Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The “Made in America” initiative represents a cornerstone of U.S. economic policy—a multifaceted effort to harness the federal government’s vast purchasing power to bolster domestic industries. Far from being a simple slogan or single piece of legislation, it’s a complex ecosystem of laws, presidential directives, and agency programs.
At its core, the initiative seeks to ensure that taxpayer dollars are reinvested in American workers and businesses. The overarching goals are strengthening the nation’s manufacturing base, creating and sustaining well-paying jobs, and building resilient and secure national supply chains.
What “Made in America” Means in Government Policy
“Made in America” isn’t a single concept but a collection of policies built and modified over nearly a century. These laws and executive orders create a framework of “domestic preference,” establishing rules by which the U.S. government prioritizes purchasing goods produced within its borders.
From “Buy American” to “Build America, Buy America”
The bedrock of domestic preference policy is the Buy American Act of 1933. Enacted during the Great Depression, this law established the fundamental principle that federal agencies must procure domestic articles, materials, and supplies over foreign ones, subject to certain exceptions.
It created a price preference system, allowing the government to purchase a domestic good even if it’s more expensive than a foreign alternative, provided the cost isn’t “unreasonable.”
A significant evolution came with the passage of the Build America, Buy America Act, enacted as part of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021. This law dramatically expanded the scope of domestic preference requirements.
While the Buy American Act focuses on direct federal procurement, Build America, Buy America extends similar mandates to projects that receive any federal financial assistance, including massive infrastructure projects carried out by state, local, and tribal governments.
This law requires that all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in federally funded projects be produced in the United States. This expansion represents a fivefold increase in federal funding covered by domestic content requirements, from an estimated average of $59 billion to $324 billion.
Presidential Priorities Across Administrations
Recent presidential administrations have placed strong emphasis on domestic preference policies, though their framing and specific initiatives have differed.
The Trump administration championed an “America First” vision, casting the policy as a vital tool for “reclaiming American sovereignty.” Proclamations for events like “Made in America Week” described a decades-long struggle against a “globalist ruling class” that had “closed our factories, shipped away our jobs, and stripped our families and communities of their homes, fortunes, and dreams.”
This narrative framed the policy not just as an economic strategy but as a cultural and political imperative to reverse the effects of globalization and restore the prominence of the “Made in the U.S.A.” label.
The Biden administration launched its own “whole-of-government” initiative through Executive Order 14005, “Ensuring the Future is Made in America by All of America’s Workers.” This executive order took a more structural and administrative approach, aiming to systematically strengthen and centralize implementation of existing laws.
A key outcome was creation of the first-ever Made in America Office within the Office of Management and Budget to oversee the process government-wide. The focus is less on rhetorical battles and more on improving administrative efficiency, building resilient supply chains for critical industries, and increasing public transparency.
The contrasting approaches reveal the dual nature of “Made in America” policy. While the underlying mechanics of promoting domestic industry are broadly shared, the public justification and strategic emphasis are tailored to fit different political narratives.
Defining “American-Made”
A central question in applying these policies is what, precisely, qualifies as an “American-made” product. The answer lies in domestic content thresholds, which specify the minimum percentage of a product’s component costs that must originate in the U.S.
In one of the most significant updates to the Buy American Act in nearly 70 years, the Biden administration issued a rule to gradually increase this threshold for federal procurement. The rule raised the domestic content requirement from 55% to 65% in 2024, with a further increase to 75% scheduled for 2029.
This phased increase is designed to give U.S. manufacturers and their supply chains time to adapt and increase their domestic sourcing.
Recognizing that an immediate jump to a high threshold could disrupt government purchasing, the rule includes a “fallback threshold.” Through 2029, if a product meeting the current, higher threshold isn’t available or its cost is unreasonable, an agency may still purchase a product that meets the previous 55% threshold.
This mechanism provides flexibility, ensuring that federal agencies can still acquire necessary goods while the domestic industrial base adjusts to the strengthened requirements.
