio State marching band and its featured instrument, the brassy sousaphone, emblem of school spirit and state pride, made just outside Cleveland.

Rob Hines, Sousaphone Buffer, Conn Selmer:

We handcraft everything. We have perfected the process for it and it’s been working for 58 years in our facility. And that’s what I think you get when you get that American craftsmanship.

Paul Solman:

Rob Hines, an American craftsman, sousaphone buffer at the Conn Selmer plant, where he’s worked for nine years.

Rob Hines:

It’s not an easy job. It’s a grueling job. But we do it because we love what we do.

Paul Solman:

And what they lovingly produce, which is why he and co-workers were stunned when the company suddenly said it will shutter the factory in June and relocate to China, shunting 150 people to the street.

Rob Hines:

It’s a lot of fear right now. A lot of people are afraid.

Wyatt Georskey, Sousaphone Buffer, Conn Selmer:

We’re talking about some of the best brass instrument craftsmen in the world going into job interviews and being told, well, that’s good and all, but you don’t actually have any skills.

Paul Solman:

Wyatt Georskey, another buffer. His future?

Wyatt Georskey:

I don’t know what I’m going to do. We’re all left in a limbo right now.

Paul Solman:

Of course, some of you have seen it as long as I have, manufacturing jobs on the wane ever since 1979.

President Donald Trump:

Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country, and you see happening already.

Paul Solman:

It’s a trend President Trump has famously vowed to reverse with tariffs and domestic investment. Foreign leaders and business executives have frequently visited the White House grounds pledging to spend in the U.S. of A.

DONALD TRUMP:

In 12 months, I secured commitments for more than $18 trillion pouring in from all over the globe.

Paul Solman:

This number is widely thought to be implausible and almost assuredly includes commitments that were made before Trump’s second term. But there’s no contesting the fact that, since President Trump took office, the U.S. has lost nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs.

The administration and its allies, however, tout their dedication to a turnaround.

John Paulson, Founder, Paulson & Co.: We need to protect American jobs and protect American manufacturing. We can’t have Americans, American producers closing American factories and offshoring.

Paul Solman:

And yet it’s this same famed investor, John Paulson, who owns the brass instrument factory. Paulson hosted a $50 million fund-raiser for President Trump during the 2024 campaign.

Rob Hines:

A lot of our members support Trump and believed in the administration.

Paul Solman:

Or did, claims Conn Selmer union Rob Hines.

And how are people feeling about it now?

Rob Hines:

Some people feel slighted. Some people are even questioning if Trump actually knows about the moves his allies are making in the dark. Some people still believe in administration. Some people feel let down.

Paul Solman:

In recent years, the company had already been moving parts to China, cheaper production, to buff the bottom line, but at a hidden cost, says Hines.

Rob Hines:

We have seen over the last year the quality deteriorate just from trying to integrate those foreign parts.

Paul Solman:

Wait, the myopic maximizing of shareholder value we have heard so much about? Or do the workers here just see what they want to see?

Rob Hines:

I don’t think it would be just because it’s in our interest. As somebody who works with these parts day in and day out, six days a week, we see the quality, and the employees have complained about the quality. And it’s fallen on deaf ears.

Paul Solman:

Meanwhile, the job attrition in Wyatt Georskey’s part of the plant.

Wyatt Georskey:

At times, it’s been over 100, and now we’re down to this group of 16 of us who are sending out the last American-made French horns and sousaphones and tubas.

Paul Solman:

Plus, there’s another cost often ignored when a plant goes under, the loss of internal community.

Rob Hines:

That’s just as big a weight as losing your job financially. I mean, it might sound kind of bizarre to say, but a lot of people are devastated, because we have people 40, 50 years have been working together.

Wyatt Georskey:

It’s been a tragedy, right, not only for community, but for bar buddies and friends everywhere.

Paul Solman:

But that too has been happening for eons. In fact, the destruction of all those jobs down on the farm is what helped create the manufacturing boom of the last century. But is there no way to protect American jobs from foreign competition?

The push now is, let’s get manufacturers from here and especially abroad to bring their manufacturing to the United States, which is then supposedly going to create more jobs than at least are here now.

Robert Lawrence, Harvard University:

The question is, how significant would those jobs be relative to the whole economy?

Paul Solman:

Trade economist Robert Lawrence.

Robert Lawrence:

We had a $1.2 trillion trade deficit in manufacturing last year. Suppose all the money that is going abroad would be used to buy American goods.

Paul Solman:

Even under such a fantasy, how much would actual factory floor jobs increase? Professor Lawrence estimates less than 1 percent. And, of course, American-made products would then cost more. In addition, he says:

Robert Lawrence:

If we were self-sufficient, what would it do to the opportunities for the typical worker in the United States who doesn’t have a college education? Would it create large numbers of employment opportunities? That’s basically what’s been driving our policies. And the answer is very little.

But, in addition, those jobs are increasingly likely to be displaced as a result of increased automation.

Paul Solman:

And perhaps increasingly likely to be overpromised, like two Ohio Intel plants.

Tim Bubb, Licking County, Ohio, Commissioner:

Intel promised 5,000 jobs into construction. We’re seeing less than half that, and 3,000 permanent jobs to man those two plants and manufacture silicon chips. Frankly, I think that’s overpromised and underdelivered, as they say.

Paul Solman:

Licking County Commissioner Tim Bubb, where the Intel project is located.

Is it an unrealistic expectation that we’re going to have lots more manufacturing jobs in this country than we used to?

Tim Bubb:

Well, I’m not going to go as far as unrealistic, but you don’t want to be overly optimistic. We’re still an expensive labor market. We have competitors around the world. It’s a world market now in Asia and other places that have been pretty darn competitive in manufacturing and shipping to this country.

