Policy and Legal

Traditional energy exploration and production in the U.S. declined slightly in the third quarter, as oil and gas executives reported rising concern about tariffs and trade uncertainty—and decreasing optimism about the state of the industry (POLITICO Pro, subscription).

What’s going on: A quarterly survey of oil and gas companies released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas quotes industry executives who pointed to concerns about various administration policies, from tariffs to energy.

• The survey of 139 energy-firm executives in northern Louisiana, Texas and southern New Mexico found that oil companies were drilling less as the administration’s 15% tariff on imported steel required for oil-and-gas infrastructure continued.
• The survey’s company index also slipped, from -6.4 in Q2 to -17.6.

Why it’s important: “Oil executives told the Dallas Fed earlier this year that Trump’s push to lower fuel prices, which lessens the economic incentive for producers to drill, was incompatible with his stated desire to increase production.”

• Tariffs on many imported goods have increased the cost of drilling “at a time when producers are struggling with an oversupplied market, sluggish demand and weak prices.”

What they’re saying: “Tariffs are increasing our supply costs,” said one oil-and-gas support services firm executive.

• “The administration is pushing for $40 per barrel crude oil, and with tariffs on foreign tubular goods, [input] prices are up, and drilling is going to disappear,” an exploration and production company leader said in his survey response. “The oil industry is once again going to lose valuable employees.”
• Said another: “The uncertainty from the administration’s policies has put a damper on all investment in the oilpatch. Those who can are running for the exits.”

“Addressing access to critical minerals must be a top priority for the Department of the Interior to increase manufacturing productivity, lower energy costs, spur greater domestic refining, drive new product development and strengthen our global competitiveness,” the NAM told the department this week.

What’s going on: The NAM filed comments this week on the U.S. Geological Survey’s draft 2025 Critical Minerals List, commending the agency for adding copper and potash while urging further action in designating key materials that underpin manufacturing in America.

Why it matters: Manufacturers rely heavily on critical materials and minerals to make a wide array of products.

• These include aircraft and defense systems, automotive parts and vehicles, electric grid components and other energy technologies, robotics and industrial automation, personal electronics and more.

The win: The NAM has long advocated the addition of copper to the USGS list, calling this action a clear win for manufacturers.  

• “Without a robust copper supply chain in the short and medium terms, manufacturing in America will not be able to reach its potential,” the NAM said.
• Additions of potash, silicon, silver, lead and rhenium are also welcome—as these minerals are critical to unleashing domestic energy dominance and reducing our reliance on imports of essential materials.

The minerals: “Manufacturers rely on a sustainable and reliable supply chain of the critical minerals that are listed within the USGS’s Critical Minerals List,” the NAM said.

• Aluminum plays a vital role in helping the U.S. meet its surging demand for energy, which is driven by data center growth and increased electrification. The NAM emphasized that aluminum is “a key input in energy storage technologies, transmission, transformers and commercial and residential wiring, all of which will be critical to this administration’s strategy to power American energy dominance.”
• Lithium is also critical to energy and national security in the U.S. “The NAM supports maintaining lithium on the USGS Critical Minerals List and would urge continued engagement with the industry to understand the implications of disruption to or negligence of lithium supply chains,” the NAM said.

But also: The NAM urged the USGS to go further by adding phosphate rock, boron, molybdenum, tellurium, arsenic and electrical steel to ensure the Trump administration can respond to the immediate needs of the country as they arise.

Need for alignment: The NAM emphasized the need for alignment with the Department of Energy’s list to eliminate confusion and ensure consistent access to federal programs. It commended the administration last month when DOI announced the additions of copper and potash to its list.

• “While the proposed action to update the USGS list will indeed bring the two lists into greater alignment, further actions can be taken to ensure all minerals and materials designated by either DOI or DOE will have the same supply chain protections, incentives and streamlined permitting,” the NAM said.
• These further actions include coordinating and data sharing to mitigate confusion, as well as working with Congress to issue a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the Mineral Consistency Act, which would eliminate the disparities between the two lists.

What’s next: As part of the administration’s goals to expand manufacturing capacity in the U.S., the NAM’s comments will help shape how the government secures critical mineral supply chains for years to come.

Carbon dioxide emissions decreased in every state in the U.S. between 2005 and 2023, according to recently released data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

What’s going on: Per capita emissions from primary energy consumption declined in those 18 years, and total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. fell 20%.

