Missing the Mark: Trump Investments Not Likely to Help Those Most in Need
from RealEcon and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
from RealEcon and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Missing the Mark: Trump Investments Not Likely to Help Those Most in Need

Chairman and CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA), Chief Operating Officer of Blackstone Jon Gray, Alphabet & Google President and Chief Investment Officer Ruth Porat and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp
Chairman and CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA), Chief Operating Officer of Blackstone Jon Gray, Alphabet & Google President and Chief Investment Officer Ruth Porat and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp REUTERS/Nathan Howard

The Trump administration says its trade and investment policies are aimed to help struggling Americans. However, a preliminary look at recently announced investments shows that the administration may be missing its target.   

October 8, 2025 4:00 pm (EST)

Chairman and CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA), Chief Operating Officer of Blackstone Jon Gray, Alphabet & Google President and Chief Investment Officer Ruth Porat and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp
Chairman and CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA), Chief Operating Officer of Blackstone Jon Gray, Alphabet & Google President and Chief Investment Officer Ruth Porat and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp REUTERS/Nathan Howard
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Allison J. Smith is associate director for the RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership initiative. Madeline Burns is a former intern for the RealEcon initiative. 

Introduction

One of President Donald Trump’s stated goals for the America First Trade Policy is to increase investment and manufacturing in the United States. Large investment pledges in recent trade deals with the European Union, Japan, and South Korea underscore the administration’s ambition to stimulate inbound investment. In the first eight months of his second term, Trump has celebrated recent investment and onshoring announcements as proof that his policies are working. However, a closer look at the announcements raises doubts about whether those investments—to the extent they happen at all—will achieve the stated goal of benefiting Americans struggling economically.  

More on:

RealEcon

Trade War

Trade and Investment

Trump has touted his tariffs as drivers of trillions of dollars of investment into the U.S. economy, flows that the White House tracks on a webpage called the Trump Effect. In a July 2025 speech in Detroit, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer rattled off a few billion-dollar investments as proof that Trump’s tariffs are “bearing fruit.” On the surface, the numbers are impressive. According to fDi Intelligence, foreign investors have announced 1,289 projects in the first eight months of the second Trump administration, an approximately 17 percent increase compared to the first eight months of the Joe Biden administration. In terms of capital expenditures, pledges are up about 226 percent.

Nevertheless, other data casts doubt on the administration’s claims. Companies are pulling back on investment and expenditures in the United States. Total construction spending on manufacturing in the United States has fallen from $231 billion in January 2025 to $223 billion in July 2025. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States fell from $79.9 billion in 2024 Q4 to $52.8 billion in 2025 Q1. Although seven months of data cannot be considered conclusive, those early numbers call into question the Trump administration’s rosy portrayal of increases in inbound investment. 

The Trump administration characterizes the “surge” of manufacturing investments as bringing “factories, jobs, and prosperity back to our country like never before—delivering big wins for hardworking Americans.” A White House statement echoes that claim, declaring that as he “puts into action his bold plan to reverse the decades of globalization that has decimated our industrial base, President Trump is putting the Forgotten Men and Women of America first.”

But even if the announced investments were to materialize, it is not clear that struggling areas of the country would benefit. In fact, the prospect of surging investment raises several questions: If all the touted investments occurred as promised, where would they go? Are potential investors considering economically distressed regions? Or are they more likely to give prosperous areas additional jolts of capital and jobs?

The answers to those questions matter to Americans living in economically distressed areas, as many believe the promises of prosperity from trade and investment do not apply to them. Their perceptions have contributed to increased resentment toward global engagement and to political polarization within the country. If Trump’s characterization of foreign investment is correct, it could change those attitudes fundamentally.

More on:

RealEcon

Trade War

Trade and Investment

To help evaluate the Trump administration’s investment claims, we analyzed the purported investments listed on the White House website to determine where those investments would go, how many are in manufacturing and other industries, how many jobs they would create, and where those jobs would be located. What we found casts doubt on the administration’s claims. For one thing,  the majority of investments are targeted in areas of the United States that are already doing relatively well economically; very few are slated to go to distressed areas. For another, most jobs associated with those investments would go to parts of the country that are already doing well.

Methodology

Using the Trump Effect list (as of September 24, 2025) and fDI Intelligence’s timeline of FDI-related developments, we compiled a list of investment announcements from January 20 to September 23, 2025. Inclusion in the database is based on announcement dates regardless of how long the investments have been planned. The goal of this study is to examine the investments Trump credits to his policies without assessing whether he deserves that credit.

We used open-source data—company announcements and news articles—to fill in details on recently announced investments, including the investing company, sector, investment amount, location, and intended jobs. Most notices do not include all of this information, and gaps are noted.  