Paul Solman:

More over, ads Bubb:

Tim Bubb:

One of the problems we have in this country is trained work force. You can move manufacturing plants back here, but who’s going to work in them?

Paul Solman:

But at the Alliance for American Manufacturing, the watchword is patience.

Scott Paul, President, Alliance for American Manufacturing: Just as it took a couple of decades for us to deindustrialize, I don’t think that we’re going to see immediate results in manufacturing.

Paul Solman:

Scott Paul runs the Alliance.

Scott Paul:

I’m optimistic that over time, we will see manufacturing job growth come out of both the massive amount of construction that’s going on right now, the trade deficit coming down a little bit, and a reshoring trend that was already under way before Trump became president.

Paul Solman:

So he says manufacturing jobs won’t be stuck forever at today’s lower level, and new corporate investment promised by Trump will be part of the renaissance. The U.S., he says, added a million manufacturing jobs between 2010 and 2019, when many thought that simply wouldn’t happen.

Scott Paul:

It’s not impossible to regrow the sector if we have the right policies. There might be a ceiling on the manufacturing job growth that we can see because of automation and productivity, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t grow the sector again over time.

Paul Solman:

Patience is a luxury for the likes of Wyatt Georskey, though.

Wyatt Georskey:

I’m not even thinking day to day. I’m thinking second to second. All I’m thinking is, can I get enough sousaphones out, can I get enough tubas out that they won’t close this plant at a whim because they see productivity dip?

All I can think about are the people around me and my duty to them and to our legacy to keep the place open just a little longer so we can get a few paychecks.

Paul Solman:

As of last week, the plant was still open, the paychecks still being issued. But the deadline seems to be the end of June.

For the “PBS News Hour,” Paul Solman.

Source link

Telix Advances Radiopharma Platform With Key Trials And US Manufacturing Shift

Track your investments for FREE with Simply Wall St, the portfolio command center trusted by over 7 million individual investors worldwide.

• Telix Pharmaceuticals (ASX:TLX) has resubmitted its NDA for TLX101-Px, a PET imaging agent for brain cancer.

• The company reported that Part 1 of the global Phase 3 ProstACT study for TLX591-Tx in prostate cancer met primary safety and tolerability objectives.

• Telix expanded its U.S. manufacturing footprint with new cyclotron installations to support in-house radioisotope production and supply resilience.

At a share price of A$12.75, Telix Pharmaceuticals (ASX:TLX) sits against a mixed recent track record, with the stock up 12.9% over the past week and 43.6% over the past month, but showing a 54.4% decline over the past year. Over a longer period, the share price return sits at 87.2% over three years and 183.3% over five years. This provides context to the current interest around the company’s pipeline and manufacturing updates.

For investors watching Telix, the NDA resubmission for TLX101-Px, the Phase 3 safety readout for TLX591-Tx and the new U.S. cyclotron capacity are central elements of the current story. The way these clinical and operational milestones progress, and whether they lead to regulatory outcomes and commercial activity, is likely to influence sentiment on ASX:TLX.

Stay updated on the most important news stories for Telix Pharmaceuticals by adding it to your watchlist or portfolio. Alternatively, explore our Community to discover new perspectives on Telix Pharmaceuticals.

ASX:TLX Earnings & Revenue Growth as at Mar 2026

3 things going right for Telix Pharmaceuticals that this headline doesn’t cover.

The NDA resubmission for TLX101-Px, the positive Part 1 readout from the ProstACT Phase 3 trial for TLX591-Tx, and the U.S. cyclotron rollout all point to Telix working on three parts of its model at once: diagnostics, therapeutics and infrastructure. TLX101-Px targets recurrent or progressive glioma, an area where the FDA currently has no approved targeted amino acid PET agent, so regulatory progress here would speak directly to Telix’s neuro-oncology focus and its companion diagnostic strategy alongside TLX101-Tx. On the prostate cancer side, acceptable safety and tolerability for TLX591-Tx in combination with standard therapies gives Telix more footing in a space where companies such as Novartis and Bayer are active with radioligand and oncology treatments. The cyclotron agreement in the U.S. moves Telix further into vertically integrated production, which can reduce dependence on external isotope suppliers compared with peers that lean more on contract manufacturers. For investors, the thread tying these updates together is execution risk: more assets and infrastructure can deepen the opportunity, but they also raise the bar on Telix’s ability to manage capital, regulatory interactions and complex supply chains over time.

• The NDA resubmission for TLX101-Px and progress in ProstACT Global align with the narrative of building a multiproduct, multi-region radiopharmaceutical platform across urologic and neuro-oncology indications.

• The extra data and statistical work needed for TLX101-Px, and the ongoing regulatory interactions for TLX591-Tx, highlight that clinical and regulatory pathways can be slower or more resource intensive than simple catalyst timelines might imply.

• The cyclotron rollout into RLS and TMS sites was anticipated in the narrative, but contract specific details such as the IBA agreement and ARTMS technology may not be fully captured in earlier assumptions about manufacturing integration and supply reliability.

Knowing what a company is worth starts with understanding its story. Check out one of the top narratives in the Simply Wall St Community for Telix Pharmaceuticals to help decide what it’s worth to you.

• ⚠️ Heavier investment into clinical programs like ProstACT Global and into cyclotron infrastructure could keep reported earnings and margins under pressure if revenue does not keep pace.

• ⚠️ Regulatory processes for TLX101-Px and TLX591-Tx, together with existing regulatory scrutiny around prostate cancer disclosures, add uncertainty around timing and ultimate outcomes.

• 🎁 Progress across both diagnostic and therapeutic candidates, along with manufacturing integration, supports the idea of Telix evolving into a broader radiopharmaceutical platform rather than a single product story.

