Behind the Label: How the FTC’s ‘Made in USA’ Crackdown Is Reshaping Trust in American Brands

A few months ago, while searching for a birthday gift for a friend, I thought I’d struck gold with a coffee mug stamped “Made in USA.” Imagine my embarrassment when, after some digging (and a slightly suspicious price tag), I discovered it was Made in China.

Turns out, I’m far from alone: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is getting tough on companies faking their “Made in USA” claims, disrupting not just shoppers’ trust but the entire marketplace. Let’s dig into why this crackdown is a big deal for brands and buyers, and how you (and I) can avoid being duped again.

TL;DR: The FTC’s push for honest ‘Made in USA’ labeling means bigger consequences for cheats—and more chances for authentic American brands to shine. Seek out transparency, ask questions, and support the makers who truly keep it local. Read more

What Does “Made in the USA” Really Mean? The Heart, Soul, and Future of American Manufacturing

Why “Made in the USA” Still Matters

For generations, the label “Made in the USA” has stood as a symbol of quality, patriotism, and economic strength. In today’s globalized economy, the significance of American manufacturing has evolved but remains more crucial than ever. As reshoring/insourcing and buying local gain traction, consumers, businesses, and policymakers are revisiting what it means to support American-made goods.

Read more

Super Bowl Sunday: 45 Fun Facts Including Some Made in USA Brands

Kubota Slapped With Historic Penalty for False 'Made in USA' Claims

In recent times, Kubota North America Corporation, a prominent player in the tractor and heavy equipment manufacturing industry, has been handed a hefty $2 million civil penalty by the Department of Justice. This penalty, the result of a legal wrangle involving allegations of misrepresenting the origins of replacement parts, has been dictated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC claims that Kubota has breached the Made in USA labeling rule, asserting that the company failed to amend product labels to denote the true origins of parts accurately. This instance is not the first of its kind, as it echoes a similar violation by a Kubota subsidiary in 1999.

It’s critical to note that Kubota is displaying an active commitment to resolving these issues, cooperating fully with the U.S. government and putting into place improved labeling accuracy measures. Such an unprecedented case brings into question the broader implications for other manufacturers and the enforcement of the Made in USA Labeling Rule.

Read more

What does “MADE IN USA” mean?

There is so much discussion these days around the MADE IN USA label.  What does it take to use the label “Made in USA” and can you trust it when you see it? 

This article will tell you everything you need to know.

Read more

Know The Difference Between Made in USA and Assembled in USA

Made in USA. Three little words with a not-so-little impact! Read more

How You Can Make ‘Made in America’ Cool Again

In a world where products from every corner of the globe flood our markets, the allure of locally made items, specifically ‘Made in America,’ is experiencing a resurgence. The charm of homegrown craftsmanship, the reassurance of quality, and the boost to our economy are some compelling reasons to rekindle our love affair with products made on American soil.

This blog aims to spark a conversation on the significance of supporting local businesses and how we can make ‘Made in America’ cool again. Let’s delve into this exciting journey of rediscovering and redefining American coolness!

Read more

Why It’s Time to Bring Manufacturing Back Home to the U.S.A.

In the last decade, we’ve lost millions of manufacturing jobs to outsourcing. According to U.S. News and World Report, there are now 5.1 million fewer American manufacturing jobs than in 2001. The lure of low wages, tax advantages, and other cost savings has made for a seemingly straightforward calculus, and manufacturer after manufacturer, supported by intricate spreadsheets, has abandoned ship until offshoring has become the emerging mantra of the new millennium. U.S. companies that still manufacture locally have slowly become outliers.

Read more

Meet Harvest Array – An Online Marketplace Focused on Selling Products Made in USA

harvest array, selling products made in usa, american made, american made online marketplace, made in usa, products made in usa, who sells american made jelly, what is american made, american manufacturing

We recently spoke with Randy Kreider, owner of Harvest Array, an online marketplace dedicated to selling Made in the USA products.

Harvest Array started as an idea. They had an idea and worked tirelessly to bring it to life, all while staying committed to a very special mission—promoting products with a country of origin of “Made in USA.”

Their business has caught the attention of many, and we are fortunate to have them as part of the MAM Family.

