The U.S. has long been thought of as the land of opportunity, and for telecom vendors that opportunity has yielded billions in revenue. But is one of the world’s largest markets turning into one full of risks rather than rewards?
I’d argue, given the events of the last nine months, the answer is yes.
The U.S. government’s sudden announcement in April that it would levy tariffs on enemies and allies alike threw the world into chaos. Confusion and changing goalposts in terms of tariff rates and implementation dates haven't helped matters. One of the things I've heard over and over in my reporting on what this means for the tech and telecom industry is that the uncertainty is more of an issue than the tariffs themselves.
That makes sense. It should go without saying that businesses don’t turn on a dime. It takes time to change or move operations, establish or modify supply chains, and hire and train workers. Investments in R&D, real estate and people are meant to be long-term, which is why sudden changes and uncertainty about future policy wreak havoc.
You don’t need a degree in economics to understand that economic and policy uncertainty has a negative impact on investment. But don’t take my word for it.
“When firms can’t be sure how or when regulations, tariffs or other economic policies might be implemented or change, they tend to fall into ‘wait and see’ mode,” the European Central Bank wrote this week in a blog post: “While waiting for greater clarity, firms react to heightened uncertainty about economic policy by postponing investment decisions.”
The thing is uncertainty seems to permeate everything in the U.S. these days. Tariffs aside, the government has been withholding Congressionally-allocated funds from some programs and rewriting the rules of others. It suddenly changed visa rules for a legion of foreign workers with almost zero lead time and has demanded manufacturing be moved stateside. In the case of semiconductors, it applied the pressure to onshore manufacturing while also yanking billions in funding previously allocated by the CHIPS Act.
At this point it appears there would be nothing stopping the government if the U.S. tomorrow decided domestic telecom operators could only buy telecom gear from U.S.-based companies. Such a move would be disastrous for the likes of Nokia and Ericsson especially.
In Q2 2025, the Americas (including North and South America) accounted for more than a third of Ericsson’s revenue. Though it didn’t break out U.S. revenue, it noted in the report that revenue was driven by growth in North America. Similarly, the Americas accounted for over 45% of Nokia’s Q2 revenue, with North America driving growth.
If either in this hypothetical scenario decided to move their HQ in an attempt to protect their U.S. revenue, European officials would likely retaliate. Deciding not to move, meanwhile, would trash their balance sheets.
Why it matters
Rather than projecting “strength,” sources I spoke with on background and on the record told me that what the U.S. government’s actions are actually doing is prompting empty investment promises, building a reputation for the U.S. as a risky market, and setting the country up to suffer from brain drain.
You might guess none of these things will help us win the AI race or lead on 6G.
Lip service
When the U.S. government demands, say, immediate onshoring of manufacturing, companies have no choice but to comply – at least in the short term – if they want to survive.
But breaking ground on a new factory is expensive. So, to give the administration the “wins” it is seeking while also saving their own skin, companies can just verbally commit to make big investments. These commitments notably come with no enforcement clauses and are essentially designed to buy the companies time – either until the government changes or shifts course or until the company can figure out some other strategy.
The result? The U.S. may think it’s winning until folks wake up a few years from now and realize all the money and jobs that were promised have failed to materialize. Look no further than Foxconn for an example of this in action.
Risk profile
That doesn’t mean companies aren’t thinking long-term. They are and they’re working to hedge their bets against the U.S.
“They are broadening their scenario planning and preserving optionality as far as possible,” AvidThink’s Roy Chua told me. “Many are looking into diversifying manufacturing footprints (USMCA-protected near-shore plus APAC), keeping dual supply chains for tariff and Buy America compliance, segmenting export-compliant SKUs, and shifting some talent growth to Canada/Mexico/EU hubs. Procurement and working-capital tactics are more defensive.”
But there’s more. Because of the uncertainty the U.S. government has created, there will henceforth be a so-called risk premium associated with sourcing materials from, developing or manufacturing in or selling to the U.S. That is, the U.S. will be looked at less favorably compared to other countries.
“You want them to look at the U.S. first for markets,” J. Gold Associates Founder Jack Gold told me. “If you’re planning a new business venture and have a long range view of the world – especially as a multi-national business – you want to go where there’s the least possible risk for your investment. Right now, I don’t believe that’s the U.S.”
Brain drain
The U.S. has historically sought to attract the best and brightest from across the globe as part of its strategy to build itself into an economic powerhouse. But the current administration seems to be eschewing this tack, opting instead to discourage immigration.
This is problematic for two reasons. First, it will result in a “brain drain,” where really smart folks who would otherwise have come to the U.S. and contributed their knowledge to, say, the development of next-gen networks or AI, will choose not to come. Start-ups in particular could suffer.
This is already happening: one of the folks I spoke with before writing this piece relayed that an acquaintance of theirs who had secured a “Genius” O-1 visa has decided not to come after all given the current environment. Bloomberg has noted the same phenomenon.
Second, by pushing immigrants out, the U.S. is losing a key driver of growth. Think of GDP as a car with multiple engines: the people engine, the education engine, the capital engine and the legal/regulatory engine.
Most other developed nations have the latter three engines but have struggled with the people engine. For years, immigration has helped the U.S. avoid the kind of population implosion that has hindered other developed countries like Japan. Thus, the U.S. has had the ability to sustain GDP growth in ways other countries haven’t been able to because they lack this critical driver.
The country now appears to be throwing this away. The implications for the companies doing business here is, of course, looming workforce shortages and stagnating innovation. This is especially relevant for the already-strained technology workforce.
All of this is to say the U.S. government’s actions have huge implications not only for the economy at large but also the future of tech and telecom in this country. We’re not going to win the AI race or lead on 6G by accepting PR promises, scaring away investment and turning our back on the innovators of the future.
Op-eds from industry experts, analysts or our editorial staff are opinion pieces that do not represent the opinions of Fierce Network.