The Waiver Process
Domestic preference laws aren’t absolute. The system includes a critical release valve: the waiver process. Federal agencies can request an exception to Buy American rules under specific, legally defined circumstances.
There are three primary justifications for granting a waiver:
Public Interest: An agency may request a waiver if applying the domestic preference requirement would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” This provides a flexible but high-level standard for unique circumstances.
Non-availability: This applies when needed goods aren’t produced in the United States in “sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities” or aren’t of “satisfactory quality.”
Unreasonable Cost: A waiver may be granted if the cost of the domestic product is deemed unreasonable, often defined as being more than 25% higher than the lowest bid for a comparable foreign product.
This waiver system is essential for the practical functioning of government in a globalized economy. For example, the Department of Transportation has publicly posted proposed waivers for items like electric vehicle chargers and specialized components for transit-oriented development projects, reflecting instances where domestic supply hasn’t yet caught up to the demands of new infrastructure initiatives.
Key “Made in America” Policies and Requirements
| Policy/Law Name | Scope of Application | Key Requirement | Domestic Content Threshold | Primary Administrative Body |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buy American Act of 1933 | Direct federal government procurement of goods | Provides a price preference for domestic goods | Historically 50% of component cost; now 65%, rising to 75% in 2029 | Individual federal agencies |
| Build America, Buy America Act | Federally-funded infrastructure projects (state, local, etc.) | Mandates use of U.S. iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials | 100% for iron & steel; 55% for manufactured products | Review and oversight by MIAO |
| Executive Order 14005 | Applies to the entire federal government’s implementation process | Centralizes waiver review and increases transparency | N/A (focuses on process and administration) | Made in America Office (MIAO) at OMB |
Who Does What in Government
Implementing the complex web of “Made in America” policies requires coordinated effort across multiple federal agencies, each with a distinct and specialized role. While nearly every agency that spends federal dollars is involved, three entities form the core of the system: a central coordinator, a consumer protection enforcer, and a key department dedicated to industrial support.
The Made in America Office
Established by Executive Order 14005, the Made in America Office, located within the powerful White House Office of Management and Budget, acts as the central nervous system for the entire initiative.
Before its creation, each federal agency interpreted and applied Buy American laws and their corresponding waiver processes independently, leading to inconsistencies. The office’s primary mission is to standardize this process, ensuring that any waivers are applied “clearly, consistently, and transparently” across the government.
The office’s most visible tool is the public website MadeInAmerica.gov, a joint project with the General Services Administration. This portal serves as a centralized, public repository for all proposed and decided waiver requests from every federal agency.
By making this information easily accessible, the site aims to provide greater accountability and public trust in implementation of these laws.
However, the function of this transparency goes beyond simple accountability. By aggregating and publishing data on every instance where the federal government seeks to buy a foreign product because a domestic alternative is unavailable, MadeInAmerica.gov effectively creates a real-time market intelligence platform.
It broadcasts a clear signal to American entrepreneurs and manufacturers, identifying specific gaps in the domestic supply chain. For instance, if multiple agencies consistently file waivers for a particular type of pump or electronic component, this data provides a powerful incentive for a U.S. company to invest in producing that item, confident that a large federal customer base already exists.
In this way, the administrative task of managing waivers is transformed into a strategic tool to guide private-sector investment and help build the very domestic capacity that “Made in America” policies are designed to support.
The Federal Trade Commission
It’s crucial to distinguish between rules governing government purchases and rules governing consumer product labeling. While the Made in America Office oversees the former, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer for the latter.
The FTC’s mandate is to prevent deceptive and unfair business practices, including false advertising. As part of this mission, it polices the use of “Made in USA” claims on products sold to the general public.
The FTC applies a much stricter standard than the domestic content thresholds used in federal procurement. For a product to bear an unqualified “Made in USA” label, it must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. This means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin, and the final product should contain only a negligible amount of foreign content.
