Made in America Jobs Act of 2026
Introduced February 4, 2026 · Last action March 25, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to make federal development grants available for projects that bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States from overseas locations, and to support growth of the domestic manufacturing sector. The bill expands what types of projects can receive federal funding for infrastructure, planning, training, and economic adjustment assistance.
Who benefits
Manufacturers relocating production from overseas to the United States; domestic manufacturers expanding in the U.S.; construction and engineering firms hired to build facilities for relocated operations; regional development agencies and state/local governments receiving federal grants to support reshoring projects; workers in regions receiving these investments; supply chain companies that service reshored manufacturers.
Who pays / loses
Federal taxpayers funding the expanded grant program; companies with overseas manufacturing operations may face competitive disadvantage if U.S. rivals relocate with federal assistance; foreign workers whose jobs are eliminated as production moves to the United States; countries losing manufacturing investment as operations relocate to America.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The Public Works and Economic Development Act program distributes federal appropriations to regional development organizations and state/local governments. Industries with direct financial interest in reshoring subsidies include: automotive manufacturing, semiconductor production, steel and aluminum processing, consumer electronics, appliance manufacturing, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and aerospace/defense contractors. Construction, engineering, and logistics companies benefit from infrastructure projects supporting relocated facilities. Business groups advocating for reshoring incentives (such as industry associations representing U.S. manufacturers) and Republican-led state development agencies are typical supporters of such legislation.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Manufacturing workers in rural and post-industrial regions where reshored facilities may locate; existing domestic manufacturers competing with relocating foreign operations; regions receiving federal development grants (Appalachia, Rust Belt, rural areas with PWEDA designation); overseas manufacturing workers in countries losing production; federal taxpayers footing the cost of expanded grant programs; communities near proposed industrial sites facing environmental or infrastructure impacts.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill creates incentives to bring manufacturing jobs home, strengthens domestic supply chains, reduces dependency on foreign production, and supports worker communities. Critics argue federal subsidies for corporate relocation distort markets, waste taxpayer money on projects that would occur anyway, may reduce overall competitiveness by supporting less-efficient relocations, and transfer wealth from general taxpayers to specific corporations and investors. Non-partisan evidence on similar reshoring subsidies (state-level tax incentives, Trump-era tariffs with side deals) shows mixed results: some projects deliver jobs at high per-job cost, while many relocations are incomplete or temporary, and deadweight loss (subsidizing moves that would happen anyway) is common. CBO and academic studies generally find reshoring subsidies less cost-effective than alternatives like workforce training or infrastructure without targeting specific sectors.
Real-World Stakes
If passed: Federal grant dollars flow to regions and companies bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., potentially creating manufacturing jobs but at uncertain net cost per job created. Analogous precedents: Kansas and Indiana offered billions in tax incentives for semiconductor facility relocations (2020s) with mixed job delivery; Trump Administration's tariffs paired with side deals to specific companies (steel, automotive) showed selective reshoring but also price spikes and retaliatory tariffs; state PWEDA-style programs in Appalachia and the Rust Belt created some jobs but also spent heavily on projects with low returns. Risk: if the bill creates federal subsidy competition among states and companies, overall federal cost could exceed job creation value, consistent with economic literature on subsidy races. Benefit: workers in eligible regions gain training and job access; manufacturers get infrastructure support for genuine relocation.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Domestic Content Requirement with Waiver Authority
Section 3 establishes that grant recipients must use American-made materials and domestically-sourced components, but grants the Secretary of Commerce authority to waive this requirement on a project-by-project basis without specifying criteria for when waivers can be granted.
AffectsManufacturing companies and project developers who may face uncertainty about eligibility; foreign suppliers and their U.S. partners who could benefit from secretary waivers; domestic suppliers who may lose contracts through discretionary exceptions not subject to public notice requirements.
Priority Funding for Specific Geographic Regions
Section 5 directs that grants be prioritized for projects in counties with historical manufacturing decline, but defines this category using a formula based on employment loss data from 2010-2020, creating a fixed list that cannot be updated.
AffectsCounties experiencing recent manufacturing decline after 2020 would be ineligible; communities that recovered manufacturing jobs during the reference period would remain on the priority list despite improved conditions; rural versus urban counties may be disproportionately affected depending on how decline is measured.
Clawback Provision with Extended Lookback Period
Section 7 requires grant recipients to repay 100% of federal funds if manufacturing operations do not remain in the United States for 10 years, but the repayment obligation applies even if the company relocates due to force majeure or natural disaster.
AffectsManufacturing companies receiving grants who face business disruptions beyond their control; small businesses with limited financial reserves who may not survive repayment demands; investors and lenders who may view grant recipients as higher-risk due to extended repayment obligations.
Sunset of Competing Regional Development Programs
Section 12 repeals the Regional Innovation Program and consolidates its remaining funding into this new manufacturing-focused grant program effective immediately upon enactment, with no transition period for existing awardees.
Existing Regional Innovation Program grantees who may lose support mid-project; non-manufacturing regional development initiatives that lose dedicated funding streams; rural and technology-focused communities previously supported by the repealed program.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (1)
DRep. Figures, Shomari [D-AL-2]
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$135,548.5
Finance$21,025
Energy$14,601
Construction$4,800
Technology$4,000
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.