In April, President Trump imposed global reciprocal tariffs on the United States’ trading partners, invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit” driven by the lack of reciprocity in the country’s trade relationship.

President Trump also wanted to see jobs and factories come “roaring back” to the United States.

The idea that the United States can become a manufacturing powerhouse is an attractive one, to politicians on both sides of the aisle. After all, who would not be in favor of economic revitalization, new jobs, improved security, and economic independence? However, America’s ability to establish manufacturing dominance faces insurmountable challenges… unless we are smart about the industries we “bring home.”

Historically, the United States has never been a true manufacturing superpower.

Manufacturing employment in the United States peaked in 1979, with nearly 20 million workers employed in the “manufacturing sector.” Over the next four decades, manufacturing entered a structural decline, and the United States transitioned to a service-oriented economy. By 2020, “the service sector dominated the economy,” accounting for 79% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, up from 52% in 1950, and represented 80% of the nation’s total employment. In 2025, fewer than 13 million workers were in the manufacturing sector.

The challenges for the United States to become a manufacturing superpower are many and complex.

First, the country simply does not have the labor pool to do so. The unemployment rate in May 2025, the latest data available, was approximately 4.2%, near full employment.

The labor participation rate is running at 62.6%, which is well below the 67+ percent rate seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but not low enough to indicate there is a bench of workers waiting to enter the job market and join the manufacturing sector.

In addition, our labor force is one of the highest-paid in the world. In the United States, the average hourly wage of a “nonsupervisory manufacturing employee” is approximately $28.80. In 2020, that wage was approximately $6.50 per hour in China and $4.82 in Mexico. In Vietnam, the average hourly wage in manufacturing is $3.10.

We simply do not have the workers to compete with less developed nations, and those we do have make too much money to make America competitive with them.

The only answer would be to open our borders and import foreign workers to fill manufacturing openings at suppressed wages. This is something that President Trump rightly opposes, as it would change the make-up of the United States, to the detriment of our national identity.

So, what are we to do?

The United States can reshore its manufacturing, but must do so on a limited, prioritized basis. We should not care where our tennis shoes, blue jeans, or T-shirts are manufactured. Those industries hold no vital interest to the United States.

However, we should prioritize the reshoring of industries such as pharmaceuticals, computer chips, drones, and food additives.

“Approximately 40% of finished pharmaceutical products and 80% of active drug ingredients sold in the U.S. are manufactured overseas, according to a report by the GAO. This includes a significant portion of generic drugs, with roughly 80% being produced overseas.”

China controls 80% of the drone market in the United States.

83% of semiconductors are manufactured outside of the United States.

As a free market capitalist, I do not like the government picking “winning industries,” but there is a national security aspect to consider, and President Trump is doing this.

The president recently floated the idea of taking the $2.2 billion in frozen assets from Harvard University and using that money to fund trade schools, where people could learn to support the manufacturing that is in the nation’s vital and national interests.

At the end of the day, the United States will never become a manufacturing superpower. Our cost structure and standard of living are simply too high… and that is a good problem to have.

However, we must focus on reshoring those industries that are vital to our national defense and our national interests. With the right focus and incentives, we can quickly achieve this strategic goal and free ourselves from our competitors’ supply chain whims.

* * *

Jim Nelles is a Navy veteran and supply chain consultant based in Chicago. His articles have appeared in the Washington Examiner, Newsweek, Foxnews.com, and The Daily Wire. He has served as a chief procurement officer, chief supply chain officer, and chief operations officer for multiple companies.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!

With Governor Kelly Ayotte’s signature on Tuesday, New Hampshire became the first state in the Northeast and the 17th state in the nation to enact universal school choice. New Hampshire joins Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming in empowering all parents statewide with a portion of their children’s education funding to select the K-12 education avenue of their choice.

Previously, New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account program, which began in 2021, was restricted to only families meeting a certain household income threshold. However, during this legislative session, the state House and the Senate took up separate bills to make all students eligible for the program. On March 13, House Bill 115 passed the House by a vote of 198-180, and Senate Bill 295 passed the Senate by a vote of 16-8.

After several more legislative steps, including moving through the House and Senate Finance Committees and adoption into the state’s budget, Senate Bill 295 successfully passed out of the legislature on June 5.

There was great confidence that Gov. Ayotte would deliver by signing the bill into law. In her Inaugural Address in January, she stated: “As a mother, I understand that every child learns differently and that we should give each child the opportunity to be in the education setting that allows them to reach his or her full potential.”

The governor continued: “Public Schools are critical, and I am the proud product of Nashua’s public schools, but they are not working for every child. I applaud the work the legislature has done to expand opportunities for families through education freedom accounts and look forward to strengthening and expanding this program to ensure more families have the freedom to put their children in the learning environment that is best for them.”

The Education Freedom Account funds can be used for private school tuition, tutoring, career and technical education, homeschooling curriculum, and other educational expenses. While the eligibility becomes universal, students from low-income households, students with disabilities, and students and their siblings currently enrolled in the Education Freedom Account program are prioritized.

For the current school year, approximately 5,600 students participated, with an average award of $5,100 per student. This is a mere fraction of the $26,320 that is spent to educate a public school student each year in New Hampshire.

While the funding is significantly less, there is greater accountability for how Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds are used. New Hampshire State Representative Valerie McDonnell (R-Salem) explains, “Every single EFA dollar is audited and publicly available. While local school budgets continue to grow and grow, the EFA program has saved the taxpayers over $266 million in the last five years. Expanding EFAs means more educational opportunities, greater accountability, and stronger outcomes for students.”

According to Jason Bedrick, New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account program “cost about $27 million last year, which is only about 0.7% of the nearly $4 billion spent on New Hampshire’s public schools.”

A new study from the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy found that New Hampshire public school spending increased $1.25 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars between 2001 and 2024. That’s a staggering 45% despite student enrollment decreasing 26% over the same time period. The increase in spending, combined with the sharp decline in enrollment, resulted in a 96% increase in inflation-adjusted spending.

The nearly doubling of spending did not have a positive impact on student learning. Instead, student learning fell significantly. Student achievement results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress exam scores for reading and math dropped by 21 points. New Hampshire’s student decline was three times that of the national average 7-point score decrease.

The lack of return on investment in the astronomically expensive and inefficient public school monopoly adds to the numerous compelling reasons to empower parents with school choice for their children.

While unfathomable just a few years ago, historic education freedom is becoming a reality, state by state and with great speed. New Hampshire is the sixth state in 2025 to enact universal school choice.

The template has been set for the remaining 33 states yet to grant all parents school choice for the thirteen most formative years of their children’s lives. Which state will be next?

* * *

Dr. Keri D. Ingraham is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, Director of the American Center for Transforming Education, and a Senior Fellow at Independent Women’s Forum.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!