The FTC provides guidance to illustrate this high bar. A gas grill assembled in the U.S. from American-made components but using imported knobs could likely make the claim, as the knobs are an insignificant part of the final product and its cost. In contrast, a wrench forged in the U.S. from imported steel couldn’t, because the steel is a significant component and isn’t far removed from the finished product in the manufacturing process.
The FTC’s role is to protect consumers from being misled, a distinct mission from the OMB’s role of managing federal spending and strengthening the industrial base. Both recent administrations have directed the FTC to crack down on sellers who falsely claim their products are “Made in the U.S.A.,” underscoring the label’s importance as a trusted sign of quality and domestic craftsmanship.
The Department of Commerce
The U.S. Department of Commerce is the cabinet-level department with the broadest mission related to economic growth. Its stated purpose is “to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity for all communities” and to act as the “voice of business in the Federal Government.”
While the Made in America Office sets rules for government purchasing and the FTC polices consumer labels, the Department of Commerce is tasked with the foundational work of strengthening and supporting the domestic industries that make “Made in America” possible.
It’s the government’s primary engine for fostering innovation, improving productivity, and connecting American businesses with the resources and opportunities they need to compete both at home and abroad.
Inside the Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce executes its mission to support American manufacturing through a diverse array of agencies and programs. These initiatives provide everything from cutting-edge research and development support to on-the-ground technical assistance for small businesses, creating a comprehensive ecosystem designed to bolster the nation’s industrial base.
Fostering Innovation Through NIST
As a non-regulatory agency within the DOC, the National Institute of Standards and Technology plays a fundamental role in promoting American industrial competitiveness. Its mission is to advance measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security.
For manufacturers, NIST’s work is critical. It conducts research that helps developers understand and utilize novel materials and processes, accelerating innovation in emerging fields like biomanufacturing, smart manufacturing, and artificial intelligence. By developing trusted measurement science and evaluations for new technologies like additive manufacturing, NIST helps speed their commercialization and adoption across entire sectors.
A key NIST-supported initiative is Manufacturing USA, a national network of 16 manufacturing innovation institutes. These institutes are public-private partnerships, each focused on a specific advanced technology area, such as robotics or semiconductors.
They bring together industry, academia, and government to collaborate on research and development projects, bridge the gap between innovation and commercial products, and train the next-generation workforce.
On-the-Ground Support Through MEP
Perhaps the most direct way the DOC assists manufacturers is through the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program administered by NIST. The MEP is a nationwide network with centers in every state and Puerto Rico, staffed by nearly 1,400 experts dedicated to providing hands-on assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers.
These centers act as trusted advisors, offering services that range from implementing lean manufacturing techniques and improving cybersecurity to developing a skilled workforce.
A cornerstone of MEP’s contribution to the “Made in America” initiative is its “Supplier Scouting” service. This program functions as a national matchmaking service, designed to connect government agencies and large corporations that have supply chain needs with smaller U.S. manufacturers that have the capabilities to meet them.
This process provides a practical link between policy and reality. When a federal agency cannot find a domestic source for a required product and considers filing a non-availability waiver with the Made in America Office, the MEP network can be activated. Its experts will “scout” the country, leveraging their deep knowledge of local manufacturing capabilities to find a domestic company that can produce the needed item.
This system creates a virtuous cycle. The “Made in America” laws create strong demand for domestic goods. The transparent waiver process at the Made in America Office identifies specific supply chain gaps. The MEP’s Supplier Scouting program then acts as an active, government-facilitated intervention to try to fill those gaps.
This transforms the policy from a passive requirement into a dynamic industrial development strategy. The success of this approach is evident in cases like Dakota Bodies, a South Dakota-based truck body manufacturer. Facing challenges in meeting market demand, the company worked with its local MEP Center to implement lean manufacturing principles. The engagement led to a 20% improvement in revenues and a 5% increase in overall productivity, making the company more competitive and a stronger contributor to the domestic supply chain.
Connecting Buyers and Sellers Through ITA
Another key agency within the DOC is the International Trade Administration, which works to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industry and ensure fair trade. One of its practical tools supporting domestic sourcing is the “Made in the USA Sourcing & Products Directory.”
