News

New orders for manufactured goods declined 4.8% in June, following an 8.3% increase in May. On the other hand, new orders for manufactured goods grew 3.8% over the year. When excluding transportation, new orders inched up 0.4%. Orders for durable goods plunged 9.4%, following a 16.5% increase in May. Year to date, durable goods orders are up 7.9%. Nondurable goods orders rose 0.5% in June after ticking up 0.1% in May. Nondurable goods orders are down 0.1% over the year.

New orders for nondefense aircraft and parts, which have been incredibly volatile in recent months, led the decrease in durable goods orders, diving 51.8%, following May’s 231.6% surge. In June, the largest monthly increase occurred in industrial machinery, which jumped 6.9%, after rising 2.3% the prior two months. The largest over-the-year changes also occurred in nondefense aircraft and parts (up 175.9%) and defense search and navigation equipment (down 7.5%).

Factory shipments increased 0.5% in June, after rising 0.2% in May. Shipments over the year rose 1.0%. Shipments excluding transportation ticked up 0.4% in June, following a 0.1% rise the previous month. Shipments for durable goods improved 0.5% in June, following a 0.3% increase in May, and are up 2.2% year to date. Meanwhile, nondurable goods shipments advanced 0.5% after inching up 0.1% the prior month but are down 0.1% year to date.

Unfilled orders for all manufacturing industries rose 1.0% in June, after increasing 3.4% in May. Unfilled orders over the year jumped 7.2%. Inventories ticked up 0.2%, after inching up 0.1% the prior month, and the inventories-to-shipments ratio remained the same at 1.57. The unfilled orders-to-shipments ratio for durable goods increased to 7.03 from 6.98 in May.

Manufacturers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey welcomed Republican representatives to their facilities this week, thanking them for delivering a landmark victory for manufacturers: the passage of H.R. 1.

• House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-MI) and local Reps. Tom Kean (R-NJ-7), Rob Bresnahan (R-PA-8) and Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA-7) participated in the factory tours as part of Chairwoman McClain’s One Big Beautiful Tour.

NAM in action: NAM Executive Vice President Erin Streeter accompanied lawmakers, highlighting how the Manufacturing Law is already having positive impacts on local manufacturing.

• “Manufacturing is the backbone of the American economy—and with the leadership of Chairwoman McClain, Reps. Kean, Bresnahan, Mackenzie and their colleagues in Congress—that foundation is stronger than ever,” Streeter said following the visits.
• “By championing the Manufacturing Law, Congress has protected nearly 6 million jobs and more than $500 billion in wages for hardworking Americans. We thank them for their leadership.”

New Jersey: Chairwoman McClain and Rep. Kean toured Bihler of America , a manufacturer of precision automation systems in Phillipsburg, New Jersey. The company specializes in complex metal stamping, forming and assembly solutions, serving industries such as automotive, medical and consumer products.

• “Manufacturers thrive when we have the certainty we need to plan major investments in our facilities and our people. That’s exactly what this tax package delivers,” said Bihler CEO Maxine Nordmeyer.
• “We thank our partners in Congress and the administration—and we look forward to working with them on a full comprehensive manufacturing strategy. Through energy, trade and workforce policies that drive our competitiveness, deliver certainty and empower manufacturers, we will build on the success of the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Pennsylvania: Rep. Bresnahan joined Chairwoman McClain for a tour of i2M , a manufacturer of flexible polymers in Mountain Top, Pennsylvania. The company produces custom polymer films and sheets used in a variety of applications, including agriculture, construction, packaging and geomembranes.

• “Manufacturers are innovators. By restoring immediate R&D expensing for manufacturers across America [a key provision of the OBBBA], Congress has empowered manufacturers like i2M to innovate and create,” said i2M Founder Chris Hackett.
• “That’s how we keep our competitive edge—not just as a company, but as a country.”

Pennsylvania, round 2: At another stop in the Keystone State, Rep. Mackenzie joined the tour at U.S. Metal Powders in Palmerton. The visit highlighted the company’s recent expansion, including a new state-of-the-art production line that will create new jobs and boost aluminum powder output for global markets.

