What Is Reindustrialization For?

Executive Summary

In Spring 2025, American Compass partnered with YouGov to survey 1,000 Americans about their views on “reindustrialization” as a policy priority, beginning with this definition:

Many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have started talking a lot about what they call “reindustrialization,” which means they want to rebuild American strength in sectors like natural resources (from energy to mining), infrastructure (from roads to the electrical grid), and manufacturing (from steel to the most advance computer chips).

Those in favor argue that a range of bad policies have caused America to lose its global leadership and that reindustrialization would have major benefits for our national security, for economic growth and innovation, and for good jobs in left-behind communities.

Others are opposed, arguing that the U.S. economy has been performing well and the jobs of the future are elsewhere, or that the government will only makes things worse if it tries to steer the economy toward particular things.

The results offer a nuanced picture of a nation committed to the importance of manufacturing and eager to advance the interests of workers, but also wary of some policies and industrial sectors that they see as less valuable or beneficial.

• By more than four-to-one, Americans say the nation needs a stronger manufacturing sector, with “important to a healthy, growing, innovative economy” most often cited as the top reason; among Republicans, that rationale is chosen twice as often as ones focused on “good jobs” or “national security.”

• By a similar margin, Americans prefer seeing businesses forced to raise wages rather than easily filling jobs at low cost; in pursuing reindustrialization, they overwhelmingly support workforce training as the top policy priority, with more than two-thirds choosing “strongly support” and 95% giving at least some support.

• Americans have very different perceptions of different industries, registering high levels of excitement about growth in areas like construction and high-tech, but little to none for nuclear power and, especially, data centers.

• Some themes were highly polarizing while others earned broad bipartisan support; those with the broadest support include workforce training, infrastructure, and R&D policies, and the construction, high-tech, and basic materials sectors.

The Importance of Industry

Interest in reindustrialization is driven by support for manufacturing, which Americans consider important for a range of reasons. Indeed, while the commitment to a strong manufacturing sector is often dismissed as “nostalgia” or an effort to protect jobs, respondents conveyed a far more nuanced perspective. Overall, 73% agree with the statement that “we need a stronger American manufacturing sector” while only 14% disagree. But as to why they agree, the most popular reason was that “manufacturing is important to a healthy, growing, innovative economy,” followed by “manufacturing jobs are good jobs that support communities,” and then “manufacturing is important for our national security.” Among Republicans, the emphasis on a healthy, growing, innovative economy was twice as popular as either of the other options.

Meanwhile, only 4% to 6% of respondents answered either that “manufacturing is fine, but our policies aren’t going to bring it back,” “manufacturing was the old economy, we need new-economy jobs,” or “the goal should be producing things where it can be done at lowest cost.”

Asked specifically about “reindustrialization” as a policy priority, Americans overwhelmingly see it as at least somewhat important, but most would not say “it should be at the center of our economic agenda.” Among Republicans, though, fully 50% say it should be the central focus.

Worker-Focused Growth

An overwhelming majority of Americans support tight labor markets that place upward pressure on wages. Respondents were told:

When there are fewer workers available for open jobs, employers normally face pressure to raise wages to attract workers. Some people have argued that this is a good thing, because it means higher wages for workers. Others have argued that it is a bad thing, because it makes running a business harder.

And then asked: Which statement better represents your own view?

• Our nation is better off when businesses have to compete with each other and raise wages to attract workers and fill jobs.

• Our nation is better off when businesses have an easy time finding workers to fill jobs at low cost.

More than four-in-five chose “raise wages to attract workers.”

Likewise, when given a range of policies that the government could pursue to promote reindustrialization, “provide workforce training to give people technical skills” received by far the strongest support. (See appendix for full wording of all policy options.)

In general, all policy proposals were highly popular with at least one party or the other; those with bipartisan support then earned the highest overall ratings. Workforce development, infrastructure, research funding, and industrial policy were broadly popular. Deregulation, tax cuts, and tariffs remained popular with Republicans but were much less popular with Democrats.