Managed by the ITA’s Office of Textiles and Apparel, this free online directory is designed to help businesses find American vendors for every step of the textiles, apparel, footwear, and travel goods supply chain. To be listed, a company must be incorporated in the U.S. and have at least one manufacturing or assembly plant in the country.
The directory provides a no-cost platform for U.S. manufacturers to increase their visibility and for buyers to easily source domestic materials and suppliers, facilitating business-to-business matchmaking and making it easier to comply with “Made in America” goals.
Strategic Investments: CHIPS for America
Beyond supporting existing industries, the Department of Commerce is responsible for executing large-scale, strategic investments to rebuild entire domestic manufacturing ecosystems for critical technologies. The most prominent recent example is the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
This landmark legislation provides the DOC with $50 billion for a suite of programs aimed at strengthening and revitalizing the U.S. position in semiconductor research, development, and manufacturing. Semiconductors are essential components in nearly all modern technology, from smartphones to military systems, yet U.S. commercial production has fallen to only about 10% of the global share, with none of the most advanced chips being manufactured at scale domestically.
The CHIPS for America program represents a massive public investment designed to reverse this trend by incentivizing the construction of new fabrication plants in the U.S., fostering R&D, and building a skilled workforce.
This initiative exemplifies the most ambitious form of industrial policy, where the government makes targeted investments to ensure that technologies of the future are “Made in America,” not just for economic prosperity but for national security as well.
The Economic Debate
Policies that give preference to domestic industries are the subject of intense economic debate. Proponents argue they’re essential for national and economic security, while critics contend they impose significant costs on taxpayers and the broader economy.
The Case for Domestic Preference
Advocates of “Made in America” policies build their case on several key pillars:
National Security and Supply Chain Resilience: The primary argument is that a strong domestic manufacturing base is essential for national security. Over-reliance on foreign supply chains, particularly from geopolitical adversaries, creates vulnerabilities. Policies that encourage domestic production of critical goods—from steel for infrastructure to components for the defense industry—are seen as a necessary safeguard.
The disruptions experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted shortages of essential medical supplies, gave significant momentum to this argument.
Attracting Private Investment: By guaranteeing a large and stable source of demand—the U.S. government—these policies are designed to “crowd in” private capital. The Biden administration points to over $1 trillion in private sector investment commitments in manufacturing and clean energy since 2021 as evidence of this effect.
Data also shows that inflation-adjusted manufacturing construction spending has more than doubled since January 2021, reaching its highest contribution to economic growth since 1980.
Job Creation and Economic Growth: A central goal of the initiative is to support and create well-paying American jobs. The federal government has cited the creation of over 1.4 million manufacturing and construction jobs since early 2021 as a measure of success.
Proponents highlight the powerful multiplier effect of the manufacturing sector. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, for every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, an estimated $2.64 is added to the overall U.S. economy, one of the largest such multipliers of any sector.
The Costs and Criticisms
Opponents of domestic preference policies argue that their benefits come at a steep price and may be based on a flawed understanding of the modern economy.
Higher Costs for Taxpayers: The most direct criticism is that these policies increase the cost of public projects. By limiting competition and forcing the government to purchase from domestic suppliers that may be more expensive, “Buy American” provisions act as a non-tariff barrier to trade. These higher costs are ultimately paid by taxpayers.
The Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that federal “Buy American” laws are equivalent to a tariff barrier of at least 25%, potentially adding over $100 billion annually in waste to government procurement.
Economic Inefficiency and the Jobs Fallacy: Critics from free-market-oriented think tanks like the Cato Institute argue that focusing on manufacturing employment is misguided. The number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. peaked in 1979 and has declined since, not primarily due to trade, but due to massive gains in productivity and automation.
U.S. manufacturing output, measured in real value-added, is near an all-time high; the country is making more things than ever before, but with far fewer workers. Policies aimed at recreating mid-century employment levels are seen as fighting an unwinnable battle against technological progress.