In this article, we will explore the tale of our newest MAM member, tracing their path from a simple idea to a thriving business that focuses on American-made products. We will uncover the challenges they encountered along the way, their strategies to overcome obstacles, and the invaluable lessons they learned throughout their entrepreneurial journey.

Prepare to be inspired by their unwavering dedication, creative problem-solving, and passion for every American-made product they offer. Through their story, we aim to instill a sense of pride in supporting products with the “Made in USA” label.

Read more

Becoming a Lean Enterprise is Critical to Rebuilding American Manufacturing

When I wrote the chapter on what manufacturers can do to save themselves for my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can, published in 2009, one of my top recommendations was to begin the Lean journey to become a Lean manufacturer.

Read more

Inventors’ Rights Must Be Restored

Ever since the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was passed in 2011, there have been bills introduced in Congress with the purported purpose of restoring inventors’ rights and fixing some of the problems generated by that Act. None of these bills were passed by both the House and Senate, and most didn’t even get out of committee for a vote. A few of these bills would have actually made matters worse, so it was a good thing they didn’t pass.

Besides changing our patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file,” the “America Invents Act” also created the Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB) which has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights.  According to the U S Inventors end of the year report, “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has canceled claims in 84% of the 2,500+ patents reviewed since 2011 and most inventors do not have a half a million dollars necessary to fund a legal defense.”

Read more

Industrial Policy Must Protect American Manufacturers

On November 29, 2021, the Peterson Institute for International Economics released a 110-page brief, titled “Scoring 50 Years of  US Industrial Policy,  1970–2020,” which reviews “lessons learned from half a century of US industrial policy” with regard to what worked and what didn’t.   

Read more

China is a Threat to our National Security

On November 17, 2021, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a virtual public release of its 2021 Annual Report to Congress in Washington, DC.  This report provides “a review of economics, trade, security, political, and foreign affairs developments in 2021” with a focus on the “CCP’s economic and technological ambitions, the Chinese government’s evolving control of the corporate sector, U.S.-China financial connectivity and risks to U.S. national security, China’s nuclear forces, Chinese military capabilities and decision-making for a war over Taiwan…”

Read more

Buy Less and Buy American for the Holidays and Beyond

Americans already feel the effects of supply chain shortages even before the traditional holiday shopping season starts on Back Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. Ads by retailers are advising consumers to do their holiday shopping early to avoid not being able to get the items they want to give as presents. Even if you buy early, holiday shopping won’t be easy this year. Since the supply chain shortage is predicted to last well into next year, the solution is to buy less and buy American.

Read more

American Manufacturers and Consumers Fund Chinese Military Buildup

Major retailers and thousands of small businesses face a bleak holiday season without Chinese goods to sell because of the long lineup of container ships from China waiting to enter major ports to offload their cargo.

It seems like Americans have to learn lessons the hard way. During the early stage of the COVID pandemic, there was a serious shortage of masks, ventilators, and other PPE equipment and supplies because we had become dependent on China for these goods. Now, American consumers are experiencing shortages in common consumer products at retail stores, and manufacturers are facing long lead times for components, ICs (chips), and other parts and assemblies. These shortages are projected to get worse before they improve sometime in 2022.

Read more

COOL Online Act Benefits Consumers Better thn Shop Safe Act

As more and more American consumers turn to buying products online instead of in person at brick-and-mortar stores, they become increasingly vulnerable to counterfeit goods and are unable to determine where the products have been made. Country of Origin information is missing from the major online platforms so consumers are unable to fellow Americans by choosing to “Buy American” for products sold online. Without knowing Country of Origin, they are not able to boycott buying products made in China by slave labor or protest the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs by the Chinese government.

Read more

South Carolina Inventors Forum Founder Devoted to Helping Inventors

When my first book, Can American Manufacturing Be Saved? Why We Should and How We can was published in May 2009, I introduced it as a speaker at the Del Mar Electronics & Design Show in San Diego, CA and displayed it at my company’s booth. One of the persons who stopped by and bought my book was Adrian Pelkus, President of A Squared Technologies, Inc. and leader of a group called the San Diego Inventors Forum. Adrian invited me to the next meeting of the group and I accepted his invitation. Since June 2009, I have regularly attended SDIF meetings and became a board member when it was formally incorporated in 2014. Our meetings provide information that helps inventors take a product from design concept, fundraising, producing, and successfully marketing the product. I give an annual presentation titled “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for Your Product” and we hold an annual inventors contest with cash prizes. We haven’t held in-person meetings since the COVID pandemic shutdown started in March 2020, but will start meeting again this fall.

