By the time President Donald Trump took to the podium this month to tout a sweeping expansion of tariffs on foreign goods—pitching it as a bold move to reinvigorate American manufacturing—his administration had already pulled the rug out from under a key program that’s been quietly doing that very work for decades.
In a lesser-publicized decision, the Trump administration, through its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), cut federal funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a nationwide network of nonprofit centers that has provided essential support to small and mid-sized manufacturers since the 1980s. The decision came just hours before the president announced new tariffs on steel, aluminum, electronics, and dozens of other imports, arguing that higher trade barriers would lead to a resurgence of domestic industry.
The timing of the move has raised eyebrows—not only because the MEP program has long enjoyed bipartisan support, but because its mission aligns precisely with what the administration claims to champion: strengthening American manufacturing. Now, critics warn, the government is turning off one of the most effective tools in its own industrial policy toolbox.
The MEP: A Quiet Success Story
The MEP program, administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), operates through a network of centers across all 50 states and Puerto Rico. These centers act like personal consultants for manufacturers, helping them adopt advanced technologies, improve production efficiency, and develop supply chain resilience.
In 2023 alone, MEP centers worked with more than 33,500 manufacturers and contributed to the creation or retention of over 100,000 jobs, according to NIST data. The return on investment has been substantial: For every dollar of federal funding, the program generates around $17 in new sales and cost savings for manufacturers.
Yet despite these successes, DOGE officials justified the funding cut as part of a broader campaign to eliminate “duplicative and inefficient” federal programs—a favorite refrain of the Trump administration when targeting agencies that don’t align with its political priorities.
The Tariff Gamble
The administration’s rationale for slashing MEP funding is rooted in its belief that protectionist trade policies will, on their own, restore the strength of American industry. Speaking at a rally in Ohio, Trump proclaimed that the new tariffs would “bring our factories roaring back to life.”
But for many in the manufacturing sector, the picture is more complicated. Tariffs may offer short-term relief to some domestic producers, but they also raise input costs and can trigger retaliatory measures that hurt American exporters. Without support mechanisms like the MEP to help manufacturers innovate and adapt, the tariffs alone are unlikely to deliver the renaissance the administration envisions.
“This is a textbook example of contradictory policy,” said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “You say you want to support domestic manufacturing, and then you kill the very program that helps manufacturers compete.”
Industry Reaction: Confusion and Concern
Industry groups and small business advocates were quick to decry the funding cut. The National Association of Manufacturers issued a statement urging the administration to reverse course, calling the MEP “a critical component of our national competitiveness.”
“Many of our members rely on MEP centers for everything from workforce training to cybersecurity upgrades,” said Jennifer Holt, a spokesperson for the association. “This isn’t some bloated government program—it’s a targeted, effective investment.”
In states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—key battlegrounds in both elections and manufacturing—MEP centers have served as lifelines for local firms struggling to modernize operations and remain globally competitive. The abrupt withdrawal of federal support could force some of these centers to shut down entirely.
The Political Calculus
The move to defund the MEP also reveals a deeper shift in how the Trump administration views industrial strategy. Rather than supporting institutions that provide long-term technical assistance, the White House appears more interested in headline-grabbing trade actions and sweeping deregulation.
Critics argue this approach is less about supporting manufacturing and more about maintaining a combative stance on trade that plays well with segments of the Republican base. “It’s political theater,” said David Fagan, a former Commerce Department official. “They’re sacrificing real policy impact for optics.”
Indeed, the funding cut mirrors a pattern seen elsewhere in the administration: dismantling or weakening agencies seen as part of the so-called “deep state,” even when their work aligns with stated policy goals. The Department of Energy’s clean energy loan programs, climate initiatives at the EPA, and now the MEP—all have faced budgetary or structural gutting under the banner of efficiency and government reform.
What’s Next?
Some members of Congress are already mobilizing to restore MEP funding. A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation last week that would provide emergency funding to keep the centers afloat through the end of the fiscal year. Whether that effort succeeds may depend on how much public attention the issue garners—and how much pressure voters put on their representatives.
In the meantime, the message to manufacturers is mixed at best. On one hand, the government is telling them it wants to protect and promote their industries. On the other, it’s dismantling the very infrastructure that has helped them survive in a rapidly changing global economy.
For manufacturers like Teresa Nguyen, who runs a family-owned electronics firm in Colorado, the loss of MEP support feels like being left out in the cold. “They’re throwing us into a trade war and cutting our parachute at the same time,” she said. “How is that supposed to help?”
If there’s a plan behind these conflicting policies, it’s not one that’s clear to the people on the ground. What’s becoming clearer, though, is that slogans and tariffs alone won’t be enough to keep America’s manufacturing engine running.