The High Cost Per Job Created: Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research has attempted to quantify the economic trade-offs. One 2024 working paper analyzed federal procurement data and concluded that the Buy American Act likely supported the creation of up to 100,000 manufacturing jobs. However, it did so at an estimated aggregate welfare cost to the economy of between $111,500 and $137,700 per job.
The study further projected that tightening the domestic content rules, as is currently planned, will create fewer additional jobs at an even higher cost per job, ranging from $154,000 to $237,800.
Risk of Retaliation and Diplomatic Friction: Economists also warn that protectionist domestic policies can invite retaliation from trading partners. If the U.S. closes its government procurement market, other countries may do the same, harming American exporters and potentially leading to a net loss of jobs.
These policies can also create significant diplomatic tensions, even with close allies in Europe and Asia who see their companies being shut out of the lucrative U.S. market.
This debate reveals a fundamental tension at the heart of “Made in America” policy. The political goal is often articulated as bringing back millions of factory jobs, an idea with powerful nostalgic and emotional appeal.
The economic reality, however, is that the structure of modern manufacturing has been irrevocably altered by automation and deeply integrated global supply chains. Policies can indeed shift production and create jobs, but they do so by working against powerful economic forces, which is why analysis finds such a high cost associated with each job created.
Understanding this mismatch between political aspiration and economic structure is crucial to evaluating the policy’s true impact.
Sector-Specific Impacts
The effects of “Made in America” aren’t uniform across the economy. The policy’s impact varies dramatically depending on the specific structure and global integration of each industry.
Steel and Heavy Industry
This sector is a primary and intended beneficiary of domestic content rules. Provisions like the “melted and poured” requirement in the Build America, Buy America Act, which mandates that all steel used in federally funded infrastructure must be melted and processed in the U.S., provide a direct and significant advantage to domestic mills.
Proponents argue these rules are vital for national security and have helped the U.S. steel industry operate at its highest capacity utilization in years.
Automotive
The auto industry exemplifies the immense complexity of modern global supply chains. A finished vehicle assembled in a U.S. plant often contains components that have crossed the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders multiple times during their production.
An engine block might be cast in one country, machined in another, and installed in a third. Applying strict domestic content rules in such an interwoven system is exceptionally challenging and can disrupt efficient production, raising costs for both manufacturers and consumers.
Textiles and Apparel
This industry has undergone a profound transformation. In the 1980s, roughly 70% of clothing sold in the U.S. was made domestically; today, that figure is around 3%. The remaining U.S. textile industry has largely ceded mass-market apparel production to lower-cost countries and has pivoted toward high-tech, specialized textiles for industrial, medical, and military applications.
“Made in America” policies can support this high-value niche, but they’re unlikely to reverse the decades-long decline in apparel manufacturing jobs.
Electronics and IT
This sector presents one of the greatest challenges for domestic sourcing. The U.S. runs a significant trade deficit in most categories of information technology hardware, and for many components, there’s little to no domestic production capacity.
Forcing domestic sourcing for IT components in large infrastructure projects, such as smart grids or public transit systems, could be difficult, if not impossible, in the short term. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation estimates that applying “Buy America” provisions to IT could increase project costs by an average of 25% and lead to significant delays.
Resources for Businesses and Citizens
The “Made in America” initiative has practical implications for business owners, consumers, and any citizen interested in tracking how their government operates. A number of official resources are available to help navigate this complex landscape.
Doing Business with the Government
For American businesses, particularly small and medium-sized manufacturers, these policies represent a significant opportunity. The federal government is the single largest purchaser of goods in the world, and domestic preference rules give U.S. companies a competitive advantage.
Getting Started: The first step for any business looking to become a federal supplier is to register in the System for Award Management. This is the official government-wide portal for federal procurement.
Finding Opportunities: The GSA Schedules program is one of the most popular platforms for businesses to offer commercial products and services to federal, state, and local government agencies.
