Trump and Harris both desire a manufacturing boom. They have very different plans for doing it.

In the final weeks of the campaign, former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have sought to best each other on the all-significant issue of the economy, which many voters rank as their top concern.

Both candidates have made manufacturing a centerpiece of their plans, but their respective approaches characteristic stark differences.

Harris aims to close corporate levy loopholes and throw government back behind the production of critical goods. By contrast, Trump wants to protect domestic manufacturers with tariffs on foreign products while cutting corporate taxes and easing regulations.

Manufacturing accounts for about 10% of U.S. gross domestic product and an even smaller distribute of the country’s jobs. But the sector bears outsized importance since the production of essential goods holds national safety implications and many manufacturing workers live in key swing states, experts said.

“There’s a conviction that manufacturing is special,” Mary Lovely, a elder fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who studies trade policy, told ABC information.

Here’s what to recognize about where Harris and Trump stand on manufacturing, and what experts ponder of their respective plans:

Trump: Tariffs and corporate levy cuts

On the campaign trail, Trump talks about tariffs more than just about any other policy proposal. The levy on imports makes up a key part of his schedule for revitalizing manufacturing, alongside a lower levy burden for companies that he says would boost production and hiring.

Trump has promised a sharp escalation of tariffs enacted during his first term. Trump has proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods. A set of far-reaching tariffs would also include a levy as high as 20% on all imported products.

In hypothesis, a levy on imports would provide domestic producers a leg up in competition with foreign manufacturers, Christopher Conlon, a professor of economics at recent York University who studies trade, told ABC information.

“His schedule is based on the concept that foreign competitors are pricing their products too low and what we require to do is erect a wall of tariff barriers around the U.S.,” Conlon told ABC information.

An escalation of tariffs could expand sure areas of U.S. manufacturing vulnerable to foreign competition, which could outcome in added jobs at companies protected by the policy, experts said.

The economy added manufacturing over the first few years of his presidency, though the pandemic wiped out much of those gains.

Experts cautioned about a spike in input costs and customer prices that could complete up hindering many manufacturers and hammering household budgets. Evidence indicates that the Trump levy cut did not provide a significant boost for the economy, they added.

U.S. manufacturers of sophisticated products like automobiles and advanced medical equipment often import raw materials. A tariff would likely raise costs for those companies and uncertainty making them less competitive on the global trade, Conlon said. While adding jobs at some manufacturers, the policy could factor layoffs at others.

“Nobody seems to have shared that wisdom with the Trump campaign,” Conlon said.

A similar factor and result applies to prices paid by everyday people for imported goods at the grocery or department store. Broad tariffs on foreign goods would likely force importing companies to raise prices and reignite worth rise, experts said.

In a statement to ABC information, the Trump campaign said its manufacturing schedule would make jobs and cut taxes.

“President Trump is a businessman who built the greatest economy in American history, and certainly doesn’t require economics lessons from a professor who has never created jobs or built anything in his life,” Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said.

“President Trump successfully imposed tariffs on China in his first term AND cut taxes for hardworking Americans here at home — and he will do it again in his second term. President Trump’s schedule will outcome in millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars returning home from China to America,” the statement added in part.

Harris: Close levy loopholes and provide government back

Harris has proposed a different way to manufacturing that emphasizes closing levy loopholes for some large corporations and providing government back for high-priority areas within the sector.

The agenda carries over a key part of the way undertaken by the Biden administration, which invested billions into manufacturing through a series of measures concentrated on bolstering key industries.

The worth rise Reduction Act spent hundreds of millions of dollars to boost U.S. production of renewables as the country pursues ambitious carbon emissions goals and a supply chain less dependent on China. While the CHIPS and Sciences Act infused tens of billions into the production of semiconductors.

“The Biden administration has picked sectors, and in those sectors companies are eligible for assistance,” said Lovely.

Last week, Harris put forward a schedule calling for $100 billion pool in manufacturing to further bolster the sector. The policy would prioritize “industries of the upcoming,” such as carbon-efficient steel production and data centers for artificial intelligence, the campaign said in a statement last week.

The Harris campaign said it aims to pay for the pool with a reform of the international levy code that prevents producers from skirting U.S. taxes in a “race to the bottom.”

“The facts are obvious: When he was president, Trump lost nearly 200,000 manufacturing jobs and created recent incentives for companies to ship American jobs to China. Economists alert if Trump takes power again, his policies will crush American manufacturing jobs, send even more jobs to China, and expense middle class families $4,000 a year. This is a fundamental contrast with Vice President Harris, who is leading an American manufacturing boom – creating jobs correct here at home and outcompeting China,” Harris campaign spokesperson Joseph Costello said in a statement to ABC information.

It remains ambiguous whether the back for manufacturing provided by the Biden administration has yielded significant gains in output or jobs, experts said.

The measures, however, have elicited a burst of factory construction. Spending on manufacturing-related construction surged from $76.4 billion in January 2021 to $238.2 billion in August 2024, U.S. Census Bureau data showed.

The surge in construction marks a positive signal but the critical test will be whether the plants deliver powerful output and well-paying, long-term jobs, said Conlon.

“We haven’t had enough period to view if there’s a real result or not,” he added. “How many chips are getting built by these plants? We don’t recognize that yet.”