• Meanwhile, the U.S. population grew 14% in that time, “leading to a 30% decrease in per capita [carbon dioxide] emissions.”

Why it happened: “[E]missions across the country primarily declined because less coal was burned in the electric power sector. Increased electricity generation from natural gas, which releases about half as many [carbon dioxide] emissions per unit of energy when combusted as coal, and from non-[carbon dioxide]-emitting wind and solar generation offset the decrease in coal generation.”

Zoom in: Maryland led the U.S. in the decline, with a 49% drop, followed by Washington, D.C. (-48%), Georgia (-45%), Delaware (-43%) and North Carolina (-42%).

Flashback: When Congress passed the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, one of the biggest shifts was requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to create a systematic process for reviewing existing chemicals.

How it works: The process unfolds in three steps—prioritization, risk evaluation and risk management. Risk evaluation is the cornerstone, where the EPA decides whether a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk.” Those findings set the stage for any new rules manufacturers will face.

Why it matters: The NAM has long urged that risk evaluations should have an appropriately focused scope, recognize and consider the workplace protections manufacturers implement and be grounded in sound, data-driven science.

• The Biden administration took a different track—dramatically expanding the scope of risk evaluations while blocking consideration of workplace safety controls. These framework changes produced sprawling, thousand-page analyses that are unnecessarily confusing, unrealistic and detached from how chemicals are actually used.
• The result: The result was de facto bans on chemistries essential to existing manufacturing processes and disregard for manufacturers’ commitment to safety and compliance with other safety standards.

What we’re saying: The NAM has been at the forefront of this effort over the past two years.

• In letters to the transition team last December and to the EPA in April , the NAM pressed the administration to “pause and reconsider” risk evaluations, pointing to flawed data quality and poor assumptions in reviews of formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene.
• “The EPA [has] reli[ed] on assumptions and shortcuts, which is leading to confusion, duplication and overregulation,” the NAM wrote in December to the transition team.
• The NAM has stated a functional TSCA program is vital to manufacturers’ ability to compete in a global economy. “The NAM appreciates EPA Administrator [Lee] Zeldin for taking action to right-size and bring common sense to the risk evaluation procedure,” said NAM Director of Chemicals, Materials and Sustainability Policy Reagan Giesenschlag.

What’s next: The proposed framework rule is published in the Federal Register, with comments due by Friday, Nov. 7. Members are invited to share feedback with the NAM by Oct. 3 to inform comments.

The Warehouse Worker Protection Act would have adverse effects for the U.S. economy while failing to improve worker safety, the NAM and 44 allied business groups told Congress last week.

What’s going on: The legislation purports to safeguard America’s 2 million warehouse workers by ending speed quotas—but in practice, it would “impose long discarded and unworkable regulations on warehouse distribution centers, curtail employers’ due process rights when challenging citations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and hamstring a critical part of our national supply chain,” the groups told the Senate and the House of Representatives.

What it would do: The measure, reintroduced in August, “would resurrect OSHA’s long-discarded ergonomics standard.”

• The standard was thrown out by Congress in 2001 just months after its introduction by OSHA, following outcry from businesses that said it constituted a costly and complicated compliance burden.
• “Congress was right then and should not revisit this issue now,” the organizations continued. “In addition, the bill would force employers to implement costly remedial measures even before OSHA has proven any violation.”
• The bill would also put in place a “system to micromanage the warehousing and distribution industry, which would undermine the efficiency of this vital part of American supply chains.”

What should be done: Congress should reject the Warehouse Worker Protection Act, the groups said.

Last week, President Trump issued a proclamation imposing a new filing fee for H-1B visa petitions.

What’s going on: The Department of Homeland Security will require a new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications. The proclamation went into effect at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, Sept. 21.

• H-1B visas are issued typically for highly skilled foreign workers in high-demand fields and allow them to work in the United States for three years.
• By statute, there are 65,000 H-1B visas available each year, plus an additional 20,000 visas for foreign professionals with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. Each year, the number of applications received from employers far exceeds the number of visas available.

What it means: The White House clarified that current H-1B visa holders are not affected by the fee, which applies only to new H-1B visa applicants. Companies will be expected to remit the $100,000 fee as a one-time payment to accompany their petitions. It will go into effect in the upcoming 2026 lottery cycle.