Support for Small Businesses: The Small Business Administration offers numerous resources. Its “Made in America Manufacturing Initiative” is specifically designed to help small manufacturers by expanding their access to capital and providing dedicated training and support for navigating the government contracting process.
Understanding the Label
For consumers, the “Made in USA” label is a key piece of information at the point of sale. It’s important to remember the strict standard enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
The “All or Virtually All” Standard: An unqualified “Made in USA” claim on a product means that all significant parts and processing are of U.S. origin. This is a high bar intended to ensure the label is meaningful and not deceptive.
Enforcement: The FTC actively investigates and takes action against companies that make false or misleading “Made in USA” claims, reinforcing the integrity of the label.
Staying Informed
Several government websites provide unprecedented transparency into federal spending and the implementation of “Made in America” policies, allowing any interested citizen to track the data.
Tracking Federal Spending: The official source for detailed information on all federal awards—including contracts, grants, and loans—is USAspending.gov. This site allows users to explore spending by agency, recipient, location, and industry.
While it’s the definitive public database, it’s worth noting that the Government Accountability Office has historically identified data quality issues in the underlying reporting systems, though significant efforts have been made to improve accuracy.
Tracking Waivers: For those specifically interested in how domestic preference rules are being applied, MadeInAmerica.gov is the essential resource. It provides a public, searchable database of all waiver requests submitted by federal agencies, offering a direct view into the policy’s day-to-day execution.
Broader Economic Data: For comprehensive, non-partisan data on the U.S. government and economy, citizens can turn to resources like USAFacts, which compiles and visualizes data from a wide range of government sources to make it more accessible.
The Reality of Industrial Policy
The “Made in America” initiative represents one of the most significant efforts by the U.S. government to shape domestic industrial capacity through procurement policy. It embodies the belief that strategic use of government purchasing power can rebuild manufacturing sectors, create jobs, and enhance national security.
The policy has achieved measurable successes. American steel mills are operating at higher capacity. New semiconductor fabrication plants are being built. Small manufacturers have gained access to federal contracts they previously couldn’t compete for. The transparent waiver system has created valuable market intelligence that helps identify opportunities for domestic production.
Yet the economic analysis reveals the fundamental tension inherent in the policy. Creating manufacturing jobs through government preference programs is expensive—potentially costing over $100,000 per job according to some estimates. The modern economy’s reliance on global supply chains makes strict domestic content requirements challenging to implement without significant cost increases.
The sector-specific analysis shows that “Made in America” policies work best in industries where the U.S. retains significant manufacturing capacity and where products are less dependent on complex global supply chains. Steel and heavy machinery benefit more than electronics and consumer goods.
For businesses, these policies create both opportunities and challenges. Companies that can meet domestic content requirements gain preferential access to the massive federal market. But navigating the complex web of rules, waivers, and compliance requirements requires significant investment in understanding the system.
The Department of Commerce plays a crucial role in making these policies successful by providing the underlying industrial support that enables domestic sourcing. Through NIST’s research, MEP’s technical assistance, and strategic investments like CHIPS for America, the department works to build the manufacturing ecosystem that “Made in America” policies depend on.
The long-term success of these initiatives will depend on whether they can adapt to the realities of modern manufacturing while achieving their political and economic objectives. As global supply chains continue to evolve and new technologies reshape production, “Made in America” policies will need to balance the goals of domestic job creation, national security, and economic efficiency.
The transparency mechanisms built into the current system—particularly the public reporting of waivers and federal spending—provide valuable tools for assessing whether these policies are achieving their intended results. Citizens, businesses, and policymakers now have unprecedented access to data about how these laws are being implemented and where they’re succeeding or falling short.
Whether “Made in America” represents smart industrial policy or expensive protectionism may depend on one’s perspective on the proper role of government in the economy. What’s clear is that these policies represent a significant commitment of public resources to shaping the industrial landscape, with consequences that extend far beyond government procurement to affect the broader competitiveness of American manufacturing.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.