Because this study is focused on the number of times distressed communities would receive recently announced investment, we did not attempt to assess how much investment would go to a given area.

Our main database contains 268 observations, which are derived from 140 investment announcements. The number of observations is greater than the number of investments because many announcements mention more than one place; multiple investment locations mentioned within a single announcement were counted as separate observations. Of the 268 observations, 246 listed at least a state, whereas 22 observations did not name a location at all (announcements without a location were counted as one observation). Of those 246, 15 did not include a city or county (e.g., investment in the Grain Belt Express from Kansas to Indiana), and were excluded from this analysis, resulting in 231 observations with county locations. Granted, this approach leaves out important investments, such as Meta’s announced investment in rural start-ups, but a county is needed to assess the economic status of a given area.

The investments included in the database involve both U.S.-headquartered companies moving their operations from abroad to the United States (reshoring) and overseas companies investing in the United States (FDI). Around 57 percent of investors in our database are U.S.-based, and approximately 43 percent are from twenty-one other countries, including Japan (6 percent of investors in the database), the United Kingdom (4.3 percent), as well as Canada, Germany, and Switzerland (all 3.6 percent). The database does not include FDI pledges from foreign governments.

Investment announcements were mapped in the database against the Economic Innovation Group’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI), which assigns an economic classification to every county across the United States by ranking counties based on seven metrics and dividing them into five percentiles—distressed, at risk, mid-tier, comfortable, or prosperous. We chose to conduct county-level analysis because investments often affect the surrounding community (e.g., people can commute to a job from out of town). However, some granularity is lost at the county level as parts of a given county could be richer than others.

There is one final point to note: investments in an area should not be construed as automatically benefiting the local community, which depends on the investors and their business decisions (e.g., will they use the local workforce or bring in their own workers), their level of community engagement, and many other factors that this study does not assess. For example, an investor could receive a large tax break to build a local factory, costing tax revenue, and not hire local workers or invest in local infrastructure that would benefit the community. As such, there is considerable ambiguity as to the overall benefit the investments will bring to their communities.

Findings

States

As a starting point, we looked at which states were mentioned in announcements and how many times. The results indicated that announced investments are distributed across the United States, but that a majority are in the eastern and midwestern parts of the country.

Announcements in our database mention forty-two different states as locations for planned investment. The states slated to receive the highest number of investments are Pennsylvania (thirty-seven investment mentions; 15 percent), North Carolina and Texas (twenty mentions; 8 percent), California (thirteen mentions; 5 percent), Tennessee (eleven mentions; 4.5 percent), and Indiana and Ohio (ten mentions; 4 percent). Six of the top seven states listed to receive the most investments all went to Trump in the 2024 election. Pennsylvania is the largest recipient of announced investment in part because President Trump and Senator David McCormick (R-PA) convened top executives, investors, government officials, and other representatives at the Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit on July 15 in Pittsburgh, resulting in twenty investment announcements in the state.

Counties

Moving from the state to the county level, of the 231 county-level observations, ten (4 percent) of the announced investments are targeted at distressed counties; twenty-one (9 percent) at risk; forty-seven (20 percent) mid-tier; fifty-four (23 percent) comfortable; and ninety-nine (43 percent) prosperous. Over 65 percent of recently announced investments are directed toward places considered to be doing well.

We also found that the percentage of recently announced investments going to distressed counties is much lower than the percentage of the people living in those counties. In 2024, according to the Economic Innovation Group (which publishes the DCI), 15 percent of the U.S. population lived in economically distressed counties, 19 percent in at-risk counties, 19 percent in mid-tier counties, 22 percent in comfortable counties, and 25 percent in prosperous counties. Yet less than 5 percent of the announced investments are slated to go to distressed counties and over 40 percent to prosperous counties.

Jobs

Very few investment announcements include estimated job creation, likely in part because it is difficult to make such estimates or investors have not thought that far ahead. Of the 231 investments in the county subset of our database, only 68 (29 percent) estimated the number of jobs that would be created. Those announcements include promises to create 82,018 jobs.

We found that 61,064 jobs (74 percent) are intended to go to prosperous or comfortable counties, while just 13,603 (17 percent) have been promised to distressed or at-risk communities.

Even if jobs are announced in a distressed community, that does not mean the anticipated jobs will be filled by people living in those distressed areas. For example, Eaton’s $340 million investment in Jonesville, South Carolina, promises seven hundred jobs. Union County, a distressed county and home to Jonesville, had only six hundred unemployed people in 2024. The remaining jobs could potentially be filled by workers in surrounding prosperous or comfortable counties or brought in from out of state.

