An analysis found that President Donald Trump's push to shift production of technology products fully to the United States would require massive costs. If the entire production process for 10 major technology products widely used by U.S. households were moved to the United States, it was estimated to require up to $230 billion (about 307 trillion won) in facility investment and 668,000 additional workers. The analysis also raised the possibility that consumer prices could rise as production costs increase.

On Oct. 7 (local time), IT outlet Ars Technica reported that the U.S. Consumer Technology Association (CTA) analysed a full U.S. production scenario for 10 items: computer monitors, laptops, robot vacuum cleaners, smart speakers, smartphones, smartwatches, TVs, video game consoles, wireless earbuds and wireless headphones.

CTA estimated that shifting the entire supply chains of these products to the United States would require capital spending of $185 billion to $230 billion (about 247 trillion won to 307 trillion won). It forecast a need for 555,000 to 668,000 additional full-time workers and annual power demand of 19.1 billion to 19.5 billion kWh.

Smartphones were the biggest burden. CTA rated smartphones as on a "different dimension" compared with other products, and estimated that producing the entire process in the United States would raise production costs by 152 percent when current tariffs are factored in.

Other products also face steep cost increases. Laptop production costs were forecast to rise 93 percent, smartwatches 97 percent and TVs 41 percent. The prices consumers pay when buying the products could also rise by a significant margin.

CTA said it did not expect companies to pass all higher costs on to consumers immediately. Still, it estimated that if 25 to 50 percent of additional costs are reflected in product prices, the weighted average consumer price for the 10 analysed items could rise 27 to 55 percent.

For products bought on a regular replacement cycle, such as smartphones, laptops and TVs, consumers may have to bear higher prices each time they replace a device.

Securing labour is also a practical hurdle. The estimated maximum of 668,000 additional workers is more than double the current total employment in the U.S. computer and electronics manufacturing industry.

CTA board chairman Gary Shapiro questioned the feasibility of the Trump administration's goal of bringing 50 percent of semiconductor production to the United States within its term.

Shapiro said, "It is not realistic to think that in about 2 years the share of semiconductor production in the United States will exceed 50 percent," adding, "It is impossible both physically and in terms of labour." He went on to point out that it would be difficult to achieve even if massive funds were投入 immediately.

Power supply is also a variable. Moving the entire supply chain for technology products to the United States could sharply increase electricity demand needed to run factories, while also increasing electricity demand from AI data centres.

To strengthen AI competitiveness, the Trump administration issued the 'Genesis Mission' executive order in December last year and is pushing to build U.S.-based supply chains for key industries including semiconductors, advanced robotics, biotechnology and nuclear power. But CTA analysed that actual manufacturing infrastructure, labour and power supply are insufficient to keep up with policy goals.

As a realistic alternative, CTA proposed a phased approach that brings assembly processes to the United States first rather than relocating entire supply chains at once.

CTA estimated that if companies move only final assembly to the United States without shifting all component production, the burden would fall to $16 billion to $19 billion (about 21 trillion won to 25 trillion won). Even in that case, smartphone production costs would rise 67 percent and laptops 50 percent, but the explanation was that companies could reduce the cost shock by sourcing components from reliable trading partners, suppliers and allies.

CTA therefore argued that tariff policy on components also needs to be reviewed. It said component tariffs raise U.S. assembly costs, increasing the manufacturing cost burden for companies and could lead to price increases for products that consumers consider essential.

Apple is cited as a representative case in the debate over expanding U.S. production of technology products. After Apple said it would expand iPhone production in India, Trump has strongly pressured the company to produce in the United States. At the time, forecasts on Wall Street said that if iPhones were made in the United States, the average price could rise from $1,500 (about 12 million won) to as high as $3,500 (about 4.68 million won).

Criticism has also continued that moving Apple's production network to the United States in a short period is itself difficult. Matthew Moore, a former Apple manufacturing engineer, has previously pointed out that it is virtually impossible to secure in the United States enough production workers to meet global iPhone demand.

CTA also highlighted that about 80 percent of its member companies are small and medium-sized businesses. Unlike large technology companies, it said, smaller firms lack the capacity to spend massive amounts to shift entire supply chains to the United States.

CTA argued that rather than reshoring technology products to the United States in a blanket way, it should take a phased approach based on each product's economic viability and supply chain stability. It analysed that the more essential the product is to consumers, such as smartphones and laptops, the larger the cost burden of full U.S. production, making it a realistic alternative to secure an assembly base in the United States first and then expand the scope of production rather than relocating the entire supply chain at once.