• 🎁 U.S. cyclotron capacity and in-house radioisotope production can improve supply chain resilience and may support more consistent availability of products versus competitors that rely mainly on third party isotope suppliers.

Investors should watch for the FDA’s response to the TLX101-Px NDA resubmission, including any further data requests, and updates on the transition of ProstACT Global into its larger Part 2 expansion and U.S. IND amendment. Progress on installing and qualifying the new U.S. cyclotrons, and how quickly they begin supplying Telix products at scale, will be key to understanding execution on the vertical integration plan. It is also worth tracking how Telix positions its prostate and brain cancer offerings in relation to radiopharma peers, and whether management provides clearer guidance on capital spend, margins and timelines as these programs and assets move through their next stages.

To ensure you’re always in the loop on how the latest news impacts the investment narrative for Telix Pharmaceuticals, head to the community page for Telix Pharmaceuticals to never miss an update on the top community narratives.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include TLX.AX.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

Source link

Tesla (TSLA) reportedly in talks to buy $2.9B in Chinese solar equipment for 100 GW US push

Image: Tesla

Elon Musk’s plan to build 100 GW of solar manufacturing capacity in the United States just got its first major price tag: $2.9 billion in equipment from Chinese suppliers, according to a Reuters exclusive.

If the deal closes, it marks the biggest concrete investment yet in Musk’s solar ambitions, and a stunning reversal for a company that effectively abandoned its solar business just two years ago.

The deal

Reuters reports that the equipment is valued at roughly 20 billion yuan ($2.9 billion) and that Tesla is in discussions with multiple Chinese suppliers. The frontrunner is Suzhou Maxwell Technologies, a Shenzhen-listed company that dominates the global market for solar cell screen-printing production lines.

Other potential suppliers include Shenzhen S.C New Energy Technology and Laplace Renewable Energy Technology.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The Chinese companies have been told to deliver the equipment before this autumn, with at least two sources indicating it would be shipped to Texas. That aligns with Tesla’s expanding Texas manufacturing footprint, which already includes its Austin Gigafactory and a new Houston Megafactory under construction for Megapack production.

One significant hurdle remains: Suzhou Maxwell needs export approval from China’s commerce ministry, and it’s unclear how quickly that clearance will come. Beijing has been tightening its grip on solar technology exports over the past two years, and China’s commerce ministry recently made export controls a top priority for 2026.

On the US side, the equipment faces a more favorable regulatory path. Solar manufacturing equipment was excluded from Section 301 tariffs in 2024 at the urging of American solar panel makers, and that exemption has been extended by the Trump administration through November 2026.

The 100 GW ambition

The $2.9 billion equipment purchase is tied directly to a goal Musk laid out at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026. There, he announced that both Tesla and SpaceX are independently working to build 100 GW per year of solar manufacturing capacity in the US — covering the entire supply chain from raw materials to finished panels.

The company’s own job listings reinforce the scale of the ambition, explicitly referencing a target of 100 GW of “solar manufacturing from raw materials on American soil before the end of 2028.”

For context, total US solar installations in 2023 reached about 32 GW. Tesla wants to manufacture more than three times that, every single year, on its own.

The driving force behind the urgency isn’t climate policy, it’s AI. Data center construction and the broader electrification of transportation pushed US power consumption to a second consecutive record in 2025, and the projections keep rising. Musk has argued that no other energy source can scale fast enough or cheaply enough to meet those demands.

Tesla’s troubled solar history

The irony is thick. Tesla acquired SolarCity for $2.6 billion in 2016 and promised to revolutionize the residential solar market with its Solar Roof tiles. Musk set a target of 1,000 new solar roofs per week by the end of 2019. Tesla never came close. By Q2 2022, the company was deploying approximately 23 roofs per week — roughly 2% of the target.

Today, Tesla never talks about its solar roof; it’s essentially a dead product.

Tesla’s solar deployment declined steadily after the SolarCity acquisition. Panasonic, which had partnered with Tesla at the Buffalo Gigafactory to manufacture solar cells, exited the facility in 2020. By late 2024, Tesla stopped reporting solar deployment altogether, and the word “solar” didn’t appear once during the company’s Q3 2024 earnings call.

There were signs of a revival in early 2026 when Tesla launched a new US-made solar panel (the TSP-420) assembled at the Buffalo factory, featuring a proprietary 18-zone power optimization system. But the scale was modest — initial capacity at the Buffalo facility was just over 300 MW per year, a rounding error compared to the 100 GW target.

Energy storage is a different story

While Tesla’s solar business withered, its energy storage division exploded. Tesla deployed a record 46.7 GWh of energy storage in 2025, a 48% increase year-over-year, generating $12.8 billion in revenue with a 29.8% gross margin — nearly double what Tesla earns selling cars.

Energy storage now accounts for 13% of Tesla’s total revenue and 23% of its gross profit. The Lathrop Megafactory in California produces Megapacks at its full planned capacity of 40 GWh per year, and the new Houston facility targets 50 GWh of annual output by end of 2026.

The solar manufacturing push would complement this storage infrastructure — Tesla could theoretically pair its own solar panels with Megapacks and Powerwalls for integrated energy solutions, and potentially use the output to power its own operations and even SpaceX satellites.

Electrek’s Take

We’ve been tracking Tesla’s solar journey since the SolarCity acquisition, and the trajectory has been one of consistent underdelivery. The Solar Roof never materialized at scale. Solar deployments cratered. The entire solar business segment became an afterthought as energy storage consumed all of Tesla’s energy division attention.

So when Musk announced a 100 GW solar manufacturing target at Davos, our first instinct was skepticism — and it still is. Going from roughly 300 MW of annual solar panel capacity at the Buffalo factory to 100 GW is a staggering 300x increase, on a timeline of less than three years.