Polarization by Sector

These same trends carry over to American attitudes toward the various sectors where reindustrialization could proceed. Respondents were asked: How excited would you be to see each of these sectors growing and becoming more important to the American economy? Construction, high tech, and basic materials received the most support, while data centers for AI received by far the least. (See appendix for full wording of all sector options.)

Construction and high tech benefited from broad bipartisan support, while nuclear and especially data centers suffered from low support across the board. For basic materials, support among Republicans was so high as to trump lukewarm support elsewhere. Other sectors were polarizing: critical minerals, oil and gas, and defense tilted to the right, while green energy tilted to the left.

Sectors also showed striking polarization across generations, generally trending one way or the other for younger versus older voters and nuclear exhibiting a peculiar “U” shape with particularly low popularity in Gen X.

Least Popular of All…

Finally, as a point of contrast with reindustrialization, the survey also tested respondents’ enthusiasm for a cause far removed: cryptocurrency. Are Americans just generally supportive of new developments? No.

Respondents were told, “many politicians and investors are excited about the potential of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin,” and then asked, “which of the following is closest to your view of cryptocurrencies?” The options were:

• This is an exciting and important technology that the government should support
• This is an overhyped technology that seems more like a scam than a useful product
• I don’t know much about them but want to learn more
• I don’t know much about them and don’t care

Only 15% expressed enthusiasm for crypto, while 38% considered it overhyped. The roughly half who said they did not know much were as likely to say they didn’t care as to say they wanted to learn more. “Overhyped” was the top response across parties, classes, genders, and generations, with the exception of the Silent generation, which was quaintly interested in learning more. Men were more likely than women to call crypto overhyped.

ABOUT THE DATA

The American Compass Reindustrialization Survey was conducted by YouGov between March 21 and March 24, 2025. YouGov interviewed 1,038 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The sampling frame is a politically representative “modeled frame” of US adults, based upon the American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file, public voter file records, the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration supplements, the 2020 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, and the 2020 CES surveys, including demographics and 2020 presidential vote.

The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and region. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles.

The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 presidential vote choice, 2024 presidential vote choice, as well as a four-way stratification of gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight.

In analysis of the results, “Class” is defined by education and income:

• “Lower” (N=210): less than a four-year degree and household income below $30K; or did not report household income and do not have a high school diploma.
• “Working” (N=304): less than a four-year degree and household income $30K–$80K; or did not report household income and have either a high school diploma or some college but no degree.
• “Middle” (N= 352): four-year degree or more and household income $30K–$80K; or household income $80K-$150K; or did not report household income and have a two-year or four-year college degree.
• “Upper” (N=101): household income above $150K; or did not report household income and have a post-graduate degree.
  
  

Respondents with a four-year college degree or more but household income below $30K are excluded from analyses using the “Class” variable (N=33).

In analysis of the results, “Generation” is defined by birth year:

• “Silent” (N=31): birth year 1945 or earlier.
• “Boomer” (N=304): birth year 1946–1964.
• “Gen X” (N=248): birth year 1965–1980.
• “Millennial” (N=270): birth year 1981–1996.
• “Gen Z” (N=147): birth year 1997–2006.
  
  

Policy options were worded as follows, with order randomized across respondents:

• Fund research and development to spur innovation
• Provide workforce training to give people technical skills
• Build new infrastructure, from roads to ports
• Reduce the regulations that make building hard
• Invest in priority projects like computer-chip factories
• Impose taxes on imported products to give American producers an advantage
• Cut taxes to encourage more private investment

Sector options were worded as follows, with order randomized across respondents:

• Mining resources like critical minerals
• Construction of housing and infrastructure
• Traditional energy sources like oil and gas
• Nuclear power
• Green energy like wind and solar
• Defense technology for national security
• Materials manufacturing like steel and aluminum
• High-tech manufacturing like computer chips
• Data centers for artificial intelligence