Industries and Sectors

Greer, the USTR, also highlighted the administration’s efforts to spur a “manufacturing renaissance.” In his Detroit speech, he praised manufacturing for strengthening communities, protecting national security, and driving innovation and growth. Greer explained that the purpose of Trump’s tariffs is to get countries to participate in the reindustrialization of the United States, and one of USTR’s ultimate goals is to “increase manufacturing’s share of GDP.”

We used our database to assess how much of the recently announced investment is in manufacturing. We took each observation and categorized it by industry, based on classifications from the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) for each investor. We found that roughly 66 percent of the investors that have made announcements since the start of the second Trump term can be classified as manufacturers. It is worth noting that not all of the associated jobs are on the factory floor. In fact, estimates show that only 40 percent of manufacturing jobs involve directly making products. Many jobs in manufacturing are now in research and development, design, finance, marketing, and engineering.

We also calculated the percentage of recently announced investments in different industries—aerospace, automobiles, electronic computer manufacturing, energy and power, food and beverage, other, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. The “other” category includes a wide range of industries from “iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing” to “doll, toy, and game manufacturing” to “small arms ammunition manufacturing.”

In the energy and power industry, which is more evenly distributed than the other industries, 56 percent of investments are intended to go to prosperous areas, 19 percent to comfortable, and 20 percent to mid-tier, and 3 to at-risk and distressed countries, respectively. In contrast, 80 percent of investments in the pharmaceutical industry are intended to go to prosperous areas and none to distressed areas. This result can partly be explained by the fact that some industries require a specific talent pool that is more likely to be found in prosperous areas rather than in distressed parts of the country.

Policy Implications

On its own, this study cannot be considered a comprehensive analysis of investment policy in Trump’s second term. Nonetheless our preliminary analysis shows that recent investment plans touted by the Trump administration are largely leaving out distressed areas. That finding is not entirely surprising. Investors will naturally gravitate to areas that already have good infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and regulatory and tax policies conducive to business. Most of those incentivizing factors can be found in prosperous and comfortable counties of the United States.

At the same time, a different policy approach could attract a greater share of investment to struggling areas. A 2024 Brookings report found that the Biden administration’s “strategic sector investments”—investments in clean energy, semiconductors and electronics, biomanufacturing and other advanced industries spurred by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act—were more likely than private investments alone to go to economically distressed places. Incentives in those laws included bonuses of 10 percent or more for investments in low-income communities and grants for investors partnering with community-based organizations.

The Brookings report found that 16 percent of strategic sector investments in 2021 and 2022 went to employment-distressed counties, while 7 percent of nonresidential private fixed investment (still more than the 4 percent from our preliminary results) and 10 percent of private investment in structures such facilities and other physical infrastructure went to those distressed counties during this period (as measured by investment announcements). The authors of the report concluded that “the benefits of a national industrial strategy can reach people and communities that have historically been excluded from economic opportunity.”

Our preliminary findings raise important questions for policymakers: Should market factors alone decide where investments go, even if that means less investment to distressed areas? In this scenario, people living in distressed areas of the country could be compensated by the government through payments such as social security instead of incentivizing investors to create jobs in those areas through investment policies. Perhaps, but as Alex Raskolnikov and Benn Steil argued in a paper last year, most people prefer high-paying stable jobs that give them a sense of dignity rather than being paid off by the government.

Alternatively, is a place-based industrial strategy—directing capital to specific geographic areas—more suitable? Biden’s National Economic Council Director Lael Brainard explained that place-neutral policies can generate wealth but cause a concentration of investments in richer parts of the country at the expense of poorer areas, while place-based policies can incentivize more investments to distressed parts of the country, thereby more evenly distributing investments. But place-based policies come with their own set of hurdles, including the need for cross-collaboration between federal, state, and local governments and working across sectors for implementation. The fiscal costs of such a strategy can also be off-putting.

Regardless of how this debate plays out, the recently announced investments make one thing clear: Knowingly or not, the Trump administration is not targeting distressed areas.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Venezuela

The opposition and the Maduro regime will face a new variable at the negotiating table: the United States and its heavy military presence off Venezuela’s coast. As a direct party, the Trump administration now has an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past to bring a potential conflict to a close. 

Taiwan

Assumptions about how a potential conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan would unfold should urgently be revisited. Such a war, far from being insulated, would likely draw in additional powers, expand geographically, and escalate vertically.

United States

Three CFR experts discuss President Donald Trump’s decision to allow Nvidia to sell advanced AI chip sales to China and what implications it could have for the future of AI, U.S. national security policy, and Chinese relations.