That said, the $2.9 billion equipment purchase suggests this isn’t just talk. That’s real capital being deployed (or at least negotiated), and the autumn delivery deadline for equipment in Texas suggests Tesla intends to move fast. The company also has genuine tailwinds: the tariff exemption on solar manufacturing equipment, surging electricity demand from AI data centers, and a proven energy division that can integrate solar with its storage products.

The biggest risks are execution, Tesla’s solar track record is dismal, and the Chinese export approval, which Beijing could use as leverage in the ongoing trade tensions. We’ll believe the 100 GW target when we see equipment on the ground and production lines running.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Source link

Palantir CTO says artificial intelligence is key to reshoring American manufacturing

Could artificial intelligence be the key to reshoring American manufacturing?

That’s what Palantir’s chief technology officer, Shyam Sankar, believes. His new book, “Mobilize,” asserts that America can prevent World War III by rebuilding its industrial base with AI-powered workers who can outcompete China’s automated factories.

“If you can make the American worker 50 times more productive than any other worker, you can change the math equation and underwrite the business case to re-industrializing at scale,” Sankar told me.

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar believes, “If you can make the American worker 50 times more productive than any other worker, you can change the math equation and underwrite the business case to re-industrializing at scale.” Bloomberg via Getty Images

“Mobilize” is a remarkably optimistic book that counters the narrative that AI is going to destroy all our jobs (and maybe humanity as a whole). Instead, it argues AI will bring production back to the US, restoring our manufacturing capabilities and that sector’s jobs, while making our nation more secure.

“AI is leading to more jobs — and I’m not talking about ephemeral jobs building data centers,” Sankar said, refuting the prevailing doom-and-gloom narrative around artificial intelligence. “I’m talking about persistent jobs … on the factory floor.”

Sankar applauds what he calls the “heretics” who built our country — innovators like Hyman Rickover, the “Father of the Nuclear Navy,” whom higher-ups initially dismissed, placing his office in a converted bathroom until he proved himself. He’s a big believer in rule-breakers who eschew bureaucracy, and that’s exactly why he thinks America will win.

The 44-year-old is uniquely positioned to make this argument. He’s one of a handful of voices in Silicon Valley with both deep technical expertise when it comes to government systems — he’s spent over a decade ironing out deals with the Pentagon — and a strong sense of patriotism.

Czinger Vehicles uses AI-optimized design software and advanced 3D metal printing to create ultra-lightweight, high-performance supercars with components that can’t be manufactured through traditional methods. Carlin Stiehl for NY Post

The book’s publication comes at a fortuitous moment. War is on everyone’s mind with the conflict in Iran (not to mention the recent intervention in Venezuela and Cuba possibly next). Reshoring has become bipartisan policy, with the CHIPS Act pouring $39 billion into domestic manufacturing, and AI anxiety dominates headlines.

“For a long time I feel like I’ve been screaming into the wind — I’m glad to see that there’s momentum around this,” Sankar said. “It’s a book about our national interest … we’ve survived for 250 years. How will we continue to thrive for the next 250 years? 

He believes the AI race has given America an edge to dominate what could have been a Chinese century, given the Asian superpower’s vast resources and manufacturing capabilities. It’s the kind of game-changing advantage that will help America reshore in record time — and he wants America to grab it by the horns.

He’s already seen Palantir customers adopting the technology. One submarine parts manufacturer used AI to cut planning time from two weeks to ten minutes and hired a third shift as a result.

Alex Karp co-founded and runs Palantir, which builds data analysis and AI systems for military and intelligence agencies. Getty Images

“That’s AI in the hands of the American worker,” Sankar enhused.

These aren’t isolated anecdotes. Defense companies like Anduril, Hadrian, and Divergent are scaling their manufacturing operations in the US, betting on AI-enhanced American workers over overseas alternatives. Firms like Andreessen Horowitz have launched funds like American Dynamism exclusively focused on American innovation.

This story is part of NYNext, an indispensable insider insight into the innovations, moonshots and political chess moves that matter most to NYC’s power players (and those who aspire to be).

Palantir works extensively with both the Pentagon, building data analysis and AI systems for intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security. While critics see this as the tech industry cozying up to the military-industrial complex, Sankar wants to see more companies embrace helping the military.

In fact, he points to some of the primes — huge defense contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin — as part of the problem

“Consolidation bred conformity … it was more financial engineering than real engineering,” he said. “Competition, not coziness, drives progress.”

“For a long time I feel like I’ve been screaming into the wind,” Sankar said of the need for reshoring manufacturing. “I’m glad to see that there’s momentum around this.”

But Sankar’s larger point is that production and innovation are inseparable — cede one, and you’ll eventually lose the other.

“The central lie of globalization is, ‘Hey, we’ll do the innovation over there, they’ll do the production,’” he explained. “Well, guess what? If you do the production for long enough, that’s all the stimulus you need to figure out how to innovate … We cannot cede production.”

A key component of Sankar’s plan is returning to the World War II model: companies that can pivot from manufacturing consumer goods to weapons when needed. When General Motors and Ford famously retooled for war production, they succeeded because they already had mass manufacturing capabilities in place, so they could rapidly switch what they were building.

That adaptability, not simply stockpiles of weapons, is what actually deters conflicts, Sankar argues.

Hadrian builds AI-powered automated factories that manufacture precision aerospace and defense components. Hadrian

“The lesson of Ukraine that I just can’t unsee is that the stockpile is not the deterrent. That has been our core strategy since the end of the Cold War,” he said. “[In Ukraine], we went through ten years of production in ten weeks of fighting. That should have been a five alarm fire where we fired up the forges started rebuilding the arsenal of freedom.”

