Reassessing America’s Workforce Amid Trade Changes

President Donald Trump has managed to do what past bipartisan efforts couldn’t achieve: firmly align trade and industrial policy with a “Made in America” philosophy.

With the reimplementation of tariffs, investment has swung toward boosting domestic production.

Major players in the automotive, pharmaceutical, and semiconductor industries have announced the establishment of new manufacturing plants in the U.S.

After decades of outsourcing, the message from Washington is evident: “Let’s bring manufacturing back to America.”

However, one critical component that tariffs and incentives cannot magically generate is the labor force.

Over recent years, the U.S. hasn’t just lost factories; it has also seen a significant decline in process knowledge and practical skills.

The engineers and operators who once made our industrial sector a global leader have either retired, moved on, or are simply untrained.

If we genuinely want to revitalize our industrial base, it will require a significant national initiative to retrain and upskill American workers.

Our education system still clings to a conventional path: high school followed by a four-year college leading to a white-collar job.

But the actual situation is quite different.

Take a cohort of 100 students entering high school—about 13 won’t graduate.

Another 29 will graduate but won’t pursue college, and 27 more will enroll but won’t finish.

From the 31 who do graduate from college, 13 will find themselves in jobs that don’t even require a degree.

In total, only 18 out of 100, or roughly one-fifth, will secure a job necessitating a diploma post-high school and college.

High schools in the U.S. used to offer a wide range of career and technical education options, but now they primarily prepare students for college.

For many who never complete a bachelor’s degree, Washington does provide various “workforce development” programs that sound promising; however, most tend to be ineffective.

A federal analysis revealed that numerous training programs funded by several government agencies cost tens of billions annually, yet there’s scant evidence of profitability.

Participants often miss out on earnings while attending these programs, ending up earning as much as workers who didn’t receive any training at all.

Essentially, we are investing in training for jobs that don’t exist, funding ineffective programs, and still failing to fill the roles that are actually being created.

For Trump’s second term goals in trade and industry to succeed, a robust workforce strategy is crucial.

This doesn’t entail reintroducing the federal government’s “jobs program.” Rather, it means altering the distribution of taxpayer funds.

The most qualified to equip workers for genuine, productive jobs are the employers, often collaborating with unions or community colleges.

They understand the necessary equipment, standards, and essential skills when hiring new employees.

Yet, if left unaddressed, companies typically underinvest in training the workers who need it the most.

When businesses spend their own funds to train high school graduates to become skilled artisans, those trained workers can simply walk over to competitors for better pay.

The risks are uncertain, but the expenses are tangible.

This is where the American Workforce Act comes into play.

Introduced recently by Sen. Tom Cotton from Arkansas, the legislation builds upon a proposal by American Compass to create direct federal grants of up to $10,000 per worker for high-quality, learn-while-you-earn training programs.

Eligibility requires that workers be “trainees” engaging in both paid labor and organized technical education.

Training can be provided by employers, business entities, union training centers, and community colleges, but it must link to real jobs in actual industries with clear paths to better wages, rather than just vague qualifications.

In return for public funding, programs must disclose metrics like completion rates, employment status in related sectors, and wages before and after the program.

This funding wouldn’t come from new borrowing but would involve reallocating resources. The plan suggests cutting subsidies and tax breaks for affluent universities consuming public funds and shifting some of the federal expenses on “training” to more effective initiatives.

Trump’s tariffs and industrial policies have finally positioned Washington in favor of U.S. production.

Now, it’s crucial to align Washington with the objective of American workers acquiring the necessary skills to produce.

Reindustrialization isn’t solely about steel and technology. Workers possess the knowledge to create.

We should stop relying on an all-encompassing model or failed federal bureaucracies to somehow craft a 21st-century industrial workforce.

Instead, let’s focus on incentivizing employers and their partners to train Americans extensively for the jobs they will ultimately occupy.