Serving UIC's Great Cities Commitment: Solutions for Today's Urban Challenges

In a puzzling move that undermines its stated economic goals, President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has begun dismantling the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a 36-year-old national network that helps small- and medium-sized manufacturers enhance productivity, adopt new technologies, train workers, and respond to economic disruptions.

With 51 centers — one in every state plus Puerto Rico — the MEP supports thousands of manufacturers annually. On April 1, DOGE abruptly withheld funding from 10 MEP centers, notifying them that no future support would be provided. This decision arrived just days after the administration announced sweeping tariffs purportedly designed to encourage American manufacturing. Eliminating MEP demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the support manufacturers need to thrive, especially under increased tariff pressures.

Our research into the MEP network highlights its critical role in guiding manufacturers through major disruptions, most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic. MEP centers helped companies quickly modify production processes to protect workers, pivot operations to manufacture personal protective equipment (PPE), and identify new suppliers and markets amid severe supply chain disruptions. Given what we know about MEP’s tangible impact, the decision to eliminate funding is economically self-destructive and shortsighted. Far from being faceless bureaucracies, MEP centers are highly knowledgeable, technically skilled, and trusted advisors deeply embedded within their local manufacturing communities.

Specific examples from our research further illustrate how MEP centers effectively responded to the pandemic’s challenges. Every center stepped up, with some adopting similar strategies. Across the nation, 41 states launched supplier matching platforms to connect manufacturers with critical resources, with some of these also assisting firms in adopting robotics and automation technologies to remain globally competitive despite unprecedented disruptions. Centers in 29 states also provided hands-on assistance to manufacturers retooling their production lines for PPE and other essential goods. These and many other efforts underscore MEP’s indispensable role in supporting the agility and resilience of American manufacturing in times of crisis.

The value of MEP extends far beyond crisis response; its ongoing impact on American manufacturing competitiveness and economic growth is significant and measurable. According to the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, in 2024 alone, the MEP network invested $175 million in domestic manufacturing. It generated a remarkable 17:1 return on investment, adding $34.1 billion to U.S. GDP. Additionally, MEP-assisted manufacturers reported $15 billion in new and retained sales, $5 billion in new client investments, $2.6 billion in cost savings, and over 108,000 jobs created or retained. Given this extraordinary return, the administration’s decision to cut MEP funding raises serious questions: Is minor short-term budget savings worth losing billions in economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs?

The timing of these funding cuts is especially baffling. Earlier this month, President Trump imposed a blanket 10 percent tariff on virtually all imports to spur reshoring and correct what he calls “a lack of reciprocity” in trade. The White House briefly added “reciprocal” surcharges of 11-50% on 57 trading partners on April 9 but suspended them for 90 days just hours later after markets plunged — leaving the 10 percent duty intact. China, however, was exempt from the pause and its rate jumped to 125 percent on April 9. China has already retaliated with 125 percent counter‑tariffs on U.S. autos and agricultural goods, and the Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective U.S. tariff rate is at 28 percent, the highest since 1901. Yet simultaneously, the administration is dismantling an efficient, proven institution specifically designed to help U.S. manufacturers successfully navigate such disruptive economic policies.

Small and medium-sized manufacturers form the backbone of American industry and benefit most directly from the expertise MEP provides. In the face of tariffs and other economic disruptions, these firms need help navigating supply chain disruptions, sourcing domestic alternatives to costly imports, and enhancing productivity to remain competitive — all core services delivered effectively by MEP centers.

Moreover, our research highlights that MEP centers also address a chronic challenge facing manufacturers nationwide: building and retaining a skilled workforce. MEP doesn’t just improve technological efficiency; it helps firms invest in people. Leading MEP centers have innovated workplace strategies that enhance frontline job quality, boosting both employee retention and overall competitiveness. Their advisors — trusted experts embedded within communities — are uniquely positioned to help companies tackle workforce training, retention, and workplace culture improvements. Such support is critical when manufacturers struggle to fill approximately 500,000 open positions, a challenge that may grow as reshoring initiatives accelerate.

U.S. manufacturing shapes more than products — it shapes communities, livelihoods, and the small businesses that keep our economy running. Manufacturing rebalances an economy over-reliant on low-wage service and retail jobs, and acts as a source of pride and identity for the places where it takes root. They need coordinated, long-term investment, and MEP centers have been a bipartisan cornerstone of that support.

But the deeper issue isn’t just the hypocrisy of the cuts — it’s also the damage they inflict on communities already struggling in a fragile economy. If we want jobs and factories “to come roaring back,” we must support the ones already here. They are the foundation of our manufacturing base. Without them, hollowed-out supply chains, an aging workforce, and crumbling infrastructure will make reshoring not just implausible but impossible. If the goal is to create “stronger competition and lower prices for consumers,” the MEP centers are irreplaceable. Eliminating this support is a blow to the entire ecosystem — businesses, their workers, and the communities and local economies they hold together.

