“When Foreign Companies who are building extremely complex products, machines, and various other things, come into the United States with massive Investments, I want them to bring their people of expertise for a period of time to teach and train our people how to make these very unique and complex products, as they phase out of our Country, and back into their land. If we didnt do this, all of that massive Investment will never come in the first place — Chips, Semiconductors, Computers, Ships, Trains, and so many other products that we have to learn from others how to make, or, in many cases, relearn, because we used to be great at it, but not anymore. For example, Shipbuilding, where we used to build a Ship a day and now, we barely build a Ship a year. I dont want to frighten off or disincentivize Investment into America by outside Countries or Companies. We welcome them, we welcome their employees, and we are willing to proudly say we will learn from them, and do even better than them at their own game, sometime into the not too distant future!” @realDonaldTrump

Fact-Check Summary

The post accurately highlights the significant scale of foreign investment in U.S. manufacturing and the real skills gap in advanced sectors such as semiconductors, batteries, computers, ships, and trains. The claim that the U.S. was once a global leader in these industries and has since declined is backed by industry and government data. While the statement about shipbuilding—”used to build a Ship a day and now we barely build a Ship a year”—is an exaggeration, it conveys a valid trend of decline. The policy suggestion to welcome foreign experts for training aligns with historical precedent and workforce needs.

Belief Alignment Analysis

The post primarily advances a constructive civic perspective and respects democratic values by advocating for openness to foreign investment and collaboration, emphasizing training American workers, and addressing national capability gaps through learning and partnership rather than exclusion. The rhetoric is primarily civil and solution-oriented, though certain comparisons (like “ship a day”) border on hyperbole that could detract from precise policy discourse.

Opinion

This content raises an important and factually grounded discussion about America’s industrial revival through global collaboration. While it uses some rhetorical flourishes, the underlying points reflect real economic and workforce realities, advocating an inclusive, pragmatic approach. The post is mostly factual and supportive of democratic, merit-based engagement, though it should be careful to avoid overstatements that could undermine trust.

TLDR

The post is fact-based with some exaggeration but overall presents a credible, civic-minded vision for U.S. manufacturing revitalization through foreign investment and training. Its core arguments are supported by data, with minor rhetorical excess.

Claim: Foreign companies are investing heavily in the U.S., bringing expertise to teach Americans advanced manufacturing skills we have lost, and the U.S. must not discourage such investments if it wants to regain former manufacturing greatness. The U.S. once built a ship a day and now builds barely a ship a year.

Fact: Foreign investment in U.S. manufacturing is at historic highs and there is a critical skills gap, especially in semiconductors, batteries, and other high-tech sectors. The U.S. shipbuilding industry has dramatically declined from post-WWII peaks, though statements about “building a ship a day” are exaggerated. The need for foreign expertise to train American workers is substantiated and practiced across sectors.

Opinion: The post’s overall vision is accurate and constructive, making a strong case for international cooperation in rebuilding national industrial strength. Overstatements should be avoided for maximum credibility.

TruthScore: 8

True: U.S. manufacturing decline, increased foreign investment, acute skills shortage, practical need for foreign training, positive impact of expertise transfer.

Hyperbole: “Built a ship a day” versus “barely a ship a year” is exaggerated; timeline for regaining preeminence is optimistic.

Lies: None identified; core assertions are factually grounded.