With President Trump back in office and reaffirming his commitment to reshoring US manufacturing, the White House has implemented a 90-day pause on tariffs for all countries except China.
While framed as a temporary measure, the move could prove to be a turning point in global manufacturing strategy.
The central question now is: Will companies use this brief window to quietly shift operations out of China – and perhaps even back to the US?
The tariff policy, criticized as erratic by some, may actually be achieving what decades of diplomatic negotiations could not: forcing global supply chains to diversify away from China.
The American dilemma
The United States has been struggling to reclaim its place in global manufacturing for decades.
The rise of China as the world’s factory coincided with a decline in US industrial jobs, the hollowing out of the middle class, and a deepening of income inequality.
Many Americans now wonder: Can the US compete in the new global manufacturing order – especially when the new low-cost alternatives are India, Vietnam, and Mexico?
Former President Donald Trump has made reviving American manufacturing central to his policy platform. Critics have called his tariff policy reckless and isolationist. But amid the chaos, some observers are asking: Is there method in the madness?
Evidence of an exodus
Recent weeks have brought a wave of announcements that suggest companies are already voting with their feet – and shifting production out of China:
- David’s Bridal, in April 2025, confirmed it had reduced its China-based manufacturing from over 50 percent to 30 percent, moving production to Vietnam, India, and others, citing the 145 percent tariffs as a primary driver.
- Shein, the fast fashion giant, began urging its Chinese suppliers to relocate to Vietnam as early as February 2025. By April, factory owners in China reported a 50 percent drop in Shein orders.
- ABB, the Swiss automation company, announced in March 2025 a $120 million expansion of its Tennessee and Mississippi facilities to localize production and reduce tariff exposure.
- Steve Madden, the US footwear brand, began reducing its China exposure in November 2024, anticipating tariffs of up to 60 percent under potential Trump policies. Production is being moved to Cambodia, Vietnam, and Mexico.
- Apple, long reliant on Chinese contract manufacturers, is now exporting more iPhones from India than ever before. By April 2025, production in Tamil Nadu had increased significantly, helped by trade agreements that avoid heavy US tariffs.
The pattern is clear. The threat of tariffs is not just reshaping supply chains – it’s redrawing the global map of manufacturing.
Why the US has a shot
What makes the current situation different from the past 20 years is the rise of automation.
Where China once held an unassailable cost advantage due to low wages and massive scale, today’s robotics and intelligent manufacturing systems are narrowing the gap.
In sectors like electronics, semiconductors, electric vehicles, and even apparel, robots now perform much of the work that used to require cheap human labor.
That’s why companies like Tesla, Intel, and ABB are expanding US production – not in spite of high wages, but because they can automate around them.
Add to that the growing geopolitical risks of operating in China – including sanctions, supply chain disruptions, and export bans – and the case for reshoring becomes stronger.
Tariffs as strategy, not just punishment
Both the Biden and Trump administrations have supported tough tariff regimes on China – a rare area of bipartisan agreement.
While Biden maintained Trump-era tariffs during his term, Trump now appears ready to escalate them, framing the strategy not just as economic protectionism, but as industrial policy by other means.
The Trump administration’s tariffs were heavily criticized for sparking trade wars, raising prices, and alienating allies. But their long-term effects may be more strategic than many assumed.
Tariffs are no longer just a tool to punish foreign competitors – they’re becoming a lever to shift corporate behavior. By selectively applying pressure, the US government is encouraging companies to:
- Reconsider their over-reliance on China.
- Invest in domestic or allied manufacturing bases.
- Bring critical industries – like microchips and medical devices – closer to home.
This is the emerging logic of the 90-day pause: Give companies just enough time and incentive to move – but keep the pressure on China.
Can the US compete with India, Vietnam, and Mexico?
That remains an open question. These countries offer:
- Lower labor costs.
- Fewer regulatory hurdles.
- Growing engineering and logistics talent.
But the US still holds advantages in:
- Innovation and R&D.
- Advanced automation capabilities.
- Political and legal stability (relative to many competitors).
- Access to the world’s largest consumer market.
The real battleground may not be cost – it may be speed, quality, and control. In that arena, robotics may allow the US to gain an advantage over its competitors.
The bigger picture: Inequality and national purpose
Reviving manufacturing is not just about trade policy or tariffs. It’s about addressing decades of economic neglect in industrial towns across America. It’s about restoring a middle class that has been decimated by offshoring and financialisation.
Automation will not recreate the same jobs that once existed – but it can create new ones:
- Robot technicians.
- Software engineers.
- Factory planners.
- And countless support roles.
If guided by smart policy – including workforce retraining, regional investment, and public-private partnerships – the US manufacturing sector could become a source of economic revival, not nostalgia.
Method in the madness
The 90-day pause may seem like a minor regulatory detail. But to global manufacturers, it’s a signal – and perhaps a deadline. Move now, or pay more later.
For the US, this moment is both a challenge and an opportunity. If it can harness automation, build a skilled workforce, and support local industry with intelligent incentives, it may not just compete with China’s successors – it may lead the next manufacturing renaissance.
In that sense, maybe there is a method in the madness.
