Whether it's Biden, Harris, or Trump, they are all enthusiastic about seeing the resurgence of American manufacturing; however, under the same goal, the two parties seem to be taking completely different paths - the Biden administration is committed to using attractive subsidies to encourage global leading enterprises to set up factories in the US, and accelerate the restructuring of the American industry chain; while Trump is keen on using a one-size-fits-all tariff stick to achieve his "America First" strategy.

And behind this significant difference, it is causing many American industry professionals to worry that the factory construction boom stirred up by subsidies during Biden's tenure may abruptly stop after Trump takes office...

Data shows that after adjusting for inflation, private fixed investment in manufacturing construction in the United States reached an annualized rate of $236 billion in the third quarter. This number is more than twice the peak value during Trump's presidency. The last time American factory investment grew so rapidly was during the peak of the space race in the 1960s.

This prosperity is clearly related to the "Chip and Science Act" and the "Inflation Reduction Act" launched during Biden's tenure - the former provides $53 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for semiconductor manufacturing facilities, while the latter authorizes tax breaks and loans of hundreds of billions of dollars for low-carbon technologies. President Biden signed both bills in 2022.

Ernie Tedeschi, chief economist of the Biden Economic Advisory Committee and economist at the Yale Budget Lab, said, "These two bills have been hugely successful, I think even beyond the initial expectations of the Biden administration."

Trump's team may cause disruptions.

Biden's "Chip and Science Act" aims to expand America's semiconductor production base, these semiconductors are crucial for numerous products from cars to artificial intelligence (AI) systems and military hardware, and the law also aims to reduce reliance on goods from geopolitically sensitive areas. The "Inflation Reduction Act" aims to accelerate the transition to low-carbon energy, while supporting the domestic manufacturing of complementary equipment such as electric cars and batteries.

However, Trump apparently dismisses both pieces of legislation. In his view, these laws are simply giving away money for nothing, and a more "directly effective" way is actually: to impose tariffs.

Trump stated in a podcast interview on October 26th, "We have invested billions of dollars of funds, allowing wealthy companies to participate and borrow money (from us) to establish chip companies here, but they will not give us any excellent businesses in return. When I see that we are spending a lot of money to make people produce chips, I don’t think this is the way... You could have achieved this with a series of tariffs."

Currently, Trump has promised to achieve his advocated "manufacturing revival" by lowering taxes, easing regulations, and imposing tariffs of 10% to 20% on goods imported from elsewhere in the world. As for the two major bills during Biden's tenure, it seems that Trump himself, advisors in his campaign team, and even some Republican members of Congress are all seemingly intent on "killing" them after taking office...

The latest statement occurred last Friday - Republican House Speaker John Johnson expressed that if Republicans control Congress after this election, they may seek to repeal the "Chips and Science Act". Harris's campaign team quickly shared the video. Johnson later clarified that the "Chips and Science Act" is not on the agenda for repeal, but Republicans may seek to further simplify and improve the main purpose of the law by canceling regulatory and environmental provisions.

In an earlier speech at the New York Economic Club in September, Trump also pledged to "repeal all unspent funds under the misleading Inflation Reduction Act." In a recent interview, "Wall Street Bear God" John Paulson, a potential Trump administration financial candidate, also stated that he would cooperate with Musk to cancel green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Can Trump really trigger a 180-degree turnaround?

Many economists surveyed by the media recently predicted that if Trump is elected, his policies may lead to a situation where the number of manufacturing jobs is lower than when Harris was elected.

Democrats also state that Trump is putting American manufacturing in danger. Harris campaign spokesperson Matt Corridoni pointed out that Trump is threatening to withdraw subsidy funds and cancel thousands of manufacturing jobs nationwide.

Of course, it is not clear whether Trump will cut subsidies or not. The future Trump administration is unlikely to retract allocated funds or loans. Refusal to acknowledge tax offsets in the Inflation Reduction Act would require legal modifications, even if the Republicans can control both houses of Congress, Trump would find it difficult to do so. In contrast, the Bipartisan Chip and Science Act had previously gained support from both parties.

Tedeschi believes that even if Trump finds it difficult to completely overturn the legislation, he may stop or delay the use of portions of funds that have not yet been disbursed after taking office, potentially disrupting planned projects.

The US Department of Commerce has currently announced a total preliminary chip sector allocation of $36 billion, to support Samsung, $Intel (INTC.US)$N/A.$Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM.US)$and$GlobalFoundries (GFS.US)$And$Micron Technology (MU.US)$taiwan semiconductor is building a chip factory in the usa. However, only 0.123 billion dollars has been disbursed so far, which is the funding provided to Polar Semiconductor last month.

James Lewis, a technical expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated that Trump may not be able to abolish the Chip Act, but he could prevent the anticipated second round of funding. 'This would be very disadvantageous.'

Furthermore, while the tariffs Trump plans to impose may help some domestic manufacturers compete with imported goods, economists emphasize that these tariffs will also raise the input costs needed for American factories to produce finished products and trigger counter-retaliation from trade partners. Peter Harrell, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said, 'A 20% tariff on such products will certainly grab the attention of companies looking to start and run chip factories.'

Editor/Rocky