His vision demands a complete reimagining of American manufacturing capacity. “I want more than ten times more of the equipment that we have,” he said. “That’s going to force you to reimagine all your constraints.”

The stakes couldn’t be higher, and it’s not just about the defense sector.

“Eighty percent of our generic drugs come from China,” Sankar noted. “In a [potential war] with China, where the average American has to choose between their five-year-old dying of an ear infection because we no longer have generic antibiotics … and having the national will to fight, what do you think is going to happen?”

It’s this dependency crisis that drives Sankar’s sense of urgency. America faces a stark choice. He said, “We can fade away to irrelevance and subjugation, or we can actually mobilize.”

Source link

Is CSL’s US$3 Billion US Manufacturing Push Altering The Investment Case For CSL (ASX:CSL)?

• Earlier this month, CSL broke ground on a major expansion of its Kankakee, Illinois manufacturing facility, aiming to boost plasma-derived therapy and albumin output using its patented Horizon 2 process while adding at least 300 new pharmaceutical roles and about 800 construction jobs.
• This multiyear U.S. build-out, part of more than US$3.00 billion invested in American operations since 2018, signals CSL’s intention to deepen its U.S. manufacturing base and improve plasma efficiency to support longer-term therapy supply.
• We’ll now examine how this large-scale U.S. manufacturing expansion, built around CSL’s Horizon 2 technology, could influence the company’s investment narrative.

The future of work is here. Discover the 32 top robotics and automation stocks leading the charge in AI-driven automation and industrial transformation.

CSL Investment Narrative Recap

To own CSL, you need to believe its plasma and specialty therapies portfolio can translate operational improvements into healthier margins after a tough stretch of lower profitability and share price underperformance. The Kankakee Horizon 2 expansion supports the longer term efficiency story, but it does not materially change the near term focus on cost control, execution on new product launches, and the risk that rising collection and manufacturing costs keep pressuring margins.

The recent Kankakee expansion update ties most closely to CSL’s broader manufacturing and cost transformation efforts, including the multiyear US$0.5 billion savings program targeting better plasma collection and processing efficiency. Together with initiatives like Horizon 2, these moves sit at the heart of the main positive catalyst for the stock: whether CSL can convert process improvements into sustainably higher gross margins while managing risks from price competition, regulatory shifts and the planned Seqirus demerger.

Yet investors should be aware that rising plasma costs and lower recent profit margins could still weigh on CSL if…

Read the full narrative on CSL (it’s free!)

CSL’s narrative projects $18.1 billion revenue and $4.2 billion earnings by 2028.

Uncover how CSL’s forecasts yield a A$205.16 fair value, a 52% upside to its current price.

Exploring Other Perspectives

ASX:CSL 1-Year Stock Price Chart

Some of the lowest ranked analysts were assuming only about 2.9 percent annual revenue growth to roughly US$16.9 billion and earnings around US$3.7 billion, which is far more cautious than the consensus and could be challenged or reinforced by how effectively CSL’s Kankakee build and wider efficiency plans actually improve margins over time.

Explore 18 other fair value estimates on CSL – why the stock might be worth over 2x more than the current price!

The Verdict Is Yours

Don’t just follow the ticker – dig into the data and build a conviction that’s truly your own.

Ready For A Different Approach?

Our top stock finds are flying under the radar-for now. Get in early:

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data
and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your
financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data.
Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material.
Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

New: AI Stock Screener & Alerts

Our new AI Stock Screener scans the market every day to uncover opportunities.

• Dividend Powerhouses (3%+ Yield)
• Undervalued Small Caps with Insider Buying
• High growth Tech and AI Companies

Or build your own from over 50 metrics.

Explore Now for Free

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

Source link

LGM Pharma Expands U.S. Manufacturing, Bringing Total Investment to $15M Across Texas and Colorado Sites

— $9M Second Phase of CDMO Investment Builds on 2025 $6M Expansion, Funding Facility Upgrades and Increased Capacity for Suppository, Semi-Solid, and Oral Solid Dose Capacity —

— Enhancements Strengthen Domestic Supply Chains for Finished Dose Manufacturing, Complementing Extensive API Sourcing and Analytical Testing Services —

BOCA RATON, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–#505b2–LGM Pharma, a leading provider of tailored API sourcing, contract analytical testing, and CDMO services for the full drug product lifecycle, today announced the second phase of its CDMO growth strategy, committing an additional $9 million to its facilities in Rosenberg, Texas, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. The investment follows the company’s previously announced $6 million expansion in Rosenberg in 2025 and is designed to increase commercial capacity, expand R&D capabilities, and support continued demand for U.S.-based drug product manufacturing.

The Texas facility enhancements include a $4 million investment to expand commercial-scale manufacturing suites for suppositories in response to increasing customer and market demand, including growth in women’s health products. The upgrades also expand R&D capabilities to support formulation and scale-up for suppositories, solutions, suspensions, and semi-solids. The Rosenberg site will remain fully operational throughout construction, with upgrades already underway.

In Colorado Springs, LGM Pharma will invest $5 million to expand commercial manufacturing capacity for niche, high-value oral solid dose (OSD) products, including orally disintegrating tablets (ODTs). The facility has served as the company’s center of excellence for OSD development. The expansion, planned for completion this year, will support growing demand for domestic manufacturing. In 2024, the global OSD CDMO market was valued at $43.65 billion, with North America accounting for approximately 40.5% of global OSD pharmaceutical manufacturing activity.1,2

“These multi-site investments totaling $15 million reflect our continued commitment to strengthening pharmaceutical supply chains in the United States,” said Prasad Raje, Chief Executive Officer of LGM Pharma. “Today’s pharma companies need partners that are both resilient and integrated across the full product lifecycle. By reinforcing domestic drug product manufacturing at the downstream end of the supply chain, closer to end markets, and leveraging our global API sourcing capabilities upstream, we create a balanced end-to-end model. This gives customers greater control and visibility as they move products from development to commercialization.”

