Since President Donald Trump introduced tariffs and opened new trade markets for the United States, businesses have made significant commitments to onshore their operations (estimated at $5 trillion to date). While opinions about Trump himself vary greatly, this article takes a neutral view, asking the key question: Are the efforts working?
Now, as Canada approaches a pivotal election, with Pierre Poilievre being compared to a “Mini Trump” and Mark Carney offering an alternative vision, the lessons from America’s recent economic experiments are more relevant than ever. Which model would serve Canada’s long-term interests best if the country wants to maximize its energy and mineral wealth, manufacturing capacity, and GDP growth?
Let’s review the investments made in the U.S., the broader impacts on inflation and living standards, and what they could mean for Canada’s path forward.
Corporate Investments in U.S. Onshoring
Here is a snapshot of notable business investments made to bolster U.S. manufacturing and operations:
| Company Name | Investment Amount | Location(s) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roche | $50 billion | Kentucky, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts | Investopedia |
| Apple | $500 billion | Houston, Texas | Wall Street Journal |
| Nvidia | Several hundred billion dollars | Houston, Texas | Houston Chronicle |
| Eli Lilly | $27 billion | Not specified | NBC15 |
| Johnson & Johnson | $55 billion | Not specified | NBC15 |
| Foxconn | $672 million (revised from $10 billion) | Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin | Wikipedia |
| MP Materials | Not specified | Fort Worth, Texas | Wikipedia |
| Hyundai Motor Group | Not specified | Not specified | Fox Business |
| TSMC | Not specified | Not specified | Fox Business |
| Honda | Not specified | Indiana | New York Post |
Comparing Investment Commitments Across Administrations
| Administration | Estimated Investment Commitments | Key Initiatives and Notes |
| Bill Clinton | Approximately $2 billion | Focused on globalization, NAFTA, and opening international markets. Limited onshoring efforts. |
| George W. Bush | Data not specified | Favorable to offshoring; limited direct programs for domestic manufacturing investment. |
| Barack Obama | Approximately $4 billion | Initiatives like “Make it in America” Challenge and SelectUSA. Focus on clean energy, selective manufacturing investment. |
| Donald Trump | Over $5 trillion | Aggressive use of tariffs and trade reforms to encourage massive onshoring and domestic investment. |
Sources: citizen.org, presidency.ucsb.edu, foxbusiness.com
Short-Term Pain vs. Long-Term Gain
Positive Outcomes:
Job Creation and Economic Growth: Investments have led to thousands of new jobs, boosting local economies and diversifying America’s industrial base.
Supply Chain Resilience: Onshoring reduces dependency on foreign suppliers and strengthens national security.
Technological Advancement: Building high-tech manufacturing hubs positions the U.S. for leadership in innovation-driven industries.
Challenges:
Higher Costs for Businesses: Tariffs have increased the cost of imported machinery and raw materials, impacting manufacturing costs.
Inflationary Pressures: Businesses often pass these higher costs onto consumers, contributing to inflation.
Uncertainty in Implementation: Rapid policy shifts can discourage future investments due to unpredictable business conditions.
Lessons for Canada:
Pierre Poilievre vs. Mark Carney
Pierre Poilievre (“Mini Trump” comparisons):
Pro-energy policies: Open up oil and gas development, critical minerals, and infrastructure expansion.
Lower taxes and deregulation to encourage manufacturing and investment.
Potential for stronger GDP growth, debt reduction through expanded resource revenues.
Mark Carney:
Focus on clean energy transition, ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing.
Climate-driven policies may limit rapid growth in traditional energy and resource sectors.
Higher taxation and regulation to fund climate and social programs, potentially slower GDP growth initially.
Key Question for Canadians:
Do voters want short-term discomfort (higher initial investment, some international tensions) for long-term economic independence and strength?
Or should Canada prioritize immediate global cooperation and gradual transitions with possibly slower economic growth?
Timeline and Impact
Immediate effects (2017-2020 in U.S.): Disruptions, realignment of supply chains, and initial inflationary spikes.
Medium term (2020-2025): Growth in industrial projects, improvement in U.S. competitiveness.
Long term (beyond 2025): Potentially a stronger, more resilient economy with higher employment and domestic production.
Conclusion: Is It Worth It for Canada?
The “breaking the eggs to make the omelet” metaphor fits not just the U.S. experience but Canada’s potential crossroads. The disruptions and short-term challenges caused by aggressive economic nationalism are real. However, compared to past strategies, the sheer scale of investment commitments and production reshoring under a “Trump-style” approach suggests a foundation for greater self-sufficiency and wealth creation.
Bottom Line:
Pierre Poilievre’s platform could mirror some of the positive U.S. outcomes: stronger energy development, expanded GDP, debt reduction.
Mark Carney’s platform offers a more cautious, ESG-driven path that may protect against environmental risks but could slow traditional economic growth.
The choice will ultimately define whether Canada seizes its full resource potential or opts for a slower, climate-prioritized transformation.
