The conversation around bringing jobs back to America is once again heating up, especially as former President Donald Trump positions himself for another political run. Recently, Dan Ives, Global Head of Technology Research at Wedbush Securities, appeared on CNN expressing concerns that reshoring jobs to the U.S. would lead to skyrocketing prices. CNN, leaning into the common narrative, implied that Trump’s strategy was based on a naive desire to return all jobs to American soil—a notion that seems unrealistic and easy to ridicule.
But that’s where the narrative begins to fracture from reality.
At the core of Trump’s tariff policy was not a promise to bring back every job, but rather a push to level the playing field through reciprocal tariffs. The idea wasn’t to isolate America but to make global trade fairer—to encourage production at home without fully rejecting globalization. Anyone familiar with Trump’s playbook, particularly The Art of the Deal, understands that many of his bold public declarations are negotiation tactics, not final policy blueprints.
The Media’s Misinterpretation: All Jobs or Just a Seat at the Table?
CNN and other mainstream outlets often frame Trump’s tariffs as isolationist and economically regressive, but the actual execution suggests otherwise. Trump’s move to threaten Canada with tariffs, for instance, wasn’t about punishing Canada—it was about bringing them to the negotiation table. Similarly, Trump’s pressure on Mexico to control illegal immigration wasn’t just political—it was tied directly to the threat of economic tariffs.
This strategy, while aggressive, is undeniably rooted in business logic: create pressure, stir uncertainty, and force dialogue. Trump, the businessman, operates with leverage. That unpredictability—“what will he do next?”—has become a strategic tool.
Cutting Through the Red Tape: Regulation as a Weapon
Another critical element often overlooked is Trump’s simultaneous push to cut domestic regulations. While critics accused Trump of trying to bring low-wage manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., the real strategy was more nuanced. Trump’s deregulation efforts made it more attractive to keep capital in the U.S., even if certain jobs remained offshore.
Think of it this way: sure, companies might still outsource low-wage labor, but if the capital returns to America—thanks to a friendlier regulatory and tax environment—that capital can be reinvested in infrastructure, innovation, and business development. In contrast, countries like China, with increasingly complex regulations and political instability, have made themselves less appealing for capital retention.
America vs. Itself: The Leftist Regulatory Squeeze
Ironically, the biggest threat to American competitiveness may not be foreign nations—but internal policy choices. While Trump slashed regulations at the federal level to stimulate investment, many left-leaning states doubled down on restrictive policies, making it harder for businesses to grow or stay. In some cases, the regulatory environment in parts of the U.S. has become just as hostile—if not worse—than China’s infamous red tape.
This is why Trump’s approach, while flawed, has resonated with many business owners and working-class Americans. He’s not promising the impossible—he’s shifting the strategy. He’s saying: you can’t bring everything back, but you can build a system where American businesses aren’t at a disadvantage.
Greenback Leverage and the Future of Reshoring
One overlooked element is U.S. dollar dominance—the “Greenback leverage.” With global capital still heavily dependent on the U.S. dollar, Trump’s administration wielded this influence as part of the larger tariff and trade conversation. A reshoring strategy backed by a strong dollar, tax cuts, and deregulation made the U.S. a safer, more attractive place for money—even if some jobs stayed abroad.
That’s the broader picture. Not isolation. Not a fantasy of bringing every factory job back. But an economic chess game where America uses its assets—leverage, capital, unpredictability, and regulatory policy—to compete in a ruthless global market.
Final Thoughts
Is Trump’s approach perfect? No. But in politics and economics, perfection isn’t the point—strategy is. And whether or not you support the man, the moves he made reflect a mindset of competition, leverage, and negotiation—not blind nationalism.
If we want to have an honest conversation about America’s future, we need to stop reducing complex economic strategies to talking points. It’s not about bringing every job back. It’s about making sure America stays in the game—and ideally, wins.