Earlier in the supply chain, at the drug substance stage, LGM Pharma supports 505(b)(2), NDA, and ANDA programs through a global network of more than 220 pre-qualified API manufacturers. By combining global drug substance sourcing with expanded U.S. finished dose development and manufacturing, the company provides integrated support across the full drug product lifecycle.

Hamilton Lenox, Chief Commercial Officer of LGM Pharma, said the company’s prior Rosenberg upgrades from Phase I of the expansion, including implementation of enhanced track-and-trace serialization systems and increased production volumes, are now complete. “We are executing this next phase of expansion while keeping both facilities fully operational,” Lenox said. “Our teams are experienced in managing complex upgrades without sacrificing quality or disrupting customer supply, which remain our top operational priorities. Rather than overextending in a single phase, we are executing these enhancements incrementally to expand capabilities and capacity while ensuring operational continuity. This approach allows us to strengthen infrastructure, support customer growth, and scale in response to market demand.”

Companies developing 505(b)(2), NDA, or ANDA products, as well as those with commercial branded or generic portfolios, are encouraged to explore LGM Pharma’s API sourcing and expanded drug product manufacturing capabilities by visiting LGMPharma.com or meeting with company executives at DCAT Week, March 23-26, 2026, in New York City.

References:

1. Grand View Research, “Oral Solid Dosage CDMO Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report,” [March 2024].
2. Persistence Market Research, “Oral Solid Dosage Contract Manufacturing Market,” [May 2023].

About LGM Pharma

LGM Pharma is a leading contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) providing comprehensive Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) sourcing, drug product CDMO services, and contract analytical testing services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and compounding pharmacy industries. LGM Pharma assists clients in managing all phases of the drug product development process, from API sourcing through to drug product commercialization. LGM Pharma’s extensive global network of qualified API partners enables clients to optimize supply chain management and distribution. Services include API sourcing and procurement, formulation development, drug product manufacturing, analytical method development, method and process validation, ANDA/NDA submission, stability studies, and raw material and finished product testing and packaging. LGM Pharma is committed to quality and has a long-established positive regulatory track record, providing expert regulatory and market intelligence services to its clients. The company is focused on customer service and customized solutions, providing clients with a comprehensive U.S.-based manufacturing solution that reduces risk, increases efficiency, and accelerates the path to commercialization. For more information, visit LGMPharma.com.

Contacts

Media Contact:

Charya Wickremasinghe, Ph.D.

Brandwidth Solutions LLC

cwickremasinghe@brandwidthsolutions.com

Source link

The Missing Layer in U.S. Manufacturing Readiness: Rahul Kumar Thatikonda’s Case for Overlay Interoperability

The Readiness Gap Behind Modern Manufacturing

American manufacturing has spent years improving visibility across supply chains, procurement networks, and production systems. But visibility alone does not guarantee readiness. In many continuity-sensitive environments, the harder problem begins after new information arrives. Supplier instability, material shortages, severe weather, government restrictions, and conflict-related sourcing disruptions can all affect whether production remains on track. Yet in many organizations, those signals still emerge outside the purchasing, inventory, planning, and operations systems that govern daily decisions.

That gap has become harder to ignore. Modern disruption moves faster than many industrial systems were built to handle. Even when companies can detect risk, they may still struggle to translate that information into a procurement adjustment, a supplier-readiness review, or a planning action that can be tracked, escalated, and governed inside existing workflows. In practice, the weakness is often not the absence of data. It is the absence of a practical layer that can turn new information into reviewable operational action.

For large manufacturers, that problem is not theoretical. Many still rely on older enterprise environments that remain deeply embedded in procurement, inventory control, planning, and fulfillment. Replacing those systems outright is often expensive, operationally risky, and slow. The more urgent question is whether the systems companies already depend on can be made more responsive to the kinds of disruption signals that increasingly shape continuity and readiness.

Why Visibility Alone Is Not Enough

The industrial conversation around resilience often emphasizes forecasting, dashboards, and visibility platforms. Those tools can help identify risk, but they do not solve the harder operational problem on their own. A signal is only useful if it reaches the workflow where action can actually be taken.

That is the missing layer in many manufacturing environments: not data collection, but operational translation. A weather event may threaten inbound logistics. A supplier delay may change material availability. A government restriction may affect sourcing or delivery. But unless that information can be connected to the systems that control purchasing, planning, and operations, the organization may still respond too late.

This is one reason legacy dependence remains a serious issue across large enterprises. In practice, many organizations cannot pause operations for a full modernization effort every time new categories of risk emerge. They need ways to work with the infrastructure they already have. That makes interoperability more than a technical convenience. It becomes part of how readiness is preserved under stress.

A Systems-Focused Background

Rahul Kumar Thatikonda is a digital transformation leader whose work focuses on industrial AI, enterprise interoperability, decision-support systems, orchestration frameworks, and supply-chain resilience in legacy-heavy operating environments. He earned a Master of Science in Business Analytics & Project Management from the University of Connecticut School of Business in 2018, and additional information about his technical work and publications is available through his public research profiles.

His technical record has centered on a recurring problem in large organizations: how to make new operationally important information usable inside older systems that were never designed to absorb it quickly. Public technical materials associated with his research include work on orchestration for ERP-connected environments, readiness protocols, resilient interoperability, and industrial risk modeling.

