10 Ways States Can Respond to Uncertain Federal Tariff Policies

Written for the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, in association with the SEDE Network

Abstract: Federal tariff volatility is increasing uncertainty in investment decisions, supply chains, and workforce demand. Firms are delaying or even halting projects, restructuring sourcing, and requiring higher returns to justify increased risk. While States cannot control federal policy, they can control how they respond. Those that build analytical capacity, strengthen execution, and provide direct support to companies will gain a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining investment.

A few key state takeaways:

Treat tariff exposure as a core analytical function and use it to guide retention, incentives, and project strategy.
Strengthen supply chain resilience by localizing suppliers and supporting cluster development.
Move faster to compress the timeline from project announcement to operations. That will reduce exposure to cost volatility.
Recalibrate incentives toward long-term commitment and measurable outcomes.
Compete on reliability by emphasizing workforce readiness, energy stability, logistics, and execution capacity over cost alone.
Prioritize existing firms by supporting trade navigation, workforce alignment, and supply chain solutions.

Background

Federal tariff levels are front of mind among many firms, and these government decisions represent cost variables in your prospects’ capital models. Tariffs affect input pricing, export access, supply chain risk, and country-of-investment decisions. Companies in your project pipeline are making investment decisions in the most volatile trade environment in decades. Your ability to understand the mechanics of tariffs and respond with discipline should become a core competency so that it represents a potential competitive advantage.

Even though states have little control, States should treat tariffs as a core strategic consideration. Tariffs directly shape how companies make investment and expansion decisions. States that understand these forces can better align their strategies to meet company needs and compete for investment.

Four Forces Shaping the Investment Environment

1. Volatility Matters More Than the Actual Tariff Rate

The specific tariff rate is generally less important than the unpredictability surrounding it. Tariffs were not a consideration for many years because they remained low and stable as part of efforts to create a more globally connected trade and investment environment. Low-cost markets benefitted from access to markets and higher cost countries like the US benefitted from access to low-cost labor.

Since early 2025, federal tariff policy has shifted repeatedly. The US imposed new duties. And adjusted the duties. The courts reversed those duties. Others challenged decisions on both sides in court. The Administration paused several. The Supreme Court ruled on how tariffs can be used. Companies sued for refunds. In this environment, firms face a moving and seemingly unpredictable target.

As a result, companies are hesitating to invest in expansions or new locations, cancelling some projects, and taking much longer to make final decisions on others. In a April 2025 Richmond Fed survey, 25 percent of CFOs, including 29 percent of manufacturers, planned to cut capital spending. The result for those that opt to move forward is extended deal cycles, more corporate board-level scenario modeling, additional sensitivity testing, and delays in final project approvals. This is especially true for projects that depend on imported inputs or export markets.

2. Foreign Direct Investment Faces Structural Headwinds

Multinational firms deploy capital cautiously, but even more so when trade conditions are unstable. When capital decisions are difficult to reverse, then decision makers require a higher internal rate of return to make what companies deem are riskier investments. As a result, announcements of US inbound greenfield FDI in 2025 declined by 3 percent relative to 2024 (Moder and Spital, CEPR Vox EU 2026).

Tariffs may attract market-seeking FDI, as firms invest to take advantage of tariff differences. At the same time, those tariffs raise input costs and disrupt upstream supply chains. While FDI does not stop, these disruptions slow decisions as investors become more cautious. Companies extend timelines, raise internal approval thresholds, and in some cases shift projects to markets viewed as more stable.

State economic development pitches must now address trade exposure and tariff mitigation directly. Talent and tax incentives are no longer sufficient for projects that are highly exposed to potential tariff impacts.

3. Tariffs Restructure Input Costs Across Your Manufacturer Base

While politicians argue about who pays for increased tariffs, economist widely agree that tariffs act as a tax on imported intermediate goods that US firms and consumers pay. Over time, tariffs affect business margins and product prices. Research from Cavallo and Wen at the Harvard Business School shows tariffs raised imported goods prices by about 6.6 percent and domestic goods by 3.8 percent, with most tariff costs borne by U.S. importers and consumers and increasingly passed through to retail prices over time.

These cost pressures compress margins. In some cases, they may reduce planned investment. In others, companies respond by relocating production inside the U.S. to avoid duties on finished goods. This “tariff-jumping” investment activity creates opportunities for states. But don’t confuse defensive tariff-jumping investment with long-term commitment. A key question for state economic developers when looking at a potential FDI opportunity is determining if tariff policies shift again, whether firms may reverse current decisions.

