Kevin O’Hanlon: A New Voice for Electronics on Capitol Hill

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

What do KFC, video games, and the Global Electronics Association have in common? The answer is Kevin O’Hanlon, the Association’s new vice president of North American Government Relations. Kevin’s career has included lobbying roles across multiple industries on Capitol Hill, including, most recently, six years at Samsung, a massive South Korean conglomerate.

In his new role, Kevin outlines a mission centered on strengthening North American electronics manufacturing while maintaining a realistic global perspective. He discusses the importance of supply chain resilience, friend-shoring and nearshoring strategies, bipartisan engagement in Congress, and the essential need to educate policymakers on the full scope of the electronics value chain.

Marcy LaRont: Kevin, let’s get to know you by hearing about your background and experience.

Kevin O'Hanlon: I live and work in Washington, D.C. I was one of those political science majors who thought I’d work in D.C. for a few years to see what it was like. That was almost 20 years ago. I went to college in Asheville, North Carolina, and I had the good fortune of connecting and working with Rep. (Joseph) Heath Shuler, who represented that area. He’s either remembered as a member of Congress or as that Redskins quarterback who got injured in his first season. It’s this very polarizing perspective of “He was a congressman,” vs. “He completely messed up that season for the Redskins.”

LaRont: How long did you work with Congressman Shuler?

O'Hanlon: I spent five years doing a little bit of everything for him. I started as an intern and left as his senior advisor when he retired from office. I also worked as deputy chief of staff for Congresswoman Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), and then worked at a multi-client lobbying firm, so when I say I've worked on just about everything, it's more literal than people think.

LaRont: That sounds interesting. What are some of the industries you represented while there?

O'Hanlon: For one client, I was the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee lobbyist. I also spent five years working with the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a video game association, which was a lot of fun because I'm a huge gamer. ESA was my first deep dive into pure tech, and where I recognized that it’s not a monolithic policy issue; it touches everything.

Now, when I talk to political science students who want to work in tech, I always ask whether they want to work in hardware or software, because those are two very different parts of the technology ecosystem. Entertainment software is very IP-centric and doesn’t focus on the hardware required to operate its games. That was a critical piece in my knowledge base. As I've moved into the hardware side, I better understand how much it drives innovation, and that software isn’t of any value without it.

From there, I worked in government relations for Samsung, which is one of the most fascinating companies in the world. It has an immense portfolio, and the breadth and scope of the policy issues I worked on were astounding. We worked on semiconductors and the CHIPS Act, a major part of the entire tech industry's lobbying efforts for many years, both hardware and software. It gave me a much greater appreciation for foundational tech.

LaRont: How did you end up at the Global Electronics Association?

O'Hanlon: Lifetimes in D.C. are measured in two-year cycles because Congress resets every two years. I had been working with Samsung on the Hill for six years. I was attracted to the Global Electronics Association for a few reasons, one of which is its long history, which is unique among professional associations with a presence on the Hill. The Association has been around since 1957. There aren’t many places with that type of staying power.

I was also attracted to the Association’s global membership and perspective. ESA, for example, was just the U.S. subsidiary for large, global companies. That’s important, but you’re functionally missing pieces of the equation by not having some of that expertise on how global markets and systems impact U.S. policy, and vice versa. I knew I could take my experience and build on that to represent the entire electronics industry.

LaRont: Kevin, what do you see as the current situation in which you will be working?

O'Hanlon: We currently have a president and an administration focused on bringing back domestic manufacturing, and that’s critical, but from an economic standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to produce some of those technologies here. From a U.S. government affairs perspective, there has to be a focus on friend-shoring and nearshoring, and on ensuring that we don't have a supply chain so geographically concentrated that a natural disaster could take it out.

Do you remember that big storm in Austin, Texas, in 2022? All the semiconductor manufacturing facilities, which are geographically concentrated there, went offline because they are hugely power-intensive. It’s a fairly benign example, but it illustrates the fallout of geographic concentration of a single resource.

We have to look at the supply chain holistically to diversify for redundancy and resilience. What can the United States legitimately do, from an economic, national defense, and security perspective, that results in a resilient, robust, and safe supply chain without necessarily having to have all of these pieces in the United States?

LaRont: This is not an easy situation to map out solutions for, and I feel like we can get there, but maybe it won't look exactly the way some people think.

O'Hanlon: No, but it's a statement on American political will. Congress passed the CHIPS Act, which was a huge credit to the semiconductor industry for doing an amazing job selling to Congress that semiconductors are the pivotal technology that will allow America to win the tech race. It was, honestly, a master stroke of lobbying, and it has done incredible things for the semiconductor ecosystem. But they have almost done too good a job because now the government feels like the law is semiconductor-specific.

The circuit board industry is working with Congress to help them see that the language is intentionally vague enough that it could support some of the required foundational hardware that semiconductors require to operate, like PCBs. Right now, the Department of Commerce doesn't feel like it has that latitude.

LaRont: How long did it take to educate Congress just about semiconductors?  

O'Hanlon: It took two to three years to educate several members of Congress and their staffs about what a semiconductor is, its functionality, and why they are important.

An analogy I have used is that of learning how to 3D print kidneys. They're essential, but if you're trying to build a whole human out of just the kidneys, it won’t work. You have one critical piece, but not a circulatory system, a nervous system, or a heart. You don't have the whole picture. Semiconductors are part of a larger system and cannot operate without it.

LaRont: Where do you feel we are in this process of educating Congress about printed circuit boards?

O'Hanlon: It's fair to say, regardless of your personal politics, that we're in a fairly unique operating environment where, if the President can be educated properly, he is willing to take very decisive action. In many ways, the President's unilateral authority could be used to make major shifts within existing federal authority to promote industry growth. That needs to be a focal point. Of course, that's a short-term fix, because the next president could reverse the previous executive orders and nullify their effects. We know we need to get something done quickly, and that needs to be explored alongside ensuring that Congress feels invested in what's being done.

LaRont: Is this a bipartisan issue for Congress?

O'Hanlon: Absolutely. Even the Department of Defense has acknowledged that it is sourcing 85% of PCBs and other critical foundational technologies from parts of Asia. That inherent risk hits home for most legislators, regardless of their politics. Even if the PCBs are sourced from Taiwan or South Korea, they still introduce an uncontrollable risk.

LaRont: Do all the printed circuit boards going into consumer technology need to be made in the U.S.?

O’Hanlon: Probably not, but consider your cellular network. Do you want the antenna and the receiver manufactured in the U.S.? There is a strong argument for that. Do you want the javelin missile, the F-35, and its components to have a more controlled supply chain? There's a strong argument to be made there, and those aren't partisan issues. It’s very much common sense.

LaRont: I was once reminded that, regardless of what you hear in the news, there are intelligent people working on the Hill.

O'Hanlon: Yes, there are, and not just the elected officials themselves. They are supported by a staff of 20 to 50 subject-matter experts who ensure that the principal they represent has all the information needed to make an informed decision. You’re trying to educate and influence 30,000 staff, not just the 535 elected officials.

LaRont: Kevin, welcome to the Global Electronics Association, and good luck with all the important work you have ahead of you.

O'Hanlon: Thanks so much, Marcy.