• Those who already hold H-1B visas who happen to be outside the U.S. will not be charged a fee to reenter. H-1B visa holders can leave and reenter the country as they normally would have prior to the proclamation.
• The proclamation will be in effect for 12 months, though the proclamation states that it could be extended or renewed.
• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick emphasized that the new fee would ensure corporations “hire Americans and make sure the people that come into the country are top, top people.”

The NAM says: “Our industry relies on programs like H-1B to expand our workforce, fuel innovation and accelerate investment in AI and advanced manufacturing,” said NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Jake Kuhns. “With more than 400,000 open jobs across the sector, manufacturers must have access to the talent needed to strengthen manufacturing in the U.S.—a priority of President Trump.”

The NAM urged the Supreme Court to allow a lawsuit against energy manufacturers to proceed in federal court instead of state court, arguing that they were operating as federal contractors at the time of the actions at issue.

Why it matters: Preserving federal officer removal jurisdiction—i.e., the requirement that suits against contractors operating on the government’s behalf take place in federal court—is a crucial protection for businesses that work with the government, the NAM argued in its amicus brief in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Plaquemines Parish, et al.

• Without the guarantee of federal court jurisdiction, federal contractors may be hesitant to take on work that is nationally important but unpopular in certain states.

The background: During World War II, several oil companies obtained federal contracts to refine oil along the Louisiana coast.

• Decades later, these companies were sued in state court by several Louisiana municipalities that sought damages for the drilling’s impact on the coastal environment.

Whose turf? The case was removed to a federal court, as the companies were acting as government contractors when they undertook the drilling.

• The municipalities appealed the change of venue, however, and the Fifth Circuit upheld their appeal—wrongly, as the NAM has charged in a series of amicus briefs.

Bad reasoning: The Fifth Circuit held that for the federal officer removal statute to apply, federal contracts must contain an explicit “directive” from a federal officer, such that parties to the contract are “acting under” the officer.

SCOTUS involved: The case has been on a merry-go-round of appeals and remands, finally resulting in the defendant oil companies seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

• The Supreme Court granted certiorari in June—giving the NAM the opportunity to file its sixth brief in defense of manufacturers performing work on the government’s behalf.

The NAM’s argument: In its latest brief, the NAM argued that federal contractors have long relied on the protection of the federal officer removal statute when contracting with the government.

• The Fifth Circuit’s “contractual directive” reasoning takes an unjustifiably narrow view of the statute, which is intended to apply to all work “related to” a federal contract, the NAM charged.

Administration agrees: The Department of Justice also filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting the NAM’s position and asserting that the oil production at issue was connected closely to aviation fuel refining efforts for the U.S. military.

Continued advocacy: Through the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, the NAM is making sure courts uphold long-standing legal protections that enable manufacturers to serve the national interest without fear of politically motivated lawsuits.

Washington, D.C. – Last week, the National Association of Manufacturers released its quarterly Outlook Survey. The Q3 2025 Outlook Survey—the first to be administered after the passage of this year’s landmark tax legislation—shows markedly improved optimism among manufacturers. Manufacturers report increased optimism (65%) over the previous quarter (55.4%).

However, persistent uncertainty in familiar policy areas is edging up from the previous quarter.

• Trade uncertainty: 78.2% (up from 77.0%)
• Rising raw material costs: 68.1% (up from 66.1%)
• Increasing health care costs: 65.1% (up from 60.0%)

NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons remarked: “These results confirm what we’ve seen in the economic data—that the sector is still enormously challenged as manufacturing output took four months to recover from this spring’s dip, and optimism still falls below the survey’s historical average of 74%.”

“To supercharge the increase in optimism we’re starting to see, manufacturers need certainty across a full manufacturing strategy spanning sensible trade policy, permitting reform to unleash American energy dominance, modernized regulations and workforce investments,” Timmons said. “Put another way, so long as this uncertainty persists, manufacturers will not be able to tap fully into the strength of President Trump’s monumental and historic tax provisions, championed by our allies in the White House and Congress.”

NAM Chief Economist Victoria Bloom observed that “the third quarter optimism level aligns with August’s production data released by the Federal Reserve, which showed that manufacturing output was 100.3% of its 2017 average, barely above March’s level of 100.2%, taking four months to recover from April’s drop.”

“At the same time, manufacturers are projecting moderate growth over the next 12 months with production expected to rise 2.5% (up from 1.4% in Q2) and capital investments 1.0% (up from 0.3%),” Bloom said. “Costs are still expected to climb, but at a slightly slower pace than Q2, with raw material and input costs projected to increase 5.4% (down from 5.8%) and product prices up 3.7% (down from 4.3%). These findings reflect both the resilience of the sector and the real challenges still weighing on growth.”