4. Macroeconomic Forces Filter to State-Level Conditions

Different economic and fiscal modeling experts agree: Tariffs slow growth. Not only did the Tax Foundation make this finding in a March 2026 article, but Peterson Institute modeling calibrated to third quarter 2025 tariff levels projected reduced U.S. growth in both 2025 and 2026, with inflation running approximately one percentage point above baseline. Longer term projections indicate lower real GDP, lower employment in durable manufacturing and agriculture, and reduced real wages relative to a no-tariff baseline.

Even firms with no direct tariff exposure feel this through weaker demand and softer confidence. State revenue forecasts, labor demand projections, and business expansion project pipelines could also reflect these national macro conditions.

A State Economic Development Strategy in Response

First, let’s acknowledge that states cannot control federal tariff policy. Even so, state leaders can control how they respond to national policies. The following recommendations line up with many of the challenges tariff volatility has created for state economic development practitioners.

Analyze Your State’s Sector Exposure to Tariffs

Not all employers in your portfolio face equivalent tariff risk. States should move quickly to institutionalize tariff exposure analysis as a core economic development function and use it to drive action across business retention, technical assistance, and investment decisions.

Start by segmenting your existing firms and active prospects based on tariff sensitivity. Focus on three factors:

Dependence on imported intermediate goods.
Reliance on export markets.
Position in global supply chains.

This allows you to identify which firms face immediate cost pressure, which face demand uncertainty, and which are exposed through supplier networks. In most states, the highest-risk sectors will cluster in autos, advanced manufacturing, chemicals, life sciences, or capital equipment. But other sectors may be exposed. Treat this as a dynamic dataset that updates as trade policy shifts.

Next, embed this analysis into your operating model. Use it to prioritize business retention outreach. Firms with high exposure should receive proactive engagement, not reactive support. Pair this with targeted technical assistance. Help companies navigate tariff classifications, identify alternative sourcing strategies, and assess eligibility for federal exclusions or relief mechanisms. At the same time, integrate tariff exposure into project underwriting. Incentives and co-investments should reflect risk. Projects highly exposed to tariff volatility may require different structuring, pacing, or performance conditions.

Colorado offers one example of how to operationalize this approach. Under the authority of Executive Order D 2025-008, in September 2025, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting produced a detailed, region-by-sector tariff impact analysis. The state divided Colorado into nine regions and assessed exposure across key industries including aerospace, advanced manufacturing, bioscience, energy, agriculture, and retail. The findings showed broad cost increases and meaningful risks to state revenues that support core public services. The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade extended this work with firm-level interviews, translating macro analysis into actionable insights about business needs.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management used economic modeling as a mechanism for assessing tariff impacts. The state’s input-output analysis and trade elasticity modeling estimated impacts on industries, household prices, economic growth, and state revenues. This approach strengthens the analytical foundation and helps policymakers understand second-order effects across the economy.

Build Supply Chain Resilience into Your Cluster Strategy

States should make supply chain resilience a central element of their cluster strategy. Focus on reducing dependence on distant and tariff-exposed inputs by mapping supplier networks, identifying sourcing gaps, and recruiting or developing domestic suppliers within key industries. Use available data sources, including U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis input-output data where possible, and pair that with ground-level intelligence from Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers and industry associations. This combination helps pinpoint where major employers lack viable domestic sourcing options and where targeted intervention can have the greatest impact.

The goal is practical and durable. When a major employer faces tariff-driven cost pressure, the most effective response is to help them localize suppliers within the state or region. This strengthens cluster cohesion, reduces exposure to global volatility, and creates lasting economic value that persists regardless of federal policy shifts. It also positions states to compete for reshoring and supplier expansion opportunities tied to national security and advanced manufacturing priorities.

Michigan’s Supply Chain Resiliency team, for instance, actively connects manufacturers to domestic sourcing alternatives in sectors like mobility, clean energy, and aerospace. The state complements this with Project DIAMOnD (Distributed, Independent, Agile Manufacturing On Demand), a distributed 3D printing network that expands production flexibility for small and midsize firms. Together, these efforts function as a coordinated supplier development system that reduces reliance on imported inputs while strengthening in-state industrial capacity.

