What American industry is good at

American industry is good at making complicated things work together. That ability deserves more attention than it gets. A useful machine brings together materials, mechanical design, electronics, controls, manufacturing, and the people who know how it will be used. Its value continues through the years when someone needs a replacement part, a repair, or an answer that gets it working again.

I want the discussion about American manufacturing to give that capability its proper weight. We have real strengths to build on, along with real gaps. An honest account needs both. Complaining that the country makes nothing ignores important work already happening. Assuming an American name guarantees a complete domestic supply chain leaves important questions unanswered.

A substantial industrial base

NIST’s 2025 annual manufacturing review, published in February 2026, reports that the United States accounted for 15.1% of global manufacturing value added in 2023, measured in constant 2015 dollars. It also reports modest real growth of 0.9% a year over 2018–2023. There is a large industrial base here, and there is reason to ask whether we are developing it quickly and intelligently enough. [1]

The research picture matters too. Manufacturers performed approximately $394 billion of business research and development in the United States in 2023, representing 55% of the domestic business total. That includes work across pharmaceuticals, electronics, machinery, transportation equipment, and other manufacturing industries. Industrial development has continued, even when the public conversation about innovation seems to revolve around an app. [2]

These figures describe activity taking place in the country. They do not establish American ownership, domestic origin for every input, or adequate capacity in every product. Those distinctions matter when the question becomes more specific: can a manufacturer obtain the particular component, material, or process it needs?

Products that other countries buy

Exports offer another way to see some of the capabilities customers value. The Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis report that U.S. exports in 2025 included $76.1 billion of civilian aircraft engines, $30.1 billion of measuring, testing, and control instruments, and $12.2 billion of excavating machinery. Those are three different kinds of demanding industrial work. [3]

A jet engine, a measurement instrument, and an excavator solve very different problems. Each requires the organization to turn a design into repeatable performance. That involves production methods, quality control, supply coordination, documentation, and support. The export values show demand for goods shipped from the United States; they do not tell us the domestic content of every machine or prove that every producer is competitive.

The same trade tables show weaker results elsewhere. Agricultural machinery and equipment exports fell from roughly $11.0 billion in 2023 to $8.2 billion in 2025. A national strength can coexist with a difficult market, imported components, or a particular supplier losing ground. The useful question is where capability exists and what would make it stronger. [3]

Making a system useful

The part of industry that interests me most is the connection between the pieces. A machine can have an impressive engine and still be poorly suited to the job. The structure, motion, controls, power requirements, operating conditions, and service arrangements have to fit. Someone has to understand the application well enough to identify the mismatch before it becomes an expensive problem.

This is where technical knowledge and commercial knowledge meet. Engineers need a clear account of what the customer is trying to accomplish. Manufacturing needs requirements it can consistently meet. Purchasing needs a supplier that can actually deliver the specified product. The customer needs a usable answer about cost, availability, performance, and support. A capable industrial business keeps those conversations connected. Recognizing a useful problem and organizing the people needed to solve it is an entrepreneurial skill worth developing.

That connection gives industrial salespeople, technicians, production workers, and service organizations a larger role than their place on an organization chart might suggest. They help turn technical possibilities into equipment that someone can buy, use, and maintain. Their knowledge is part of the country’s productive capacity.

Software belongs in that work

John Deere offers a concrete example of digital development serving a physical task. In its November 2025 earnings call, management reported that See & Spray had covered more than five million acres during 2025, with average herbicide savings of around 50%. These are company-reported results, and conditions differ between farms. They nevertheless show the kind of outcome that makes technology valuable to an equipment user: a change in the resources required to do the work. [4]

The software, machine, and application belong in the same discussion. A controller has to operate the equipment. A sensor has to provide useful information under real conditions. An operator has to understand what the system is doing. The industrial opportunity includes improving those connections, extending equipment life, and making maintenance and replacement decisions easier.

Energy production offers another view of operating at scale. The Energy Information Administration reports that the United States was the world’s largest crude-oil producer in 2025 and identifies drilling productivity and operational efficiency as contributors. Geology and market conditions matter too. The industrial lesson is the accumulated ability to deploy equipment, improve processes, and keep a complex operation running. [5]

Build on the capability we have

My argument is for taking this work seriously enough to develop it. That means paying attention to the supplier behind the supplier, the technician who understands a recurring failure, the salesperson who recognizes an application, and the production worker who knows why a process drifts. A factory building alone cannot hold all of that knowledge.

The measures should follow the work: more dependable output, shorter qualification time, equipment that can be maintained, useful technical support, and a business able to invest in its next product. These are practical ambitions for people deciding where to put money, training, and effort.

American industry has a foundation worth strengthening. I want more of our ambition directed toward the machines, processes, and relationships that let people produce something useful—and keep producing it.