A Look at U.S. Onshoring Efforts, Tariffs, and Lessons for Canada
Since President Donald Trump introduced tariffs and expanded 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 widely, the key question remains: Are these efforts working?
As Canada approaches a pivotal election—with Pierre Poilievre being compared to a "Mini Trump" and Mark Carney offering an alternative economic vision—the lessons from America's recent experiments are more relevant than ever. Which model would best serve Canada's long-term interests if the goal is to maximize energy and mineral wealth, manufacturing capacity, and GDP growth?
At Greenlight Capital, we believe that understanding these trends is crucial for anyone involved in private lending, real estate development, and investment strategy.
Corporate Investments in U.S. Onshoring
Here’s a snapshot of major business investments aimed at strengthening U.S. manufacturing and operations:
| Company Name | Investment Amount | Location(s) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roche | $50 billion | Multiple states (KY, IN, NJ, OR, CA, PA, MA) | Investopedia |
| Apple | $500 billion | Houston, Texas | Wall Street Journal |
| Nvidia | Several hundred billion | 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 U.S. Administrations
| Administration | Estimated Investment Commitments | Key Initiatives and Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Clinton | ~$2 billion | Focused on globalization and NAFTA; limited onshoring efforts. |
| George W. Bush | Data not specified | Favored offshoring; minimal focus on domestic manufacturing. |
| Barack Obama | ~$4 billion | Selective manufacturing initiatives; focus on clean energy. |
| Donald Trump | Over $5 trillion | Aggressive tariffs and trade reforms promoting domestic investment. |
Short-Term Pain vs. Long-Term Gain
Positive Outcomes:
Job Creation and Economic Growth: Thousands of new jobs and revitalized local economies.
Supply Chain Resilience: Reduced dependency on foreign suppliers, strengthening national security.
Technological Advancement: Growth of high-tech manufacturing hubs positioning the U.S. as an innovation leader.
Challenges:
Higher Costs for Businesses: Tariffs increased costs for machinery and raw materials.
Inflationary Pressures: Higher costs passed onto consumers, contributing to inflation.
Policy Uncertainty: Rapid policy changes created hesitation among investors and corporations.
Lessons for Canada: Pierre Poilievre vs. Mark Carney
Pierre Poilievre ("Mini Trump" comparisons):
Pro-energy development (oil, gas, critical minerals)
Lower taxes and deregulation to spur manufacturing and investment
Potential for faster GDP growth and debt reduction through resource expansion
Mark Carney:
Strong focus on clean energy transition and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing
Climate-centered policies that could slow growth in traditional resource sectors
Higher taxation and regulation to fund social and environmental programs
The Key Question for Canadians
Do voters want short-term discomfort (higher upfront costs, economic realignment) for the sake of long-term economic strength and independence?
Or should Canada prioritize immediate global cooperation and a gradual, climate-driven transformation—potentially at the cost of slower economic growth?
Timeline and Impact
Immediate effects (2017–2020 in U.S.): Supply chain realignments and initial inflation spikes.
Medium term (2020–2025): Growth in industrial projects and competitive repositioning.
Long term (beyond 2025): A stronger, more resilient domestic economy with higher employment and output.
Conclusion: Is It Worth It for Canada?
The metaphor of "breaking eggs to make an omelet" captures not only America's recent approach but also Canada's possible path forward.
While the disruptions caused by aggressive economic nationalism are real, the scale of investment commitments and reshoring under a "Trump-style" model suggests a powerful opportunity for self-sufficiency and wealth creation.
Bottom Line for Investors:
Pierre Poilievre’s platform could unleash faster energy development, manufacturing growth, and national wealth expansion.
Mark Carney’s platform offers a measured, ESG-driven route, but may result in slower traditional growth.
The decision Canadians make in the upcoming election will shape the country’s economic trajectory for decades—and will create opportunities and challenges for investors, lenders, and businesses alike.
At Greenlight C