Accelerate the Path from Project Announcement to Operations

States should prioritize reducing the time from project announcement to full operations as a core competitive strategy. Measure how well the economic development team is doing. In a volatile tariff environment, speed offsets cost uncertainty. The focus should extend beyond deal closure to execution. Pre-certified sites, streamlined permitting, coordinated infrastructure delivery, clear and reliable incentive timelines, and early workforce recruitment all help compress the timeline from commitment to production. The shorter this window, the lower the exposure that decision makers have to shifts in equipment and materials costs.

This requires tight coordination across agencies and partners. States should treat project delivery as an integrated process, aligning economic development, permitting authorities, utilities, and workforce systems around a shared timeline. Pre-development work is critical. Sites should be fully vetted in advance with clear documentation on environmental conditions, geotechnical readiness, utilities, and developable acreage so firms can move immediately once a decision is made.

For instance, states commonly run certified site program, but Tennessee offers a model through a set of rigorous, pre-cleared standards that comprise the Select Tennessee Certified Sites program. These standards reduce uncertainty and accelerate execution. Tennessee and other top-performing states such as South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio demonstrate how disciplined site readiness and cross-agency collaboration can compress timelines. In a tariff-uncertain environment, this speed directly reduces financial risk and strengthens a state’s ability to win and retain projects.

Recalibrate Incentives to Reward Long-Term Commitment

States should prioritize long-term economic value over short-term, tariff-driven investment decisions. As tariff-jumping FDI increases, some firms may pursue defensive, reversible location choices that do not build durable local capacity. States should structure incentive packages that reward sustained capital investment, domestic supplier integration, workforce development, job quality, and the retention of existing jobs. The goal is to anchor firms more deeply in the regional economy rather than support one-time location decisions tied to temporary policy conditions.

This shift requires tying incentives to measurable, post-performance outcomes. Many states already include clawback provisions and performance thresholds in their incentive agreements, but leading practice moves further by linking benefits directly to verified results over time. This reduces public risk and ensures that incentives are earned through demonstrated impact. Metrics should reflect long-term contributions such as capital deployment milestones, supply chain localization, wage levels, and workforce training outcomes.

More than two-thirds of the states have adopted laws for regular evaluations of their programs, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. States with the most promising practices structure their incentives around sustained investment and job quality rather than simple project announcements, with benefits aligned to long-term performance. The broader lesson is clear. States that reward durability and accountability will be better positioned to capture investments that strengthen their economic base, even as trade policy conditions shift.

Deepen Your Value Proposition Beyond Cost Considerations

States should expand their value proposition beyond cost and incentives to address the operational risks companies now prioritize. Site selectors are placing greater weight on geopolitical exposure, trade volatility, and supply chain uncertainty. That shifts the conversation. Instead of leading with cost per square foot or tax abatements, states should emphasize logistics performance, energy reliability, proximity to customers, depth of domestic suppliers, and the strength of workforce pipelines. The competitive edge comes from helping firms operate with greater certainty, not just lower cost.

This requires a more integrated and evidence-based pitch. States must now demonstrate how infrastructure, energy systems, workforce development, and supplier networks work together to reduce disruption risk. Data and documentation matter. Firms want proof that production can continue without interruption and that key inputs, talent, and customers are accessible under changing conditions.

New York provides a clear example of this shift. Its 2025 Energy Plan reframes economic development around energy reliability and operational stability, linking clean energy deployment with industrial demand, workforce readiness, and grid resilience. This creates a concrete, verifiable story for site selectors. The broader lesson for States in a business environment defined by uncertainty is to position themselves as reliable places to operate, not just as affordable locations.

Align Workforce Systems to Shifting Demand Signals

States should align workforce systems to rapidly changing industry demand, particularly as reshoring and advanced manufacturing investments shift occupational needs. Growth in sectors like semiconductors, equipment, and advanced manufacturing is increasing demand for skilled trades, precision technicians, and automation workers. Workforce systems must respond with speed and precision. This means working closely with workforce boards, community colleges, and universities to deploy short-cycle, industry-aligned credential programs that can scale quickly as demand emerges.

The priority is responsiveness. States that can demonstrate a clear, near-term pipeline of trained workers have a decisive advantage in converting site inspection visits into investment decisions. This requires tighter coordination between employers and training providers, real-time labor market intelligence, and flexible program design that allows curriculum updates as technologies and production needs evolve. Rapid credentialing, modular training, and employer co-design should become standard practice.

Arizona sets the benchmark because its workforce system aligns community colleges, universities, and state leadership around semiconductor and advanced manufacturing demand. Programs like Maricopa Community Colleges’ short-term technician training and the Future48 Workforce Accelerator show how states can stand up customized, hands-on training capacity in direct partnership with industry leaders like Intel and TSMC. Workforce Pell represents a new opportunity for States that directly align their college and university offerings to investment opportunities. In short, workforce readiness is an immediate, operational capability that determines whether projects land or go elsewhere.