The NAM releases these results to the public each quarter. Further information on the survey is available here.

-NAM-

The National Association of Manufacturers is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs nearly 13 million men and women, contributes $2.93 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 53% of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. For more information about the NAM or to follow us on Twitter and Facebook, please visit www.nam.org

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published an official request for public comment yesterday on the U.S.–Mexico–Canda Agreement. The notice is part of the process for the schedule six-year review of the landmark agreement, which the NAM helped to shape and secure back in 2019.

The timeline: The deadline for comments is Nov. 3, ahead of a USTR hearing on Nov. 17.

The topics: The notice includes specific topics that the USTR would like respondents to address, including:

• “Any aspect of the operation or implementation of the USMCA”;
• “Any issues of compliance with the Agreement”;
• “Recommendations for specific actions that USTR should propose ahead of the Joint Review to promote balanced trade, new market access and alignment on economic security with Mexico and Canada”;
• “Factors affecting the investment climate in North America and in the territories of each Party, as well as the effectiveness of the USMCA in promoting investment that strengthens U.S. competitiveness, productivity and technological leadership”; and
• “Strategies for strengthening North American economic security and competitiveness, including collaborative work under the Competitiveness Committee, and cooperation on issues related to nonmarket policies and practices of other countries.”

Mexico’s notice: The government of Mexico also opened a 60-day window for public comment.

• For NAM members seeking to comment through their affiliates, the notice can be accessed here.

What NAM members should do: The NAM is issuing an urgent call for member feedback on specific nontariff barriers.

• This feedback might be part of bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, and so should be sent to the NAM as soon as possible, the NAM’s trade experts stressed. The NAM will be submitting a draft letter to the USTR summarizing manufacturers’ priorities for policymakers.

The NAM’s focus: The NAM asks that members focus on four broad topics:

• Technical fixes to make the USMCA function better
• Bilateral issues in Mexico or Canada that the review could help address
• New mechanisms or tools that could be built to counter shared challenges in third markets, particularly nonmarket economies
• Sector-specific agreements or commitments that could be pursued to strengthen North American manufacturing

Get in touch: If you are interested in contributing to this important message about an essential pillar of U.S. trade policy, please contact NAM Director of International Policy Kevin Doyle.

Abuse of the 340B program has caused manufacturers’ health care costs to rise, as they miss out on negotiated drug manufacturer rebates. Reforms are necessary, the NAM told Congress this week.

What’s going on: “The 340B program, intended to provide lower cost medicines and expand care for low-income and underserved patients, has rapidly and massively expanded beyond its intent,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Jake Kuhns told House Subcommittee on Oversight Chair David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Ranking Member Terri Sewell (D-AL) on Tuesday ahead of a hearing on tax-exempt hospital spending.

• “Many covered entities, which include tax-exempt hospitals, have taken advantage of the program to increase their profits. This has added to health care costs for manufacturers.”
• The 340B program allows participating hospitals and clinics to charge patients’ insurance the full list price for pharmaceuticals that were purchased at a discount. Patients then become ineligible to receive negotiated drug rebates, as duplicate discounts are prohibited by law.
• Hospitals keep the spread, boosting their profits, as manufacturers and manufacturing workers pay more for health care.
• Dr. Ge Bai, professor of health, policy, and management at
  Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, noted the substantial profits for hospitals and lack of transparency in the 340B program in her opening statement at the hearing.

The costs: “The expansion of [the 340B] program was associated with approximately $23 billion in additional employer-based health care expenses in 2023, of which employees paid about $4.5 billion per year in added insurance premiums,” or approximately $137 in additional annual premium payments for a single person and $415 for family coverage, the NAM pointed out.

• Lost drug manufacturer rebates account for “a $5.2 billion increase in health care costs for self-insured employers and the 103.4 million workers they employ.”
• Christopher Whaley, associate director of the Center of Advancing Health Policy through Research at Brown University, raised this issue in his opening statement as well.

What should be done: The Health Resources and Services Administration recently announced a rebate model pilot program for drugs subject to both the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and 340B.

• This is an important first step in increasing transparency and accountability in the 340B program, the NAM noted.
• The NAM “encourage[s] Congress to consider additional 340B reforms that would reduce health care costs for manufacturers and manufacturing workers,” Kuhns told the subcommittee.