President Donald Trump may hope his tariffs jump-start a renaissance in manufacturing in the United States, but the reality is not so simple, according to experts.
The president announced sweeping tariffs Wednesday, including a baseline 10% levy across the board on all imports. He also targeted specific countries with steep tariffs, such as 34% on China, 20% on the European Union and 46% on Taiwan.
Trump said “jobs and factories will come roaring back.”
“We will supercharge our domestic industrial base, we will pry open foreign markets and break down foreign trade barriers and ultimately more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers,” he said during his news conference.
The U.S. has lost about 6 million jobs over the last four or five decades as companies moved operations overseas, largely because business could be done cheaper elsewhere, said Harry Moser, president of the nonprofit Reshoring Initiative.
He said the tariffs are a good start to overcoming that problem but that dealing with a strong dollar and building up the workforce is the best solution.
Moser said he would have preferred lower levies than those Trump announced.
“Smaller would be easier to defend, but still enough to drive reshoring and FDI [foreign direct investment] in excess of our ability to build and staff factories,” he said.
He said he expects Trump’s initial salvos to result in negotiations.
“As long as he convinces the other countries that he will keep attacking the problem until it’s solved, then they will come forward and maybe let their currency go up a little bit,” Moser said. “Maybe they’ll lower their tariff barriers to our products. Maybe they’ll encourage their companies to put factories here in the United States.”
Businesses expected to ‘proceed cautiously’
Still, there are a number of issues to overcome to bring companies back to the United States, including uncertainty around the tariffs and how long they will stay in place, experts said.
“Given the unpredictable nature of the path forward and the long lead times to build industrial capacity, we expect most businesses to proceed cautiously following this announcement,” Edward Mills, Raymond James’ Washington policy analyst, said in a note Wednesday. “New capacity can be added where feasible, but without certainty on longer-term policy, larger investments are more difficult.”
“These are investments, and as a businessman you’ve got to justify them and rationalize it,” said Panos Kouvelis, professor of supply chain, operations and technology at Washington University in St. Louis. “If there’s significant uncertainty, you might make some investments, but rather conservative, because you would like to see how it’s going to play out.”
Kouvelis’ research on Trump’s 2018 targeted tariffs found that they did not have a big impact on reshoring or the return of jobs to the U.S. He said there was a negative effect for manufacturers, who had to pay more for raw materials, with reduced demand and capacity in some cases. Finished goods was a mixed story, depending on demand, he said.
The latest levies are seen as “fluid and fickle” because they are based on executive orders from the president and were not done through Congress, said Christopher Tang, distinguished professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
Unless we solve the crisis of confidence, the potential investments, the announced investments will not happen at a fast pace. It will slow down.
Manish Kabra
Societe Generale’s head of U.S. equity strategy
“A lot of companies, then, are not sure really how to redesign the supply chain when the trade policy is unclear, and also what happens four years down the road,” Tang said. “So because these are many, many billions of dollars in investments, they cannot change on a lurch.”
Morgan Stanley analyst Chris Snyder said he thinks tariffs are a “positive catalyst” for reshoring but that he doesn’t expect a massive wave of projects returning to the U.S. in the near term. Right now, he expects small, quick turnaround investments that could boost output by about 2%, he said.
“When we talk to corporations, there is a lot of uncertainty about what policy will be in three months,” he said.
In addition, consumer confidence has taken a hit — and that will be a factor in business’ decisions on whether and when they will reshore, said Manish Kabra, Societe Generale’s head of U.S. equity strategy. The Conference Board’s monthly consumer confidence index hit a 12-year low in March.
“When you have crisis of confidence, the confidence of global companies that have announced investments in the U.S., they are going to pause,” Kabra said. “Unless we solve the crisis of confidence, the potential investments, the announced investments will not happen at a fast pace. It will slow down.”
Rushing reshoring could be ‘dangerous’
A lot needs to happen before manufacturing can really ramp back up again in the U.S., experts said.
“The United States is not ready to reshore. We don’t have the infrastructure, we don’t have enough workers, and also, we need to examine how many Americans are willing to work in the factory,” Tang said. “If you rush it, it could be rather risky and dangerous.”
He said he expects some companies to return as a result of Trump’s tariffs but that there are still a lot of barriers for many. Executives are under pressure to show short-term results in quarterly earnings, he said, and managing an American workforce can be complicated.
“There’s so many regulations, so many laws, and also the cost is quite high, so the incentive for them to come back is not high,” Tang said.
There also needs to be a significant investment in training America’s workforce, Moser said.
Trump’s tariff program “will fail unless the nation commits to a vastly increased recruiting and training program for skilled manufacturing workers and engineers,” he said. “We need to go from ‘College for all’ to ‘A great career for all.'”
Morgan Stanley’s Snyder said he believes when companies are ready to build their next project, they will now be more likely to turn to the U.S.
“The U.S. is in the best position to get the incremental factories than it has been in the last 50 years,” he said. Plus, the wave of manufacturing starts that has occurred since the pandemic has stalled and the tariffs will give them more urgency to finish, he said.
What could be reshored
Companies have announced investments worth $1.4 trillion since the election, according to Societe Generale’s Kabra. That adds up to about 200,000 new jobs, he said.
Automobile makers are likely among the industries that will reshore, experts said. Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imported cars and has also vowed to tax key auto parts.
Manufacturers of gas-powered cars will have to weigh their options, since they already have a very streamlined supply chain, said University of Washington’s Kouvelis.
“The gas-powered car industry is in trouble with hard-to-adjust supply chains and not enough incentive to do it,” he said.
Electric vehicles are a different story, because they have fewer parts, the battery being the most important, so those companies are more likely to shift operations, he said.
“Everybody understands the U.S. market is lucrative to lose, and the competitors with an advantage [such as Chinese companies] more or less are kept out,” Kouvelis said.
Snyder also said that EVs are among those likely to come to the U.S., but because they will need more capacity. His thesis is that industries that need to expand — rather than close up shop in another country and move — will be the ones that return to the U.S. That includes industrial equipment and semiconductors, he said.
While semiconductors and pharmaceuticals were exempt from the tariffs, they may still be targeted at a later date. Experts said they expect both industries to reshore.
Semiconductor manufacturers got the incentive to return after Congress passed the CHIPS Act in 2022, which provided financial assistance and tax credits to those building and expanding facilities nationally. The computer and electronic products industry saw the most reshoring jobs announced in 2024, according to the Reshoring Initiative.
“Those are high tech, high-end technology and a lot of automation. They don’t need that many workers,” said Tang.
With pharma companies, just some of the supply chain may come back, Kouvelis said.
“The question is, where are you going to apply the tariff? Will you apply to the final or to the chemicals? Because right now, you want the chemicals and the active ingredients to be sourced from China,” Kouvelis said.
Formulation and packaging, however, can be done in the U.S., if that’s enough to avoid tariffs, he said.
“If you want them to bring all of the supply chain, you got to be very aggressive on how you apply tariffs on everything in the supply chain,” Kouvelis said.
Some pharma companies, including Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson, already began expanding in the U.S. before Trump took office.
Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE
Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.
In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.
Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.