Deepen Incumbent FDI Retention

States should place greater emphasis on retaining and expanding existing foreign-owned firms as a primary growth strategy. Expansion from incumbent FDI is typically faster, lower risk, and more cost-effective than attracting new firms with no local presence. Economic developers should conduct structured retention visits with these firms, focusing specifically on tariff exposure, supply chain adjustments, and operational pressures. This creates an opportunity to provide targeted support, including guidance on trade adjustment resources and customs compliance, while reinforcing the state’s commitment to firms that have already chosen to invest.

A systematic and data driven approach would allow States to track their foreign-owned company base by sector, origin, and regional distribution, and monitor expansion activity over time. This intelligence allows for proactive engagement before tariff pressures or supply chain disruptions lead firms to scale back or relocate. Just as important, retention strategies should connect firms to workforce solutions, supplier networks, and infrastructure support that strengthen their long-term viability.

Minnesota combines consistent FDI attraction with disciplined tracking of incumbent firm performance through its business retention and expansion efforts. By maintaining visibility into where foreign-owned firms are growing and what challenges they face, Minnesota engages early to address risks and support expansion. This illustrates that States treating incumbent FDI as a strategic asset position themselves to convert existing relationships into sustained investment and job growth.

Advocate With Data

States should build a disciplined, data-driven approach to documenting how tariff volatility affects firm behavior and economic outcomes. This means capturing project-level evidence on how tariffs influence investment timing, supplier decisions, cost structures, and workforce demand. The objective here is not to advocate for a specific tariff level, but to demonstrate that policy stability matters. When firms delay or restructure investments due to uncertainty, states should be able to quantify those effects and translate them into clear economic implications.

Aggregated, this evidence can help States engage with federal partners more strategically. Well-informed States are better positioned to provide grounded, real-world insights that complement national models. By presenting consistent, well-documented data to congressional delegations and federal agencies, states can help shape more informed and predictable policy environments. Evidence carries more weight than anecdote, especially when it reflects patterns across multiple firms and sectors.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management produced a comprehensive analysis of tariff impacts across households, industries, employment, and state revenues, and used that analysis directly in federal advocacy. The lesson is straightforward. States that invest in rigorous, transparent analysis can elevate their voice in national policy discussions and make a stronger case for stability and clarity in trade policy.

Communicate Stability and Execution Capacity

States should position themselves as stable, execution-focused partners to private sector decisionmakers that can offset federal policy volatility. Investors can navigate changing tariff environments, but they place a premium on locations where projects move predictably from commitment to operation. That requires visible alignment across the governor’s office, economic development, workforce systems, infrastructure providers, and higher education. The signal to investors is that even if federal policy shifts, local execution does not.

To reinforce this principle, states should offer proactive engagement, transparent permitting, coordinated infrastructure delivery, and consistent follow-through all contribute to a reputation for reliability. Economic development teams should act as strategic partners, not just transaction managers, helping firms navigate complexity and maintain momentum. Over time, this builds a brand grounded in disciplined execution rather than incentives alone.

Many of the Southeast peer states demonstrate the value of this approach. States like Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia consistently rank highly for coordinated, “white glove” execution, with strong collaboration across agencies and utilities. For instance, Georgia’s combination of aligned interagency execution, permitting speed, and proactive investor communication is the brand that helps the state stand out. Their success reflects a broader shift in site selection. Investors increasingly seek locations that can deliver certainty in uncertain conditions. States that align internally and execute consistently will stand out.

Strengthen Trade Navigation and Tariff Mitigation Services

Tariff volatility affects the daily operations of many companies already located in your state, not just the decisions of potential future investors. Economic development agencies can help firms manage the pressures by strengthening state trade support services and offering practical tools that reduce tariff exposure and supply chain disruption. At a minimum, this includes strengthening export promotion and international market development programs so that firms can diversify export markets when tariff barriers change or when other countries adjust their own trade responses to U.S. policy.