• “Thanks to this transformative tax legislation, U.S. Metal Powders has already broken ground on adding another production line—which will soon double the company’s workforce. This is pro-growth tax policy in action,” Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association President and CEO David N. Taylor said in response to the visit.

NAM in the news: The White House’s rapid response account on X highlighted Rep. Bresnahan’s visit to Pennsylvania and appearance on the area’s local Fox affiliate.

• Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo cited the NAM’s partnership on the tour in an interview with Chairwoman McClain.
• The House GOP X account shared a video of Streeter talking about the facility visits.
• Chairwoman McClain posted about her visits to Bihler of America, i2M and U.S. Metal Powders on X. Chairwoman McClain, along with Reps. Bresnahan and Kean, also amplified the NAM’s own social posts.
• WVIA covered the visit to i2M.

The U.S. is making huge strides in the medical and biopharmaceutical fields, but price controls threaten this progress, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial asserts (subscription).

What’s going on: “President Trump … last week threatened drug companies with price controls or worse if they don’t cut prices as he wants,” the editorial board wrote. “Mr. Trump’s excuse is that other countries are ‘free riding’ on American innovation. His solution: Demand manufacturers give Americans their “most-favored nation” (MFN) price—i.e., the lowest in other developed countries like Canada and the U.K. If drug makers refuse, he may yank their drug approvals, harass them with lawsuits and more.”

Why it’s a problem: While nations with single-payer health care systems, such as Canada and the U.K., pay less for prescription pharmaceuticals than American private insurers and Medicaid, “[d]rugs aren’t the main driver of health care premiums, patient costs or government spending.”

• “Manufacturers benefit for a few years from patent protection after medicines launch, but then they face stiff competition from follow-on medicines and generics.”
• Unbranded generic medications account for 90% of all prescriptions in the U.S. and cost just one-third less here than they do in other countries.

What really works: Market competition, not price controls, is what will bring costs down for consumers, the editorial continues.

Discouraging innovation: It isn’t true that pharmaceutical manufacturers get “generous research subsidies,” as the president recently claimed.

• In fact, “the pharmaceutical industry spent $141 billion on research and development in 2022, nearly 40 times as much as the National Institutes of Health did on research directly related to drug development.”
• Harassing companies the way Trump is doing, according to the piece, could make them move more of their intellectual property to China—and that’s a move that would “likely result in fewer new drugs developed and sold in the U.S., especially in riskier research fields like neurologic and rare genetic diseases.”

NAM says: “European-style price controls will stifle innovation—undermining R&D and limiting future access to breakthrough treatments,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said in a statement last week.

• “Manufacturers and manufacturing workers are facing rising health care costs because of underregulated middlemen like [pharmacy benefit managers] and the 340B program, both of which have increased prices for patients without producing a single treatment. Rather than punishing the innovators who develop lifesaving and life-changing medicines, policymakers should focus on the real inefficiencies and distortions in the system.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s move to repeal the previous administration’s 2024 Power Plant Rule is a positive one for manufacturing in the U.S.—but to truly unleash American energy’s potential, we need permitting reform, too, the NAM told the EPA this week.

What’s going on: In June, the EPA proposed a rule to repeal the previous administration’s 2024 greenhouse gas emissions regulations for certain traditional power plants.

• “Manufacturers commend the EPA for acknowledging the unworkability of the previous administration’s rule,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Chris Phalen told EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on Tuesday.
• Repeal of the 2024 rule is a crucial start in getting “as much electricity generation online as possible,” Phalen continued. “But without comprehensive permitting reform to enable the buildout of new and modernized plants of all types in a timely manner, including traditional generation and plants using lower emissions technologies like [carbon capture and sequestration] and hydrogen, there is a serious risk we fall short of our energy generation needs.”

Why it makes sense: The NAM laid out its primary reasons for supporting the proposed rescission, which include the following:

• The requirement that some achieve a 90% carbon capture rate was arbitrary and unfeasible given that carbon capture and sequestration technology is not yet at commercial scale.
• The plant closures that would result from the rule’s implementation would threaten grid reliability.

