US-made tech push could require up to $230bn in investment by 2031
The Consumer Technology Association estimates that making ten common technology products entirely in the United States by 2031 could require $185 billion to $230 billion in investment. Its analysis suggests President Donald Trump’s reshoring goal could also put pressure on companies, workers, energy supplies and household budgets.
The products include smartphones, laptops, televisions, game consoles and smart speakers. The CTA estimates full US smartphone production would cost 152 per cent more, while laptops would cost 93 per cent more and TVs 41 per cent more; companies might pass on 25 to 50 per cent of added costs, producing an average price rise of 27 to 55 per cent across the products. Meeting the plan would require 555,000 to 668,000 additional full-time workers and 19.1 to 19.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually.
- US-made tech could need up to $230 billion in investment.
- The plan could add up to 668,000 manufacturing jobs.
- Consumers could face average price rises of 27 to 55 per cent.
New here? Start with this
Most consumer technology has been manufactured overseas for decades, particularly in Asia, where production costs are lower and supply chains are well established. There has been growing interest among American policymakers in bringing more manufacturing back to the United States, citing concerns about supply chain stability and domestic jobs.
President Trump has specifically called for increased domestic production of common technology products including smartphones, laptops and televisions. Building the capacity to make these items entirely in America would require significant new investment in factories and infrastructure.
Such a major shift in manufacturing would have wide-ranging economic effects. These would include impacts on employment, energy usage and consumer prices, making the feasibility and cost of reshoring an important question for policymakers and industry leaders.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that reshoring critical technology manufacturing enhances national security by reducing dependence on potentially adversarial countries and protecting supply chains from geopolitical disruption, whilst simultaneously creating hundreds of thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs that strengthen domestic communities. They contend that establishing robust domestic capability, though expensive initially, represents a necessary strategic investment in long-term economic resilience and self-sufficiency, particularly for technologies fundamental to defence and national infrastructure. The upfront costs, they suggest, are justified by the value of economic sovereignty and the stabilising effects on employment and industrial capacity.
The case against
Critics counter that forcing reshoring artificially inflates consumer prices at a time when household budgets are already pressured, with ordinary people bearing the costs of a geopolitical strategy. They argue that global supply chains have evolved to maximise efficiency and productivity, and that mandating domestic production regardless of comparative advantage misallocates capital and labour that could be deployed more productively elsewhere—in research, infrastructure, or other investments. The CTA's estimates suggest consumers could face substantial price increases for little guarantee that companies will actually build capacity rather than simply raising prices, whilst the significant electricity demand raises environmental concerns about the net sustainability effect.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Ars Technica as “Trade group crunches numbers on Trump’s impossible push for 100% US-made tech”.