Several states have already launched targeted initiatives designed to help companies absorb short-term tariff shocks. Massachusetts introduced the Tariff Response and Business Operations (TRBO) Initiative in 2025 to support firms directly affected by shifting tariff policies and supply chain disruptions. Virginia expanded its international trade services and introduced a supply chain optimization program that helps companies redesign sourcing strategies when imported inputs become more expensive. Oregon (HB 4061) and Kansas (through GrowKS SSBCI technical assistance grants) are both exploring ways to offer short-term mitigation grants for small manufacturers facing tariff-related cost spikes for equipment and materials during transition periods. Policy proposals in several states also include eliminating business personal property taxes on manufacturing equipment to reduce capital cost exposure tied to tariff-driven price increases.

States can also expand technical advisory services that help firms manage tariffs more strategically. California’s State Trade Expansion Program and similar initiatives in Texas and Florida provide export assistance while advising companies on duty drawback programs that allow firms to reclaim tariffs paid on imported goods that are later exported.

Some states are also expanding services that help companies redesign supply chains or identify alternative sourcing strategies when tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs. For instance, state trade offices are providing technical assistance to companies by helping to design tariff engineering strategies that adjust product design or classification to reduce duty exposure. Agencies in states such as South Carolina and Georgia actively promote the use of Foreign Trade Zones, which allow manufacturers to defer or reduce tariff payments on imported inputs used in domestic production.

States are also strengthening their internal supply chain intelligence capacity. Michigan and Indiana have invested in supplier mapping tools that help major manufacturers identify domestic sourcing alternatives within their regional manufacturing ecosystems. Some states are developing online supplier directories to connect large manufacturers with smaller local producers capable of filling supply chain gaps. Others are producing state-level tariff impact briefings that translate federal trade policy changes into practical guidance for local firms. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce, for example, published detailed analyses explaining how recent tariff measures affect specific industry clusters across the state.

Finally, states are increasingly using policy advocacy and legal channels to address tariff impacts on their business communities. Beyond litigation and refund legislation, state leaders can work with companies to help identify waiver and exclusion opportunities under IEEPA Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices). By helping manufacturers determine whether imports qualify for exclusions, understand evolving tariff frameworks, and file protective actions to preserve refund rights, state economic development agencies can provide practical support that helps firms manage immediate cost pressures regardless of how federal policy evolves.

Together, these services position state economic development agencies not only as recruiters of new investment but also as practical partners helping existing firms navigate an increasingly complex global trade environment.

The Bottom Line

Federal tariff policy is introducing measurable friction into globally integrated industries. Designed to reduce trade inequities with other countries, this friction also slows investment timelines and reshapes foreign direct investment patterns by raising the cost of trade and increasing uncertainty about future policy direction. Companies are showing interest in reshoring and identifying domestic suppliers, but they are also adopting technologies that reduce labor intensity in production. As a result, when production moves back onshore it often does not replace labor on a one-to-one basis, and the workforce needed for these facilities is increasingly skilled in advanced manufacturing technologies.

For states, the response cannot focus solely on attracting new investment. Tariff volatility is also affecting companies already operating within state economies. Firms are adjusting sourcing strategies, rethinking export markets, and navigating complex customs and tariff rules that affect margins and cash flow. States that provide practical support through trade advisory services, supply chain optimization assistance, export promotion, and tariff mitigation tools can help existing companies remain competitive while strengthening relationships that often lead to expansion investment.

Every state has identified investment targets among key industries. Tariff policy volatility affects those firms differently. Those firms are making decisions today about capital investment, supplier networks, and production locations. The best positioned States build sector intelligence, provide direct operational support to companies, strengthen domestic supply chains, and demonstrate disciplined execution to capture the investment that proceeds in the months and years ahead. States that wait for a clear federal policy environment may find that companies have already made their decisions.

References

Automation Alley / Project DIAMOnD. (2025). Project DIAMOnD: Distributed, independent, agile manufacturing on demand [Program overview]. https://projectdiamond.org/

Azzimonti, M., Edwards, Z., Waddell, S. R., & Wyckoff, A. (2025, April). Tariffs: Estimating the economic impact of the 2025 measures and proposals (Economic Brief No. 25-12). Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-12

Arizona Commerce Authority. (2025). Future48 workforce accelerators. https://www.azcommerce.com/future48-workforce-accelerators/

Arizona Office of Strategic Infrastructure. (2025). Talent ready AZ: Advanced manufacturing and semiconductor workforce. https://osi.az.gov/priorities/talent-ready-az/advanced-manufacturing-and-semiconductor-workforce

California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. (2025). State Trade Expansion Program (STEP). https://export.business.ca.gov/

Cavallo, A., Llamas, P., & Vazquez, F. (2025, October). Tracking the short-run price impact of U.S. tariffs (NBER Working Paper No. 34496). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w34496

