唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统贸易和制造政策办公室主任彼得·纳瓦罗(Peter Navarro)一直在反复敦促美国将更多供应链带回家，因为在当前新的冠状病毒大流行的背景下，对中国依赖的担忧日益加剧。
随着美国应对全球爆发的COVID-19病毒引发的公共卫生和经济衰退，特朗普政府官员和一些共和党高层越来越多地批评中国——这种新型病毒最初出现的国家。中国官员最初掩盖了武汉的疫情，中国因在疫情中缺乏透明度而面临越来越多的国际批评。与此同时，美国一直在努力增加基本医疗用品，供应链的大部分依赖于中国或其他地方生产的产品。
纳瓦罗周一在接受CNBC时报采访时表示:“如果我们没有从这场危机中认识到，这个伟大国家繁荣的唯一途径是尽可能多地生产我们需要的东西，那么我们将一无所知，我们将陷入深渊。”扬声器。
3月29日，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在白宫西翼会见供应链分销商，讨论新型冠状病毒大流行，彼得·纳瓦罗在一旁观看
早些时候，纳瓦罗指出，前进的信息应该是“购买美国货”
“未来的结构支柱将是[购买美国货——这将把我们的供应链和生产带回家，放松管制使之成为可能，创新保持在竞争中领先，”他表示。纳夫罗指出，特朗普一直在与商界领袖会面，讨论如何将供应链带回美国
在报告5月1日，美国国土安全部官员声称，中国官员在1月初“故意隐瞒”冠状病毒的严重性，当时他们正努力组织足够的医疗物资运输，以帮助中国有效应对危机。该文件显示，北京方面增加了必要医疗用品的进口，同时减少了出口。两个月后，冠状病毒在美国大流行，医院和各州发现自己面临重要物资的短缺，如个人防护设备和呼吸机。
一些公共卫生专家和经济学家警告称，美国应对危机的准备不足，部分原因是它依赖国际制造商(其中许多在中国运营)来生产重要的供应品。与此同时，一些商界领袖反对供应链国有化，指出这涉及成本。
“廉价高效的中国制造业帮助全球数亿人摆脱了贫困。纽黑文大学经济与商业分析系的助理教授帕特里克·古利说:“当然，这也有缺点，但事实是，像百年一遇的流行病这样不寻常的事情才把这种担忧带到主流，这表明全球供应变化的好处超过了成本。”新闻周刊。
古尔利还对美国消费者会支持供应链的重大国有化表示怀疑。
“消费者会看到的主要影响是价格上涨。美国公司搬到国外是因为那里更便宜；出于同样的原因，美国消费者更喜欢国外制造的商品，”他说。“这就是为什么‘购买美国货’运动从未真正流行起来。”
地缘政治未来预测机构的主席和创始人乔治·弗里德曼(George Friedman)指出，国际供应链既有优势，也有劣势。
弗里德曼说:“国际供应链的危险在于，事件的发生会让你失去成本优势，给供应链带来时间损失或其他摩擦，或者让供应链变得不可及。”新闻周刊。“中国供应链的诱惑在于成本。在[问题爆发之前，企业通常会忽略这些风险。”
弗里德曼还表示，许多企业将认为有必要结束对中国的依赖。
“供应链中缺乏冗余——尤其是在地理多样性方面——这一点非常明显。中国是关键零部件唯一供应商的时代，让许多公司在这场流行病中付出了巨大代价，”他表示。"理性的制药公司会希望生产多元化或回流."
AS CRITICISM OF CHINA MOUNTS, TRUMP ADVISER PETER NAVARRO CONTINUES TO URGE BRINGING SUPPLY CHAIN HOME
Peter Navarro, the director of President Donald Trump's Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, has been repeatedly pushing for the U.S. to bring more of its supply chain home as concerns about dependence on China have mounted amid the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic.
As the U.S. has dealt with the public health and economic fall out of the global outbreak of COVID-19, Trump administration officials and some top Republicans have been increasingly critical of China, the country where the novel virus first arose. Chinese officials initially covered up the outbreak in Wuhan, and China has faced mounting international criticism for lacking transparency amid the pandemic. Meanwhile, the U.S. has struggled to build up essential medical supplies, with much of the supply chain relying on products manufactured in China or elsewhere.
"If we don't learn from this crisis that the only way this great country is going to prosper is by making the stuff we need as much as possible then we will have learned nothing and we will sink into the abyss," Navarro said Monday in an interview with CNBC's Squawk Box.
Peter Navarro looks on as President Donald Trump meets with supply chain distributors to discuss the novel coronavirus pandemic, in the West Wing of the White House on March 29
Earlier in the segment, Navarro noted that the message moving forward should be to "buy American."
"The structural pillars going forward are going to be [to] buy American–and that is bringing our supply chains and production home, deregulation to make that possible, and innovation to stay ahead of the competition," he said. Navrro noted that Trump has been meeting with business leaders to discuss how the supply chain could be brought back to the U.S.
In a report dated May 1, officials at the Department of Homeland security alleged that Chinese officials "intentionally concealed the severity" of the coronavirus in early January as they worked to organize sufficient shipments of medical supplies to help their country respond effectively to the crisis. The document suggested that Beijing had increased imports of necessary medical supplies while decreasing exports. As the coronavirus pandemic ballooned in the U.S. two months later, hospitals and states found themselves facing shortages of vital supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators.
Some public health experts and economists have warned that the U.S. was less prepared to deal with the crisis due partly to its dependence on international manufacturers, many of which operate in China, to produce vital supplies. At the same time, some business leaders have pushed back against nationalizing the supply chain, pointing to the costs involved.
"Cheap and efficient Chinese manufacturing has helped lift hundreds of millions of individuals around the world out of poverty. Of course, there are drawbacks, but the fact that it took something as unusual as a once in a century pandemic to bring this concern to the mainstream shows how much the benefits of a global supply change exceed the costs," Patrick Gourley, an assistant professor at the Department of Economics & Business Analytics at the University of New Haven, told Newsweek.
Gourley also expressed skepticism that American consumers would get behind a significant nationalization of the supply chain.
"The main impact customers would see is an increase in prices. American firms moved abroad because it was cheaper; American consumers prefer goods made abroad for the same reason,"he said. "This is why 'Buy American' movements have never really caught."
George Friedman, chairman and founder of forecasters Geopolitical Futures, noted that there are advantages and disadvantages to international supply chains.
"The danger of international supply chains is that events can and do take place that costs you the cost advantage, imposes a time penalty or other friction on the supply chain or makes the supply chain inaccessible," Friedman told Newsweek. "The temptation of a supply chain in China is cost. The risks are frequently ignored by businesses until [problems] strike."
Friedman also suggested that many businesses would see a need to end their dependence on China.
"The lack of redundancy in supply chain–particularly in geographic diversity has hit home. The era in which China was the sole supplier of critical components has cost many companies a great deal in this epidemic," he said. "Rational pharmaceutical firms will want to diversify or repatriate production."