That focus matters because large manufacturers do not operate in abstract digital environments. They operate through embedded workflows, existing system constraints, and decision chains that often cannot be redesigned overnight. In that context, the most valuable technical work is not always the loudest or the most futuristic. It is often the work that makes real systems more usable under real conditions.

An Overlay Approach to Industrial Readiness

At the center of Thatikonda’s work is a reusable overlay interoperability framework intended to help manufacturing organizations use incoming disruption-related information without requiring full replacement of their core systems. The approach is designed to connect signals such as supplier delays, shortages, weather events, restrictions, logistics interruptions, and sourcing disruptions to existing workflows and convert them into reviewable, trackable actions. Those actions may include risk alerts, supplier-readiness prompts, procurement adjustments, and other controlled interventions that allow personnel to respond earlier and with greater clarity.

That distinction matters. Much of the discussion around industrial AI still falls into one of two categories: ambitious modernization programs that are difficult to implement at scale, or analytics layers that increase visibility without changing operational response. Thatikonda’s framework sits in a more practical middle ground. The point is not simply to generate more alerts or more predictions. It is to make incoming disruption information usable inside legacy purchasing, inventory, planning, and operational systems without forcing companies to abandon the systems they already use.

In that sense, the work is about more than software integration. It is about interoperability as a readiness discipline. The underlying premise is that organizations need a governed way to translate fragmented external signals into workflow actions that can be reviewed, tracked, and acted upon before disruption escalates into a larger continuity problem.

From Architecture to Early Validation

What gives this work more weight than a purely conceptual model is that it has already been formalized through technical documentation, public dissemination, and architecture-level development. Publicly available materials associated with Thatikonda’s work include technical reports and protocol documents on AI-enabled order-to-cash acceleration, readiness frameworks, orchestration for ERP-connected systems, and resilient interoperability design. 

Those materials suggest a pattern that matters in industrial systems work: the contribution is being documented in a way that allows outside readers to assess the architecture, not merely hear broad claims about it. In fields where many ideas remain internal to organizations, that level of technical explanation helps separate a defined framework from a general business concept.

The record also suggests that the framework has been shaped by experience in large enterprise settings where interoperability, workflow control, and cross-system orchestration matter. The most careful way to read that background is not as proof that every implementation question has already been solved, but as evidence that the framework has been informed by practical operating conditions rather than abstract software theory alone. That is an important distinction in manufacturing, where pilot results and architecture discipline often matter more than broad claims of disruption.

A further sign of seriousness is that the work has also been formalized through patent-related development covering orchestration, interoperability, and resilient deployment architecture.  This does not by itself establish adoption, nor should it be read that way. What it does suggest is that the contribution is being developed as a defined technical framework with enough coherence to support formalization, scrutiny, and continued refinement.

Why the United States Needs This Work

The significance of this kind of work lies less in broad claims about artificial intelligence and more in its relevance to continuity-sensitive industrial environments. In sectors where production readiness and supply continuity matter, earlier and more controlled operational response can make a meaningful difference. The challenge is not simply whether risk can be detected. It is whether organizations can absorb that information into the systems that still drive decisions.

That is part of what makes overlay interoperability an important idea at this moment. Many manufacturers in the United States are operating in a world where disruption signals are increasing, but infrastructure replacement cycles remain slow. Under those conditions, practical modernization may depend less on rebuilding everything from the ground up and more on making existing systems more capable of using the information modern disruption keeps generating.

This is where Thatikonda’s work has broader relevance, particularly in supporting the objectives of the Department of Defense’s National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS). It addresses a recurring problem faced by large companies across aerospace, defense-related, and other critical manufacturing settings… The United States needs more work in this category because industrial resilience does not depend only on high-level policy goals, domestic capacity, or supplier diversification mandates. It also depends on whether organizations can act on operationally relevant information in time to reduce downstream shortages, delays, and production instability. A practical framework that helps companies use that information inside the systems they already operate addresses a real implementation gap in American manufacturing readiness.

A More Practical Model of Resilience

Industrial resilience is often discussed in sweeping terms: digital transformation, predictive intelligence, next-generation manufacturing. Those themes matter, but they can obscure a more immediate operational truth. Many of the systems that still run large organizations were not built to absorb today’s disruption signals in real time, and many companies cannot afford to replace them overnight.

That reality is what makes a practical overlay model compelling. Instead of assuming that resilience must begin with total replacement, it starts from the conditions large organizations actually face: layered systems, embedded workflows, long modernization cycles, and the need for earlier, better-governed decisions under uncertainty.

Thatikonda’s work suggests that one of the most important advances in manufacturing readiness may not come from starting over, but from building disciplined ways to make existing systems more responsive under stress. If that approach continues to mature across critical manufacturing settings, it could help define a more realistic path for continuity, responsiveness, and industrial readiness in the United States.

For additional technical and publication records associated with Rahul Kumar Thatikonda, readers may refer to his ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1234-7915



Source link

Trump’s tariffs are causing harm to American manufacturers instead of benefiting them

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Allen is a fan of President Donald Trump, and voted for him on the belief that the Republican would cut taxes and trim regulations, helping his manufacturing business in northeast Arkansas.

READ MORE: Trump administration starts new process to try to replace tariffs struck down by Supreme Court

But the tariffs at the core of Trump’s economic agenda have wreaked havoc on his company, Allen Engineering Corp., which makes industrial equipment used to install, finish and pave concrete. The import taxes have raised the costs of engines, steel, gearboxes and clutches made abroad that Allen needs to build power trowels that can sell for up to $100,000 each.

Allen’s experience embodies a growing body of evidence that the tariffs that Trump said would help American factories are, in fact, squashing many of them. The problem could get worse as the administration scrambles to craft new tariffs to replace the emergency import taxes that the Supreme Court ruled illegal in February.