No relief without reform: Repealing the 2024 rule keeps many traditional plants online, which is a must as the national energy appetite grows due to data center expansion, Phalen said. Still, there are further steps we must take—and soon.

• “These include consolidating the permitting processes and putting enforceable deadlines for the siting of new energy projects and their infrastructure; speeding up the approval process for transmission, distribution and electrical generation projects; enacting commonsense guardrails on judicial review to ensure a speedy process that results in definitive decisions for all projects; and committing to developing our resources to strengthen U.S. supply chains for the energy infrastructure vital to national security.”

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments last Thursday in the leading challenge to President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs.

The background: In this consolidated case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and Oregon v. Trump, the question before the court is whether President Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl tariffs exceed his authority under IEEPA.

• The appeal follows a May decision by the Court of International Trade to enjoin the tariffs after concluding that IEEPA “does not authorize the president to impose unbounded tariffs”—a decision that the Federal Circuit put on ice pending appeal.

The arguments: The Federal Circuit argument focused on the text of IEEPA, which does not expressly mention tariffs and limits the exercise of executive power to address “extraordinary and unusual” threats.

• Although the court appeared split on whether IEEPA allows the president to impose tariffs, most of the 11-judge panel seemed unwilling to accept that IEEPA authorizes the sweeping global tariffs at issue here.

The precedent: The government’s case relied heavily on the closest relevant precedent—the 1975 decision in U.S. v. Yoshida International—which upheld President Nixon’s use of the Trading with the Enemy Act (IEEPA’s predecessor) to place a 10% ad valorem tariff on all imports after the U.S. withdrew from the gold standard.

• The judges accused the administration of “ignoring the parts of Yoshida” it doesn’t like, including the Yoshida court’s express limitations on the president’s tariff authority.
• The court in that case carefully distinguished between a time-limited tariff “as a temporary measure calculated to help meet a particular national emergency, which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.”

What’s next: “Although it is always difficult to predict judicial outcomes, we expect a decision against the Trump administration though not unanimous,” said NAM Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Erica Klenicki.

• “Nearly two dozen amicus briefs were filed in the case, including by members of Congress, legal scholars and think tanks from across the country. Given the high stakes and novel legal questions involved, we fully expect this case to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court next term.”

President Trump issued a new executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on U.S. imports from India, in response to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil.

The background: In an EO issued March 8, 2022, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Biden administration prohibited U.S. imports of certain products from Russia, including crude oil, petroleum and related products.

• This new action cites that EO in imposing an additional ad valorem duty on imports from India, “which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.”

Tariff stacking: The secondary tariffs are in addition to the 25% modified International Emergency Economic Powers Act reciprocal tariffs on India.

Timing: Secondary tariffs will take effect 21 days after the date of the EO, on Aug. 27.

• The EO includes an “on the water” exception for products loaded and in transit on the final mode of transit prior to that date and that enter the U.S. by Sept. 17.

Other details: The secondary tariff will not apply to goods subject to “existing or future actions under Section 232.”

• It will also not apply if the good is identified in Annex II to EO 14257 of April 2, 2025.

Further action? The EO suggests other countries purchasing Russian oil may become subject to similar secondary tariffs.

• It directs the Department of Commerce to coordinate with other agencies to “determine whether any other country is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil,” and recommend whether to impose an additional 25% tariff on that country. Indirect importation is described as “through intermediaries or third countries.”
• Top importers of Russian oil—which the EO defines as both crude oil and petroleum products extracted, refined or exported from the Russian Federation—include China, Türkiye, Brazil and the European Union.

India responds: The government of India responded  in an official statement: “It is extremely unfortunate that the U.S. should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest.”

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) recently toured Niron Magnetics’ headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he met with company leaders and employees to discuss the future of domestic manufacturing, alternatives to rare earth magnets (a manufacturing input largely controlled by China) and pro-growth tax policy.

Pioneering technology: Niron Magnetics is developing the world’s only high-performance permanent magnets made entirely without rare earth elements.