Read more

U S.Inventors Continue Fight to Restore Patent Rights

September 16, 2021 marks the 10th anniversary of the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Decade of Stolen Dreams Inventor Rally organized by US Inventor, Inc., a non-profit association of inventors devoted to protecting the intellectual property of individuals and small companies. It represents its 13,000 inventor and small business members by promoting strong intellectual property rights and a predictable U.S. patent system through education, advocacy and reform.

Read more

USITC Report Reveals Only Small Positive Effect from Trade Agreements

On June 29, 2021, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) released a report on the economic impact of the many bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements that the U.S has signed since 1984. These include NAFTA, that went into effect in 1994, the multilateral trade deal that created the World Trade Organization in 1995, as well as bilateral trade agreements such as KORUS (Korea-U. S). It also examined the one-year-old U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement, which replaced the original NAFTA. However, it did not examine the effects of the agreement struck by the United States to pave the way for China to enter the WTO in 2001.

Read more

How Technology & Currency Policy Contribute to ‘Build Back Better’

The panels on the third day (March 25th) of the virtual CPA conference highlighted how the technology industry contributes to national security and the economy as well as how a currency policy would contribute to President Biden’s “Build Back Better” industrial strategy.

Read more

Second Day of CPA Conference Focuses on Tax Reform

The second day of the CPA virtual conference held March 23-27th featured two panels:

  • the first on the topic of “Reforming Corporate Taxation to Help Reshore Our Industries,” and
  • the second on ”Buy American.”

In the first panel, the focus was on whether or not additional tax reform is needed by Congress to make sure that tax loopholes that currently favor multinational corporations over domestic companies will be closed.

Read more

CPA Annual Trade Conference was a Virtual Success

The Coalition for a Prosperous America held its annual trade conference virtually for the first time on March 23 – 26, 2021. I had the pleasure of attending the annual trade conference in person six years in a row when it was held in Washington, D. C., but last year’s conference had to be canceled on short notice because of COVID shutdowns. This year’s virtual conference was free to all CPA members and the program ran from 11 AM – 4 PM ET each day. The conference was a huge success because of the valuable content of the sessions, lack of technical glitches, and Melissa Tallman’s hard work.

Read more

Curtis Ellis Loses Battle with Cancer

On Sunday evening, February 14th, Curtis Ellis passed away from a long struggle with bladder cancer at the age of 67. Curtis was a true patriot and defender of liberty, who believed in all of the greatness our country and devoted much of his life to putting American first in economic policies to benefit American workers and not just Wall Street. Curtis’ career included work as a campaign manager for state and federal elections, working for Congress as a media liaison for the New York State Senate Central Staff and held a senior staff position in the U.S. House of Representatives. He had decades of experience as a journalist, producer, writer and reporter for the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Time magazine and other outlets, such as HuffPost and World Net Daily. He appeared on 60 Minutes, HBO, NBC, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Fox Business and Fox News, as well as national and regional radio shows.

Read more

American Manufacturers Require Cheap Available Energy to be Competitive

On his very first day in office, President Biden signed an Executive Order canceling the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Halting work on the “pipeline in South Dakota immediately eliminated 1,000 union jobs. TC Energy, the company that was developing the project, predicts that more than 10,000 jobs will be lost in 2021 due to the order.” Only a week later, he signed an Executive Order freezing new oil or natural gas leases and drilling permits on federal land. These orders put American energy independence at risk, which will hurt American manufacturers.

Read more

It’s Time to End China’s Most Favored Nation Status

China was granted Most Favored Nation status through presidential proclamation on an annual basis from 1980 – 1998. This was because the Trade Act of 1974 stated that “MFN status may not be conferred on a country with a nonmarket economy if that country maintains restrictive emigration policies” China was, and still is, a nonmarket economy and restricted emigration, but the Act allowed the president to “waive this prohibition on an annual basis if he certifies that granting MFN status would promote freedom of emigration in that country.”

