An interview on factory incentives, tariffs, automation, and the workers behind the production line
An investment announcement can put a factory on the map. Keeping that factory competitive takes something less visible: parts arriving when they are needed, equipment that runs reliably, and workers who know how to solve problems when production slows.
That is the perspective Olasubomi Akanbi brings to America’s manufacturing debate. While Washington argues over subsidies, tariffs, and reshoring—the return of production to the United States—he focuses on the systems that turn investment into output.
A systems engineering master’s candidate at Bowling Green State University, Akanbi has worked across manufacturing and fulfillment operations in Nigeria and the United States. His experience includes a material-flow engineering internship on the Tesla Semi program at Gigafactory Texas, production work at Unilever in Lagos, and management of a Glovo micro-fulfillment center. That background gives this conversation a practical focus: what must happen inside a plant for industrial policy to deliver outside it.
For readers, the stakes extend beyond factory gates. These decisions can influence the cost of vehicles, the prospects of local suppliers, and the skills employers expect from the next generation of manufacturing workers.
A changing policy landscape
The policy backdrop has shifted in important ways. The IRS says the advanced manufacturing investment credit is 35% for qualifying semiconductor manufacturing property placed in service after 2025, compared with 25% for qualifying property placed in service earlier. Separate eligibility rules apply; the higher rate is not a general credit for every new factory.1
Federal clean vehicle credits also changed. The new clean vehicle credit generally requires a vehicle to have been acquired on or before September 30, 2025. Eligible vehicles acquired by that deadline may still qualify when placed in service later, subject to IRS requirements.2
Trade policy added another source of uncertainty. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidential tariffs. The decision addressed that statute, rather than eliminating tariff authority under every other trade law.3
Against that backdrop, the interview turns to a question that rarely fits neatly into a political slogan: how do changing incentives and trade costs affect the people designing a working factory?
How incentives reach the factory floor
Subsidies or tariffs: which actually gets a factory built?
“Engineers tend to dodge that question, so let me answer it as an engineer. Both change the economics of a decision, but on different timelines. A grant or a tax credit lowers the cost of building, and it is attached to a specific project, so the company knows what it is getting. A tariff raises the cost of importing, which can make a domestic plant competitive. But a tariff can be changed by the next administration, or by a court, as we saw this February. When you are planning a building that will run for thirty years, predictability matters as much as the size of the incentive.”
Supporters of tariffs say the uncertainty is the point: it forces companies to stop waiting.
“That is a fair argument, and in some sectors it has worked. Companies have announced US plants partly to stay inside the tariff wall. The counter-argument is cost. Tariffs on steel, aluminum and components raise the price of the equipment and parts that a new US factory needs. I’ve modeled racks and staging for more than 250 powertrain parts. Every one of those parts has a supply chain behind it, and if one input jumps in price, the whole line’s business case moves.”
How does the end of the consumer EV credit affect manufacturers?
“For consumer EVs, it removed a demand signal that a lot of capacity planning was built around. Some imported models have left the US market since. For commercial vehicles like the Semi, the economics depend more on fleet operating costs than on a consumer credit. One side of the debate sees the credit’s end as letting the market decide which products survive. The other side sees it as pulling the rug out from under plants that were sized for a subsidized market. Both are describing real consequences.”
The distinction between consumer and commercial vehicles matters, but incentives are relevant to both. The federal qualified commercial clean vehicle credit also has a September 30, 2025 acquisition cutoff. Fleet purchasing decisions therefore need to account for credit eligibility as well as operating costs.2
Automation and the American workforce
If factories come back but are run by robots, who benefits?
“That is the question I get most. My research is on autonomous mobile robots, so I’m not neutral about the technology, but I try to be honest about it. Reshored factories will be more automated than the ones that left. A US plant cannot compete with lower-wage countries on labor cost alone, so automation is often what makes the plant viable here in the first place.”
“What automation changes is the kind of job. At Unilever in Lagos, I supervised about 250 operators across three shifts. In a highly automated plant, you need fewer people moving boxes and more people maintaining robots, programming fleets, and running quality systems. Those are good jobs, but they need training that many regions don’t yet offer at scale.”
What should policy do about that gap?
“There are different philosophies. Some argue for tying incentives to workforce commitments, as the original CHIPS awards did. Others say those strings slow projects down and that training is better left to states, community colleges and employers. I’ve seen the value of the middle path through the NSF Research Experience for Teachers program here at BGSU, where I mentored teachers in robotics and advanced manufacturing. When teachers understand the technology, it reaches students years before they apply for a plant job.”
From investment announcements to lasting production
Akanbi’s answers point toward a more useful way to assess manufacturing policy. A plant announcement is a starting point. The harder questions concern whether the facility can produce consistently, whether nearby suppliers can meet its needs, and whether workers have a realistic path into the jobs it creates.
Consider the material-flow problem behind his description of racks and staging. A production line depends on more than the availability of a component somewhere in the building. The component must arrive at the correct station, in the right quantity, without creating congestion or exposing workers to avoidable risks. Changes in packaging, storage, and replenishment can affect that process long before a finished vehicle leaves the plant.
Workforce policy has a similarly practical test. A promise to create technical jobs means more when local residents can access training, understand the entry requirements, and see a route from the classroom to employment. Akanbi’s experience mentoring teachers offers one example of how manufacturing knowledge can reach students before they choose a career.
For communities hoping to benefit from a new factory, those details deserve attention alongside the investment total. The lasting value of building in America will depend on whether the production system works—and whether people in the surrounding community can participate in it.
Policy sources
1 Internal Revenue Service — Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advanced-manufacturing-investment-credit
2 Internal Revenue Service — Clean vehicle tax credits. https://www.irs.gov/clean-vehicle-tax-credits
3 Supreme Court — Learning Resources Inc v Trump, February 20, 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
