House Oversight Subcommittee Hears Competing Plans to Rebuild U.S. Manufacturing

WASHINGTON — Members of the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs heard four expert witnesses outline contrasting strategies for bringing manufacturing back to the United States at a congressional hearing on the future of U.S. manufacturing.

The hearing featured company leaders who urged technology-driven onshoring and supply‑chain rules, and an economist who warned against broad, indiscriminate tariff policies. Lawmakers pressed witnesses on regulatory barriers, worker protections and national‑security risks tied to foreign suppliers, but the panel took no formal votes or actions.

The testimony centered on three linked goals: restoring domestic production capacity, protecting U.S. defense and critical-technology supply chains and improving job quality. Chris Power, chief executive officer of Hadrian, argued advanced automation and “AI driven factories” could raise worker productivity and speed reshore efforts, saying “the only way to reindustrialise this country is to leapfrog the Chinese system.”

Kevin Zinger, founder and executive chairman of Divergent, described his company’s digital factory approach and said his firm “design, print and assemble high performance structures at industrial volumes faster and with greater flexibility than ever before in the history of the planet,” pointing to work for defense primes and commercial auto firms as evidence of immediate scaling potential.

Austin Bishop, chief executive officer of the New American Industrial Alliance, emphasized workforce and resilience: modern manufacturing jobs can be “highly skilled, technologically advanced careers” that do not always require four‑year degrees, he said.

Adam Hirsch, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, agreed that industrial policy and public investment are necessary but cautioned lawmakers about the administration’s tariff approach. He said targeted industrial policy can work but called the current tariff program “broad based” and “indiscriminate,” arguing it risks higher inflation and slower growth if applied without a coordinated, capacity‑building strategy.

Lawmakers pressed witnesses on specific constraints. Representative Perry (R‑Pa.) asked whether permitting and environmental reviews—specifically NEPA—were bottlenecks; witnesses described permitting delays, energy‑grid constraints and high U.S. energy costs as major location determinants for new factories. Power said energy costs and hook‑up times can slow factory openings and that “95% of the cost of aluminum … is actually the cost of energy.”

Several members raised national‑security concerns about reliance on China for critical inputs. Witnesses cited instances where defense programs rely on components tied to Chinese supply chains and urged policies to increase onshore sourcing for federally funded work. Power recommended a statutory requirement that contractors paid with U.S. dollars source their supply chains domestically.

The hearing also saw an extended exchange over tariffs. Representative Khanna (D‑Calif.) pressed why several Republican witnesses had not focused on tariffs in their written testimony, asserting “the 3 Republican experts are recommending everything but tariffs.” Some witnesses declined to take a definitive public position on the administration’s tariff implementation, saying they were testifying about industrial strategy and factory scale‑up rather than trade policy specifics. Ranking Member Frost (D) countered in closing that “Tariffs are a tax on all consumers” and warned of negative effects on households and employment if tariff policy is broad and poorly targeted.

Witnesses and lawmakers repeatedly returned to job quality, safety and labor policy. Hirsch and Ranking Member Frost stressed the role of unions, OSHA inspections and prevailing‑wage requirements in ensuring that newly onshored jobs provide durable middle‑class pay and safety protections.

No committee motions or votes were recorded during the hearing. Members were instructed that they would have five legislative days to submit materials and written questions for the witnesses, which the chair said would be forwarded for response.

The hearing brought into focus a divided policy path: industry witnesses emphasized technology, supply‑chain mandates for federal contractors, energy costs and permitting reforms as levers to reshore production; the economist emphasized strategic, capacity‑building public investments and warned that broad tariffs could undercut existing private investment and growth.

The subcommittee adjourned with members pledging further review and written follow‑up.