According to CRS Report 98-603 for Congress, “China’s Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Status: Congressional Consideration, 1989-1998:” After the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, there was enough opposition to granting MFN status to China that the “House passed joint resolutions disapproving MFN for China in both 1991 and 1992,” but the Senate didn’t pass the joint resolution. However, the real focus of the debate was not whether to deny MFN status for China altogether, but whether or not to “place new human rights conditions on China’s MFN eligibility.” Congress passed legislation in 1991 and 1992 that would have placed further conditions on China’s MFN status, but President Bush vetoed the legislation.

In 1993, President Clinton announced he would link China’s MFN status to human rights progress beginning in 1994. However, President Clinton reneged on his campaign promise and reversed himself:On June 2, 1995, President Clinton transmitted to Congress his intention to waive the emigration prohibition and extend MFN status to the People’s Republic of China for an additional year, beginning July 3, 1995.”

An L.A. Times article of May 27, 1994, reported: “President Clinton, abandoning a central foreign policy principle of his Administration, announced Thursday that he has decided to “de-link” China’s privileged trading status from its human rights record. While acknowledging that China “continues to commit very serious human rights abuses,” Clinton said that he has come to believe that broader American strategic interests justify the policy reversal.”

The annual granting of MFN status to China by a presidential waiver continued through 1998. Note that “On July 22, 1998, legislation was enacted which replaced the term “most-favored-nation” in certain U.S. statutes with the term “normal trade relations.” This made it easier for Congress to make the fateful decision to extend “permanent normal trade relations,” or PNTR, to China when the Senate voted to give China permanent most-favored-nation status on September 19, 2000. This vote paved the way for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization.

As Reihan Salam, President of the Manhattan Institute wrote in an article titled

“Normalizing Trade Relations With China Was a Mistake,” in the June 8, 2018 issue of The Atlantic, “PNTR was a euphemism designed to get around the fact that the traditional term for “normal trade relations” was “most-favored-nation” (MFN) tariff status…MFN status meant imports would be treated as favorably as those arriving from “the most favored nation.” Absurd as it might sound, this linguistic convention had meaningful political consequences. To argue that we ought to have normal trade relations with China was one thing. Sure, why not? To make the case that China ought to be treated as our most favored nation was a more vexing PR challenge, not least in the wake of the brutal crackdown that followed the Tienanmen Square protests in 1989.”

An article in the American Economic Review, “The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing Employment,” by Justin R. Pierce and Peter K. Schott, July 7, 2016, states:

“The permanence of PNTR status made an enormous difference: Without PNTR, there was always a danger that China’s favorable access to the U.S. market would be revoked, which in turn deterred U.S. firms from increasing their reliance on Chinese suppliers. With PNTR in hand, the floodgates of investment were opened, and U.S. multinationals worked hand-in-glove with Beijing to create new China-centric supply chains.” https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20131578

This change in U.S. trade policy that eliminated potential tariff increases on Chinese imports resulted in industries that were more vulnerable to the change experiencing greater employment loss, increased imports from China, and higher entry into the U.S. market by U.S. importers and foreign-owned Chinese exporters. My three books and the hundreds of articles I’ve written since 2009 have described what has happened to U.S. manufacturing since 2001. Besides the loss of 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and the closure of an estimated 67,000 American manufacturers, American manufacturing shifted toward more high-tech, less labor-intensive production. However, as China upgraded their technology in the past few years, we started losing our high-tech manufacturing also.

In addition to the annual reports to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission documenting China’s violation of World Trade Organization rules along with human rights violations, the U.S. Department of State submits an annual report on International Religious Freedom in accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. According to the 2018 International Religious Freedom Report :

“Multiple media and NGOs estimated the government detained at least 800,000 and up to possibly more than 2 million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and members of other Muslim groups, mostly Chinese citizens, in specially built or converted detention facilities in Xinjiang and subjected them to forced disappearance, torture, physical abuse, and prolonged detention without trial because of their religion and ethnicity since April 2017.  There were reports of deaths among detainees.  Authorities maintained extensive and invasive security and surveillance, in part to gain information regarding individuals’ religious adherence and practices.” 

America vs China

Therefore, it gave me great pleasure when I read that on September 17, 2020, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced a bill (S.4609) that “would strip China of its permanent most-favored-nation status—also known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations—a designation it has held for the last twenty years. If passed, the legislation would make extending most-favored-nation status to China an annual decision for Congress and the president.”

