For both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the revival of domestic manufacturing is a key campaign theme and centerpiece in their respective proposals for economic growth and national security. Amid the electioneering and campaign pledges, however, the centrality of supply chain policy is being lost in the shuffle. While both candidates want to make the supply chain less dependent on China and to rebuild the American industrial base, their approaches will impact manufacturing, allied sectors, and global supply chains much differently despite the common overlay of protectionist industrial policy.
Both Trump’s “America First” and Harris’ “Opportunity Economy” policies call for moving home parts of supply chains, like those that bring to market critical products like semiconductors, pharmaceutical products, and medical supplies, and strengthening long-term supply chain resilience by discouraging offshoring. Harris’ economic plan, dubbed the “New Way Forward,” aims to close tax loopholes, strengthen labor rights, and provide government support to high-priority sectors, such as semiconductors and green energy technologies. Trump’s economic plan, dubbed “New American Industrialism,” emphasizes tariffs, corporate tax cuts, and easing of regulations.
Supply chain policy differences in rhetoric and priorities will become a growing attack vector in the lead-up to Election Day. While political discussions focus on the economic benefits, corporate leaders need to understand the implications of policy changes and the effect on their firms’ ability to navigate risks and disruptions.
U.S. manufacturing base and supply chains
Trump’s emphasis on sweeping tariffs creates uncertainty over supply security and fears of inflation. Harris’ continued emphasis on “Bidenomics,” such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, impacts multitier global supply chains and trade policy around the world. Under either plan, the net effect would be that free trade will continue to regress under the impulses of decoupling from high-risk markets, geopolitics, and regionalization. Both parties emphasize the opportunity to create new, well-paid jobs. At the same time, customers are likely to have to bear the higher costs, either directly by paying higher prices in stores or indirectly through subsidies financed by taxpayers’ money.
Labor, immigration, and the workforce
Trump’s emphasis on mass deportation of illegal immigrants will impact the manufacturing and agricultural sectors that already have labor shortages. Harris’ focus on labor rights will amplify organized labor’s influence in supply chain operations and thereby increase costs as seen in the recent longshoreman strike on the East and Gulf Coasts. Both directions will only strengthen inflationary pressures and cause organized labor to resist technological advances such as automation and artificial intelligence to replace jobs. The net effect is that organized labor sees its influence growing under either election outcome, resulting in more potential strikes, and the educational sector being called upon to develop the requisite training and development programs and public–private partnerships to address the manufacturing and supply chain skills gap. Access to top domestic and global talent will be critical to support a growing U.S. manufacturing base.
Sustainability
Trump would roll back some of the environmental regulations, climate initiatives, and decarbonization measures. Big Oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil and Phillips 66, however, have come to embrace the low-carbon energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Harris is expected to strengthen protections and enforcement alongside international allies and partners. In continuation of the Inflation Reduction Act, a Harris administration would continue providing incentives to green technologies and businesses. The net effect of both approaches would be that corporate leaders will stay committed to decarbonization measures that were set in motion years ago.
Regardless of the election outcome, the uncertainty around supply chain policy will continue well into 2025. In particular, there are growing concerns about costs and their inflationary impact on the deficit and national debt; reform of the de minimis exemption for low-value imports; the role of friend-, near- and re-shoring; and the renewal of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement in 2026. The authors are hopeful that supply chain policy steps announced by the U.S. Department of Commerce in September at the Supply Chain Summit will be institutionalized and survive leadership turnover. The election outcome will determine supply chain policy’s next form and shape the U.S. economy’s ability to compete in an increasingly uncertain global market.