Colorado Governor’s Office. (2025, September 4). Executive Order D 2025-008: Tariff impact analysis. https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/goserials/go4312internet/go43122025008internet.pdf

Colorado Office of State Planning and Budgeting. (2025, September). Estimating the impacts of changing U.S. tariff policy [Report pursuant to Executive Order D 2025-008]. State of Colorado. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_-7D3w5gVwRvnCiWEUK_jDkAMTQVxLz/view

Duke University–Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond CFO Survey. (2025, Q1). First quarter 2025 CFO survey results. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/cfo_survey

Georgia Economic Development / Georgia.org. (2025). GRAD certified sites. https://georgia.org/grad-certified-sites

Georgia Chamber of Commerce. (2025). Tariffs briefing: Industry cluster impacts. https://www.gachamber.com/data/tariffs-briefing/

Good Jobs First. (n.d.). Key reforms: Accountable development. https://goodjobsfirst.org/accountable-development/key-reforms/

Harvard Business School Institute for Business in Global Society. (2025, October 24). U.S. trade tariffs are increasing prices [Research feature on Cavallo & Wen]. https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/us-trade-tariffs-increasing-prices

Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. (2025). Indiana site certified. https://www.in.gov/ocra/indiana-site-certified/

JobsOhio. (2025). Site selection. https://www.jobsohio.com/site-selection

Kansas Network Kansas / GrowKS. (2025). GrowKS SSBCI technical assistance grants. https://networkkansas.com/services/growks

Maricopa County Community Colleges. (2025). Semiconductor technician training. https://info.maricopacorporate.com/semiconductor

MassTech Collaborative. (2025). Tariff response and business operations (TRBO) initiative. https://cam.masstech.org/TRBO

McKibbin, W. J., Noland, M., & Shuetrim, G. (2025). The global trade war: An update [Blog post]. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/global-trade-war-update

Michigan Economic Development Corporation. (2025). Supply chain resiliency. https://www.michiganbusiness.org/services/supply-chain-resiliency/

Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center. (2025). CONNEX Michigan: Supply chain networking tool. https://www.the-center.org/CONNEX

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. (2025). 2025 state business retention and expansion: Minnesota. https://mnchamber.com/2025-state-business-retention-and-expansion-minnesota

Moder, I., & Spital, T. (2025, November). The protectionist gamble: How tariffs shape greenfield foreign direct investment (ECB Working Paper No. 3144). European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3144~ab18c3e205.en.pdf

Moder, I., & Spital, T. (2026, January). The risk of tariffs as a tool to attract manufacturing investment [VoxEU column]. Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/risk-tariffs-tool-attract-manufacturing-investment

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. (2025). 2025 New York State energy plan. https://energyplan.ny.gov/

Oregon Legislative Assembly. (2026). House Bill 4061: Relating to a unified trade strategy for Oregon. Oregon Legislative Information System. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Measures/Overview/HB4061

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2024, May). Economic development incentives evaluation toolkit. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2024/economic-development-incentives-evaluation-toolkit

Purdue University Dauch Center for the Management of Manufacturing Enterprises. (2025). Indiana supply chain marketplace tool. https://www.sctool-gscmi.org

South Carolina Department of Commerce. (2025). LocateSC site selection. https://locatesc.sccommerce.com/

Tax Foundation. (2026, March). Tariff tracker: 2026 Trump tariffs and trade war by the numbers. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. (2025). Select Tennessee certified sites. https://tnecd.com/sites/certified-sites/

University Economic Development Association. (2026). Workforce Pell: Proposed regulations and implications for university economic development leaders. https://www.universityeda.org/workforce-pell-proposed-regulations-implications-for-university-economic-development-leaders

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. (2025). Supply chain optimization program. https://exportvirginia.org/supply-chain-optimization-program

Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2025, August). Crosswinds ahead: Full tariff impact analysis report [PDF]. https://ofm.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Tariff_Impact_Analysis_Report.pdf

Background

Four Forces Shaping the Investment Environment

A State Economic Development Strategy in Response

The Bottom Line

References

Further Reading

Tariff Economics and Macroeconomic Impacts

State Foreign Direct Investment and Site Selection Practice

More posts

RMI Webinar: Driving Economic Development with Affordable Power

10 Ways States Can Respond to Uncertain Federal Tariff Policies

State Developments Snapshot – Issue 91, March 2026

Midwestern Governor’s Association Webinar Series: New America’s Smartland: Electricity Affordability