Manufacturing ten popular consumer technology products entirely in the United States would raise production costs by 41% to 152%, according to modeling commissioned by the Consumer Technology Association and carried out with Kearney.
The October 6 study announcement compares current sourcing with US production of both components and finished goods, and with domestic assembly using largely imported parts.
Its estimates concern specified products and production scenarios. They are not measured price increases, and cannot be applied to every factory considering relocation. CTA represents technology businesses and advocates changes to trade policy.
What is reshoring?
Reshoring means bringing production back to a company’s home country after moving it overseas or sourcing it abroad. Nearshoring moves activities to a nearby country; friendshoring shifts sourcing toward countries regarded as reliable partners.
A manufacturer may relocate to shorten delivery times or reduce exposure to particular suppliers. Those objectives still require a calculation of equipment, staffing, component and operating costs.
Assembling a device locally also leaves a different supply chain from making all its parts locally. A smartphone needs processors, memory, displays, cameras and batteries, which come from separate manufacturing processes.
Assembly requires much less investment
CTA puts the full-production cost increase at 152% for smartphones, 93% for laptops and 41% for televisions. The percentages measure manufacturing costs, not retail prices.
It estimates $185 billion to $230 billion in investment to establish full US capacity across the ten categories. Assembly with largely imported components would require $16 billion to $19 billion.
CTA estimates retail price increases of 38% to 76% for fully US-made smartphones, versus 17% to 33% for domestic assembly. Those scenarios assume partial cost pass-through; they are not forecasts of particular brands’ prices.
Final assembly can create domestic work without establishing a domestic semiconductor or display industry. Policymakers must decide which production stages reduce the risks they are targeting and how much they are prepared to spend on them.
Changing suppliers is easier than recreating an ecosystem
Kearney’s separate 2026 Reshoring Index reported that US computer and electronics imports rose by $161 billion, or 29%, between 2024 and 2025. Domestic output in that category grew 2.8%.
Imports from mainland China fell, while sourcing from Mexico and other Asian countries increased. Moving final assembly did not necessarily move the component suppliers behind it.
Supplier concentration can bring nearby engineering expertise, maintenance services and fast deliveries of replacement parts. A new factory needs access to those capabilities as well as workers and a building.
There are costs to remaining dependent on a transport route, too. We reported on how port disruption can affect inland manufacturers through delayed inputs and production networks.
Domestic production does not remove every supply risk
The OECD’s 2025 supply-chain review found no consistent resilience improvement in its modeled relocalization scenarios. Economic volatility increased in more than half of the economies examined.
That separate, economy-wide analysis is not a cost estimate for CTA’s products. It does caution against assuming that concentrating production at home protects a business against every disruption.
A domestic factory can still rely on imported components and equipment, or face local power and labor constraints. Selective assembly may cost less than full relocation, but leaves companies dependent on the overseas production stages they have not moved.