WATCH: Trump says tariffs could replace income tax

Allen said he ran his company at a loss in 2025 because of tariffs. His payroll has fallen to 140 workers from a peak of 205. To get by this year, he has hiked prices by 8% to 10%, even though that might mean fewer sales.

“What’s really sad is the unintended consequences of his tariffs are hurting manufacturing in our country,” said Allen. “Unfortunately, the working-class people are getting squeezed.”

Manufacturing jobs have declined during Trump’s first year back

Trump’s core rationale for tariffs has been that they would force more factories to open in the U.S. and would generate enough revenue to close federal budget deficits. But that hasn’t materialized.

Factories continue to shed workers, with 98,000 manufacturing jobs lost during Trump’s first full 12 months back in the White House. American companies that foot the bill for tariffs are now suing the Trump administration for more than $130 billion in tariff refunds. Meanwhile, the federal deficit is projected to climb over the next decade.

READ MORE: U.S. employers added just 73,000 jobs last month as labor market weakens in face of Trump trade wars

The White House maintains that construction spending is high, more workers are being hired to build factories, new investments are being made and labor productivity in manufacturing is increasing — which could eventually fuel a factory revival.

“It takes time to get production online, and therefore it will be some more time before we fully materialize the benefits of the president’s policies,” Pierre Yared, the acting chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in an email.

Construction is up — but that’s due to Biden’s bill

Some of the bright spots in construction cited by the White House appear to be the result of programs launched by then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Factory construction spending began to accelerate in 2022 with the anticipation of government support from Biden’s CHIPS and Science Act, which included big subsidies for computer chip plants. The law was a primary contributor to a historic surge in the annualized rate of construction spending on manufacturing facilities, said Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the economic policy group Employ America.

READ MORE: Trump’s tariffs could squeeze U.S. factories and raise costs by up to 4.5%, a new analysis finds

Construction spending on factories has slipped during Trump’s presidency, but the pace remains relatively high largely because of continuing work on Biden-era projects in Arizona, Texas and Idaho, Amarnath said.

Amarnath has also gone through the interviews regional Federal Reserve banks have held with businesses. Those comments show some companies might expand by taking advantage of Trump’s tax breaks on investments in equipment and new buildings.

But while the pharmaceutical drug sector might be expanding, the comments show no overall uptick in manufacturing because of Trump’s tariffs.

“You don’t get the sense that there is this new manufacturing renaissance underway,” Amarnath said.

Uncertainty in tariffs has deterred investments

Based on orders, proclamations and other statements, Trump has taken more than 50 actions on tariffs so far — and that tally doesn’t include the tariff threats he regularly makes on social media or in conversations with reporters but hasn’t formally put in place.

The flurry of announcements, reversals, exemptions and legal challenges — as well as Trump’s decision to bypass Congress to impose tariffs — has made it difficult for smaller manufacturing companies to plan.

For example, Allen Engineering imports its 75-horsepower diesel engines from Germany. Building them in the United States would require a $20 million investment — a huge risk if the status of the tariffs is unclear.

WATCH: Business owner who challenged Trump’s tariffs reacts to Supreme Court decision

Are engine-makers “going to spend that kind of money to move production from Germany to the U.S. when they don’t know what the landscape is going to be in three years?” Allen said. “I don’t know who is going to be in the White House, and what the stance is going to be on these tariffs.”

Joseph Steinberg, an economist at the University of Toronto, said research shows that under the best-case scenario “it would take a decade for manufacturing employment to rise above where it was before tariffs were enacted.”

But Steinberg said “the current situation is nothing like the ‘best case,'” since U.S. trade policy is unsettled and that leaves companies reluctant to expand.

Equipment makers have been hit hard by rising steel costs

About 98% of U.S. manufacturing establishments have fewer than 200 workers, according to Census Bureau data, and don’t have the kind of name-brand recognition or lobbying heft to minimize the damage from tariffs that big players like Apple, General Motors and Ford possess.

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers in February reported that America’s share of global manufacturing severely lags China’s. The group has urged tax credits to offset the expense of tariffs, and specifically called for tariff relief on raw materials, parts and components that cannot be acquired domestically at scale.

Steel tariffs have been a particular concern. Trump imposed them last March and hiked them to 50% in June. They were not affected by the Supreme Court decision.

READ MORE: Trump’s 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum go into effect. Here’s what to know

Trump has credited the tariffs with restoring profits at American steel mills. But they have hurt companies that use that steel, like Calder Brothers in South Carolina, which makes equipment to pave asphalt.

“The steel tariffs were the first thing that got my attention,” said Glen Calder, the company’s president. “My steel pricing jumped 25% two weeks before the tariffs went into effect for domestic steel. The market price just jumped. It has stayed elevated.”

Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus has grown

Part of Trump’s push to expand manufacturing was to help American companies compete against China — a country he plans to visit this spring for talks with its leader, Xi Jinping.

But the U.S. manufacturing trade imbalance rose last year under Trump instead of narrowing. Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus with the world climbed to a record $1.2 trillion.

WATCH: How China is responding to pressure from Trump as trade war brews

This trend exposes one of the big problems with Trump’s tariff strategy, said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at American Economic Liberties Project. She noted that he largely bypassed Congress and failed to address gaps in the World Trade Organization’s rules for the trade frameworks that he negotiated with other countries.

Instead of working with partners to ensure there were penalties for foreign manufacturers with abusive labor practices and unfair subsidies, Trump chose against rallying partners to counter China as a unified group. American manufacturers are at a disadvantage, Wallach argued, because there is not a coalition of nations that can impose penalties for currency manipulation, subsidies and schemes to evade tariffs.

“The general revulsion of this administration to international cooperation means they’re trying to do it alone,” Wallach said.

A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.

Donate now

Source link