Written by Matthew D. Wilson, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago; Nichola J. Lowe, Ph.D., University of Minnesota; Nepal Asatthawasi, Urban Manufacturing Alliance.

From Crain’s Chicago Business (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)

This news article from Crain’s Chicago Business highlights Illinois’ modest job growth in the first quarter of 2025, even as concerns mount over long-term economic stability. Nonfarm employment rose by 0.5% year-over-year, with total jobs in March reaching 6,172,300—up 14,800 from February and 34,200 from March 2024. The government sector, along with private education and health services and leisure and hospitality, saw the largest employment gains. Yet, these gains were offset by significant losses in professional and business services (down 15,000 jobs) and manufacturing (down 5,800), raising red flags about the overall health of the labor market.

Matthew Wilson, associate director of the University of Illinois Chicago’s Great Cities Institute, contributed key insights to the article, emphasizing that the current growth in government and hospitality jobs may not be sustainable. Federal employment cuts and a dip in tourism threaten these sectors’ future viability. Wilson also pointed to troubling trends in the professional and business services sector, where high-paying roles are being lost due to automation and post-pandemic economic recalibrations. He expressed particular concern about the decline in manufacturing jobs, which disproportionately impacts urban working-class Black and Latino populations. While Illinois is investing in advanced industries like quantum computing and data centers, Wilson noted that these jobs require higher levels of education, further widening what he described as the “missing middle” in the state’s job market. He underscored the broader pattern of a bifurcated economy in both Illinois and Chicago—where high-wage, specialized jobs coexist alongside a growing number of low-wage positions with limited benefits.

From Crain’s Chicago Business (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)

The historic partnership between the U.S. and Canada in managing the Great Lakes is facing increasing uncertainty due to rising diplomatic tensions under the Trump administration. Recently, the White House abruptly disinvited two Canadian mayors from the annual Great Lakes Day summit in Washington, D.C., citing “diplomatic protocols.” This exclusion, occurring amidst ongoing trade disputes, has raised concerns that the U.S. may be shifting away from the long-standing tradition of binational cooperation in overseeing the world’s largest freshwater system.

For over a century, both countries have relied on agreements such as the Boundary Waters Treaty (1909), the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (1955), and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1972) to collaboratively manage pollution, invasive species, and water resource use. However, President Trump has reportedly expressed interest in revisiting shared water management, fueling fears that the lakes could be treated as a commodity rather than a protected ecological system. Compounding these concerns, federal budget cuts and staffing reductions at NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory have disrupted scientific collaboration, delaying efforts to address harmful algal blooms and invasive species. Experts warn that without continued U.S.-Canada coordination, the effectiveness of conservation efforts will be significantly weakened.

Dr. Rachel Havrelock, a faculty fellow at the Great Cities Institute and director of the Freshwater Lab at the University of Illinois Chicago, has voiced serious concerns over these developments. She warns that the weakening of this partnership threatens one of the most stable and successful environmental governance models in the world. She stresses that the Great Lakes must be managed as a shared ecological system, rather than as a resource for political or economic leverage. With the lakes providing drinking water for over 30 million people, Havrelock emphasizes that binational cooperation is essential for long-term sustainability and environmental protection. Her concerns reflect broader fears that recent political shifts could undo decades of progress in preserving and protecting the Great Lakes.

From Yahoo! News, in collaboration with Grist, Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan, and WBEZ (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)

In an exclusive interview, Juan Gonzalez, senior research fellow at UIC’s Great Cities Institute, and Reyna Torres Mendivil, Consul General of Mexico in Chicago, weighed in on the potential consequences of the U.S.’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports, which are currently on a 30-day negotiation pause.

• • Economic Impact on Jobs and Manufacturing
    Gonzalez highlighted the deep economic ties between the U.S. and Mexico, particularly in auto manufacturing, where Mexico produced 4 million vehicles in 2024, with half made by U.S. companies like GM and Ford. He warned that tariffs could hit the working class the hardest, raising vehicle costs and putting hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk.

• • Supply Chain Disruptions and Consumer Prices
    Torres Mendivil stressed that trade between Mexico and the U.S. exceeds $8 billion annually, making any disruption a major economic threat. She warned that if the tariffs proceed, they will impact supply chains and raise prices for millions of consumers in both countries. A Brookings Institution report estimates potential job losses of up to 400,000 if Mexico and Canada retaliate.

• • Trade, Border Security, and Drug Trafficking
    Trump has positioned the tariffs as a border security measure, pressuring Mexico to curb drug trafficking. However, Gonzalez pushed back on this framing, stating: “Illicit drugs continue to flow because there’s money to be made. A real solution must address both supply and demand.” Torres Mendivil also pointed out that illegal firearm trafficking into Mexico needs to be part of the discussion.

• • What’s Next?
    With 30 days to negotiate, the future of North American trade hangs in the balance. Whether the pause leads to a resolution or escalates into a full-blown trade war remains to be seen.

From WTTW (To go to the actual article, please click on this link.)