Cotton said, “Twenty years ago this week, the Senate gave a gift to the Chinese Communist Party by granting it permanent most-favored-nation status. That disastrous decision made the Party richer, but cost millions of American jobs. It’s time to protect American workers and take back our leverage over Beijing by withdrawing China’s permanent trade status.”

Senator Cotton’s press release states:

“The China Trade Relations Act would revoke China’s permanent most-favored-nation status and return to the pre-2001 status quo, whereby China’s MFN status must be renewed each year by presidential decision. Congress could override the president’s extension of MFN by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.

The bill also would expand the list of human-rights and trade abuses under the Jackson-Vanik Amendment that would disqualify China for MFN status, absent a presidential waiver. The abuses that would make China ineligible for MFN status, absent a presidential waiver, are as follows:

  • Uses or provides for the use of slave labor;
  • Operates ‘vocational training and education centers’ or other concentration camps where people are held against their will;
  • Performs or otherwise orders forced abortion or sterilization procedures;
  • Harvests the organs of prisoners without their consent;
  • Hinders the free exercise of religion;
  • Intimidates or harasses nationals of the People’s Republic of China living outside the People’s Republic of China; or
  • Engages in systematic economic espionage against the United States, including theft of the intellectual property of United States persons”

China’s strategic goal is to dominate the sectors of economic growth that historically have held the key to world power: transportation energy, information, and manufacturing. Their “Made in China 2025” plan is designed to dominate key technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonic missiles, and 5G. They also plan to become the dominant power in space by 2049.

If this bill isn’t passed in the Lame Duck session, I strongly urge that it be reintroduced into the next Congress and passed unanimously next year. It’s time China for us to stop treating China as a friend and recognize China as the enemy to our national sovereignty it is.

U.S. Must Face up to the China Threat

Over the past ten years that I have been writing blog articles, one of my reoccurring themes has been the danger posed to the U.S. by China because of their predatory mercantilism through product dumping, currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and government subsidies. More recently, I have written about China’s written plan to become the superpower of the 21st Century through a combination of economic coercion, industrial espionage, and the buildup of their military.

Read more

Market Access Charge Would Eliminate Trade Deficit & Increase GDP

In July 2017, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released a paper titled, “The Threat of U.S. Dollar Overvaluation: How to Calculate True Exchange Rate Misalignment & How to Fix It” by Michael Stumo (CEO), Jeff Ferry (Research Director) and Dr. John R. Hansen, a 30-year veteran of the World Bank and Advisory Board member.

The purpose of the paper is to explain the problem of the dollar overvaluation, to show how to accurately calculate the dollar’s misalignment against trading partner currencies, and to propose a solution this serious threat to America’s future. At the time, the dollar was overvalued by 25.5% compared to other major currencies.

The solution developed by Dr. Hansen is a Market Access Charge (MAC) “as a system to discourage overseas private investors and return-sensitive official investors such as sovereign wealth fund managers from excessive speculation and trading in U.S. dollar assets.” He believed that the MAC would reduce “the incentive for foreigners to invest in dollars, gradually and safely reduce its overvaluation, benefiting the U.S. economy and restoring control over our own currency.”

In February 2019, CPA released the working paper, “Quantifying Economic Growth and Job Creation from a competitive Dollar,” showing that a 27 percent realignment in the trade weighted US dollar exchange rate over five years would eliminate the US trade deficit, result in an additional $1 trillion in GDP and create 5.2 million new jobs.

The MAC was proposed in a Senate bill introduced in July 2019, S.2357, titled the “Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act.” It was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), and is languishing in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

On October 5, 2020, CPA released a working paper, “Modeling the Effect of the Market Access Charge on Exchange Rates, Interest Rates and the US Economy,” by Steven L Byers, PhD. and Jeff Ferry.

In Section 1, The Relationship Between International Capital Flows and the Exchange Rate, the authors state that

The standard open-economy macroeconomic models predict that under a floating exchange rate regime, when a country runs a trade deficit/surplus, the exchange rate will adjust to eliminate the imbalance. However, exchange rates have not adjusted and imbalances have persisted. The US trade and current account deficits have continued to run at some 2%-3% of US GDP for decades (Figure 1), suggesting that other forces are preventing the deficits from correcting themselves.”