• The company’s iron nitride–based magnets are poised to revolutionize industries that depend on magnetic technologies—from electric vehicles and wind turbines to consumer electronics and defense systems—while sharply reducing U.S. dependence on China.
• Founded thanks to a Department of Energy ARPA-E REACT grant in 2011, Niron recently completed a two-year SCALEUP pilot project and is now preparing for commercial expansion.
• “Our goal is to build a fully domestic, globally competitive magnet supply chain that strengthens U.S. energy security, supports national defense and creates [well]-paying jobs,” said Niron Magnetics CEO Jonathan Rowntree. “We’re proud to lead this next chapter in American manufacturing.

The visit: Company officials briefed Whip Emmer on their ongoing collaborations with the Departments of Energy and Defense, emphasizing the national security and energy innovation implications of their work.

• While touring the facility, Whip Emmer engaged with engineers and employees—and even hand-pressed one of Niron’s next-generation magnets.

A big announcement: During the visit, Niron shared plans to break ground on a new 168,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Sartell, Minnesota, this fall.

• The facility, which will be the world’s first large-scale manufacturer of rare earth–free iron nitride permanent magnets, is expected to create 175 new jobs when it opens in early 2027.

Policy support matters: Whip Emmer, who played a pivotal role in the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—now signed into law—reiterated his commitment to advancing policies that empower manufacturers to innovate and grow.

• “American manufacturers like Niron are leading the way in rebuilding critical supply chains and securing our industrial future,” Whip Emmer said. “Now that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is law, we’ve delivered the tools to help U.S. innovators grow, compete with China and protect our national and economic security.”

Securing supply chains: The visit also spotlighted the broader imperative of reducing U.S. reliance on foreign countries—particularly China—for critical minerals. The NAM has consistently advocated federal policies that support domestic sourcing, refining and processing of critical and rare earth materials to ensure secure, resilient supply chains.

• “America’s overdependence on geopolitical rivals for essential materials is one of the greatest threats to our economic and national security,” said NAM Managing Vice President of Policy Charles Crain. “We need strategic investments and permitting reforms that allow companies like Niron to scale breakthrough technologies here at home—and do it quickly.”
• “Meanwhile, outdated and inconsistent permitting delays hamper companies like Niron from bringing transformative technologies to market swiftly and at scale.”
• “Policymakers have an urgent choice to make,” Crain added. “Either we modernize our permitting system and invest in domestic production—or we continue to cede critical supply chains to our competitors. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Late last week, Customs and Border Protection issued new guidance on Canada, Brazil and the changes to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act reciprocal tariff rates that take effect on Aug. 7 per the Further Modifying the Reciprocal Tariff Rates Executive Order.

Exemptions: The guidance covers classification of in-transit goods, USMCA-qualifying goods and goods identified as exemptions in Annex II of EO 14257.

Articles subject to Section 232 tariffs: The guidance also includes classification of articles subject to Section 232 tariffs, including iron, steel or aluminum and covered derivatives; passenger vehicles, light trucks and parts; and semifinished copper and intensive copper derivative products.

U.S.-originating content: The guidance also details classification of articles in which at least 20% of the value of the article is U.S. originating. The U.S. content will not be subject to the reciprocal tariff. The reciprocal tariff will be assessed on the non-U.S. content.

Transshipment: The guidance explains the procedure by which CBP will assess an additional ad valorem duty of 40% on goods determined by the agency to have been transshipped.

HTSUS reporting sequence: This guidance details the sequence for entering multiple HTSUS numbers, which may include a Section 301 tariff, an IEEPA tariff and/or a Section 232 or 201 tariff/quota.

Sources: You can find the three guidance documents below:

• Canada rates effective Aug. 1: CBP Guidance on Canada
• Brazil rates and exemptions effective Aug. 7: CBP Guidance on Brazil
• Reciprocal tariff rates effective Aug. 7: CBP Guidance on Reciprocal Tariffs

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s executive compensation reporting requirements are needlessly complex and costly for manufacturers—and reforming them would be a boon to the industry, the NAM told the SEC this week.

What’s going on: The NAM laid out a series of recommendations for making the reporting requirements more workable for publicly traded companies while still providing investors with useful, material information.

