We asked the Design News audience last month to complete our poll, “Which US presidential candidate do you think would be better for US manufacturing?”

The results are in with 223 votes—70% of respondents voted for Donald Trump and 30% for Kamala Harris.

Commenters were evenly split, however.

“Good to see Trump winning this poll,” wrote William McFadden. “We need a leader with an America First mentality to strengthen our manufacturing base and rebuild our supply chain in critical areas.”

Added James Dillow: “Trump had the country rolling before covid! We need to get back to that.”

Luther Hendrix, however, wrote that it is “shocking that anyone would think that Trump would be better for manufacturing in the US, let alone 70%.” 

And Ed LLorca wrote: “Mind boggling results. Trump promised a Foxcon [sic] facility with great fanfare. Never happened. Who is building on that site? Biden, along with other factories in AZ and elsewhere.”

What do Harris & Trump say about manufacturing?

Much of Trump’s promises for manufacturers involve lowering taxes and increasing tariffs. When speaking at contract manufacturer and metal fabricator Dane Manufacturing in Waunakee, WI, on October 1, Trump said that “in my next term we will give you massive tax cuts for workers, families, and small businesses.” He said that during his presidency, he “cut business taxes down from 39% to 21% . . . and now we’ll cut it down to 15% but only if you make your product in Wisconsin, only if you make your product in America.

Related:Which US Presidential Candidate Would Be Better for US Manufacturing?

“And if they don’t make their product here, they will pay a tariff,” Trump continued. “We are going to use the power of the tariff so that when you open your factory and you start producing and you have your low tax, China and various other countries don’t come in and steal your business from you like they did prior to Trump.”

He also said that “starting on day one we will end inflation and make America affordable again. . . . we are going to start with energy.” 

The Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign’s manufacturing policies are outlined in “A New Way Forward for the Middle Class.” The campaign points to the investments made during the Joe Biden/Harris administration to invest in American manufacturing through “the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the American Rescue Plan.” A Harris/Walz administration would continue such investment in its America Forward Strategy that would focus on “investing in emerging technologies” such as  “biomanufacturing, AI, aerospace, data centers, and clean energy” and “modernizing traditional industries” such as “clean iron and steel.” 

Related:Promises Made to American Industry Workers on the 2024 RNC Stage

In addition, Harris/Walz’s plans include a “tax credit” that would be “targeted at investment and job creation in key strategic industries.” For instance, these tax credits would “reward companies that engage with industry, workers, unions, and communities to protect jobs, including in light of increasing automation, as well as companies that develop plans to hire existing workers at comparable wages.”

What do manufacturers say about Harris and Trump?

To get manufacturers’ feedback, we reached out to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to ask whether the association has any predictions on how either potential presidency could impact US manufacturing. We haven’t heard back yet, but we’ll share any comments as soon as we do.

In the meantime, we noticed that NAM does state that “we must reform our regulatory system so that manufacturers are not exhausting time and resources to comply with inefficient, duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome regulations.” So, how do the candidates stand on deregulation? Trump did seek deregulation during his administration, and he now promises to terminate what he calls “the green new scam” and deliver "low regulations." Harris does promote a federal ban on price gauging, and some expect her administration to continue a stance against deregulation. However, her campaign does state it will cut “red tape so that clean energy projects are completed quickly and efficiently in a manner that protects our environment and public health.”

Related:Biden Touts Reshoring at DNC

NAM also advocates continuing “pro-growth tax policies from the 2017 tax reforms,” which are set to expire at the end of 2025. NAM also promotes keeping the pass-through deduction. As stated above, Trump does seek additional tax reduction. Harris’s campaign states that they will “roll back Trump’s tax cuts for the richest Americans and implement commonsense tax reforms for corporations and the very wealthy.” Harris/Walz’s admin would “raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent,” but the campaign points out that that rate is “still well below the rate that was in place before the Trump tax cuts under both Democratic and Republican presidents.” More predictions are available on the tax implications of a Harris/Walz administration and a Trump/J.D. Vance administration. 

NAM appears to support a varied approach to energy. It states that “with a renewed commitment to increasing domestic energy production and delivery, to focusing on critical mineral and material supply chains, and to advancing new technologies, the United States can continue to lead the world for decades to come.” Both candidates do support more domestic energy production. When it comes to new energy technologies, however, Trump criticizes what he calls the “green new scam,” whereas Harris seeks to “unlock upgrades, efficiencies, and faster construction of a lower-cost and more resilient electrical grid to speed up deployment of cutting-edge technologies that are critical to producing and distributing more energy, providing resilience to climate disasters, and bringing down costs.”

What about manufacturing jobs?

According to a candidate comparison by the “It’s Better in a Union” site paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education Treasury Fund, “manufacturing jobs did not grow while President Trump was in office.” However, “since the Biden-Harris administration took office, the U.S. economy has added nearly 16 million jobs—including nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs.” 

In July, the UAW International Executive Board “voted to endorse Kamala Harris for President of the United States,” UAW released. “Her historic candidacy builds on the Biden-Harris administration’s proven track record of standing with the UAW and delivering major gains for the working class.”

In September, the Teamsters announced that it has no endorsement for US president in the 2024 election, citing “no definitive support among members for either party’s nominee.” It explained further that while “independent electronic and phone polling from July-September" found "a majority of voting members twice selected Trump for a possible Teamsters endorsement over Harris,” . . . the “union’s extensive member polling showed no majority support for Vice President Harris and no universal support among the membership for President Trump.”

Does history suggest a clear winner on manufacturing?

In reviewing the past Trump and Biden administrations, FactCheck.org concluded that “the reality is that the manufacturing report cards for the Trump and Biden administrations are mixed.”

Check out the site’s “Trump vs. Harris on U.S. Manufacturing” for details on these past admins and a comparison of Trump and Harris’s policies for manufacturing.