The authors go into detailed economic models that establish the relationship between equity inflows and the currency dollar exchange rate.

In Section 2, The MAC, Capital Flows and the Dollar Exchange Rate, the authors examined how a charge on capital inflows is likely to impact inflows and the exchange rate, focusing on the Market Access Charge (MAC) discussed above. The authors state:

“The MAC would be a one-time fee paid on the purchase of any U.S. dollar financial asset by a foreign entity or individual. The MAC is designed to moderate foreign demand for dollar assets and realign the US dollar exchange rate to a trade-balancing level. The Baldwin-Hawley bill specifies that the Federal Reserve Board would set and manage the MAC to achieve current account balance within a five-year time horizon. Once balance was achieved, the Fed would manage the MAC to keep the US economy close to current account balance over time. “The Baldwin-Hawley bill specifies that the Federal Reserve Board would set and manage the MAC to achieve current account balance within a five-year time horizon. Once balance was achieved, the Fed would manage the MAC to keep the US economy close to current account balance over time.”

This section covers detailed economic models on how the MAC would affect different kinds of equity flows, such as bonds, Treasury notes

In Section 3, How the MAC Impacts Interest Rates, the authors “sought to estimate the impact of the MAC on the financial sector with a focus upon interest rates and government debt service costs.” They investigated and modeled the effect of a 1%, 3%, and 5% MAC on the nominal exchange rate, 10-year interest rates, and interest rate on outstanding Federal debt.

With regard to revenue the MAC would generate for the US Treasury, the authors comment,

“Though the MAC would reduce capital inflows significantly, our model suggests that even with a 5% MAC, gross equity inflows would continue at a rate in excess of $3 trillion a quarter, with inflows into debt securities at similar levels. MAC transaction fees, paid by foreign purchasers of US securities, would provide a large new source of revenue to the US Treasury. Table 4 shows that these revenues could reach $672 billion, equivalent to 19% of last year’s total federal tax revenue.”

In Section 4, Effects on the Economy, the authors state:

“…US producers of goods and services would gain market share in the US market and export markets. Our model estimates the impact of increased domestic production over the five-year period on US GDP and employment. In the case of a 5% MAC, the dollar’s exchange value would fall by 27…the more competitive dollar would balance trade, increasing exports by $765 billion or 29.5% over the baseline, and reducing imports by $167 billion (5.1%). The fall in imports is modest because while imports lose share in the domestic market, the rise in economic growth from the more competitive exchange rate boosts GDP, which leads to higher imports. But trade would be balanced. The GDP would rise by $1.01 trillion or 4.6%. Compared to the baseline forecast, the economy would create 4.9 million new jobs by 2025… the new jobs would be weighted towards internationally competitive sectors, notably manufacturing and natural resources, which offer higher pay (and often better benefit packages) than the average US job.”

The authors conclude that “The model shows large benefits to the US economy and the US Treasury. Further study is warranted and should be pursued.”

I would go one step further and say that the Baldwin-Hawley “Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act.” (S. 2357) should be released out of committee as soon as possible to be debated and then passed in the full session of the Senate. Reducing our trade deficit, increasing our GDP, and creating more higher-paying manufacturing jobs are important actions to be taken to create prosperity in America.

How has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected U.S. Manufacturing

How much the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic has had on manufacturing depends on the state in which a manufacturer is located and what is the industry of the manufacturer.

Read more

U.S. Must Stop Trafficking of Counterfeit & Pirated Goods

One of the dangers of reliance on foreign manufacturers is the increase of U.S. vulnerability to receiving counterfeit goods.  Over the last ten years, there have been several reports prepared to determine the extent of the infiltration of counterfeits into U.S. defense and industrial supply chains, to provide an understanding of industry and government practices that contribute to the problem, and to identify best practices and recommendations for handling and preventing counterfeit electronics.

Read more

Can you tell if an item is Made in USA from the UPC barcode?

The UPC barcode myth for Country of Origin

Can you tell if an item is Made in USA from the UPC barcode?

No. It is FALSE that you can see where a product was manufactured from the barcode.

We’ll show you why it is false below. 

Read more