• “Neither Main Street investors nor companies are well served by rules that have directed issuers to provide an expanding array of footnoted tables, retain outside consultants to perform ‘compensation actually paid’ calculations that often are confusing to investors, and churn out pay-related disclosures that often exceed 20 or 30 pages,” the NAM told the SEC.
• This week’s suggestions build on ones the NAM made in June.

What should be done: The SEC can benefit both manufacturers and investors by taking several specific steps, the NAM said, including:

• Replacing unduly burdensome mandates with “principles-based disclosure designed for the reasonable investor”;
• Simplifying the 2022 “pay versus performance” rule;
• Giving meaningful disclosure relief to smaller firms;
• Addressing the outsized impact that proxy advisory firms have on compensation decisions;
• Updating perk disclosure rules to reflect changes since 2006, including by ensuring company executives can access needed security protections; and
• Suspending enforcement of the 2022 “clawback” rule until the rule is made less burdensome to companies.

The final word: By making these changes to its executive compensation reporting requirements, the SEC “can ensure manufacturers can recruit and retain leaders that will grow the business, create more jobs and contribute to our overall economic growth,” said NAM Managing Vice President of Policy Charles Crain.

Manufacturers are leading the charge on artificial intelligence—but unlocking its full potential depends on training workers to use AI technologies and expanding the talent pipeline. By embracing AI and equipping people with the right skills, the industry can help fill hundreds of thousands of open jobs, the NAM told Axios in a recent interview (subscription).

What’s going on: NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons and Manufacturing Institute President and Executive Director Carolyn Lee spoke with Axios’ Ben Berkowitz about the current “glittering need” for manufacturing employees and how the sector can attract, train and keep team members. (The MI is the NAM’s 501(c)3 workforce development and education affiliate.)

• “These are high-tech, 21st-century, well-paying, rewarding roles,” Timmons said. “Some require advanced degrees, some a four-year degree and some just a high school diploma.”

Why it’s important: Manufacturing has been averaging about 450,000 open positions every month for the past year, Timmons continued.

• “Looking ahead, if we don’t act now, we’re facing about 2 million unfilled manufacturing jobs by 2033,” he told Berkowitz, citing a recent study by the MI and Deloitte.

What must be done: The answer? Training and partnerships—the right kind, Lee said.

• “Manufacturers … recognize that we need new forms of training and that schools—K–12, higher ed and postsecondary institutions—need to integrate AI into their curriculums. And we are seeing that happen in parts of the country.”
• The MI is working with companies to create programs to train both the current and future generations of workers.
• “The reality is, today’s AI will be surpassed quickly,” Lee continued. “So we need people who are ready now—with skills like prompting, systems thinking and the ability to work alongside AI.”

Misperceptions: Though it pays well and offers exciting, cutting-edge career opportunities, manufacturing still suffers from outdated perceptions among the general populace, according to Timmons and Lee. But that can be fixed, they said.

• The FAME USA apprenticeship-style program, founded by Toyota and now operated by the MI, has chapters in 16 states, Lee told Berkowitz.
• “[W]hen we go out to recruit for these roles, the interest is huge—because students realize they’re learning high-demand, cutting-edge skills in a job with long-term security and strong pay,” she said, adding that a 2020 study found that members of the original FAME class in Kentucky were earning an average salary of $95,000 within five years of completing the program.
• “When Jay and I go out and talk to students—especially during Manufacturing Day events—once they hear the pay potential and understand the work, interest skyrockets.”

Not on the sidelines: When it comes to AI, manufacturers aren’t simply watching events unfold, the NAM and MI told Axios.

• “We’re helping shape the future of AI,” Timmons said. “We’re using [AI] tools to expand capacity, drive investment, create jobs and grow wages right here in the U.S.”

A lookback: According to the latest report from the Manufacturing Leadership Council—the digital transformation division of the NAM—51% of manufacturers stated they already use AI, but 82% cite a lack of AI-ready skills as the top workforce challenge. The NAM recently proposed a series of policy recommendations for policymakers to drive AI development and adoption in manufacturing, which includes a recommendation on developing the manufacturing workforce of the AI age by supporting training programs and career and technical education institutions.