PCBAA, AAM Take on the Fight to Rebuild U.S. Manufacturing in New Documentary

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Throughout most of the 20th century, manufacturing was central to the American Dream of providing stable jobs and pathways to upward mobility. Today, more than 80% of global electronics manufacturing capacity resides in China and greater Asia, raising serious concerns about supply chain resilience and national security.

To raise greater awareness of these challenges, the Printed Circuit Board Association of America (PCBAA), in partnership with the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), has released a short documentary, “The New Frontier: Inside the Comeback Factories Securing America’s Tech Future.” It does a great job of telling the American manufacturing story as it relates to the PCB industry. It’s a must-watch.

I spoke with co-creators David Schild, executive director of PCBAA, and Scott Paul, president of AAM, about the making of the film and its message.

Marcy LaRont: David and Scott, congratulations on this documentary. I really enjoyed it. What was the story you were trying to tell?

Scott Paul: This film and others like it make the case for an intent. We want all levels of government to have that intent and to support the men and women in manufacturing and the work they do for our country. We want less dependency, greater economic and national security, more jobs, and more innovation.

Since the early 1990s, I have been working in manufacturing and trade policy on Capitol Hill. I've led AAM for 19 years since its founding. We were formed as a partnership between the United Steelworkers Union and some manufacturers with whom they have a collective bargaining relationship. We've been able to work on many critical issues to restore America's manufacturing greatness for our economic and national security.

At AAM, we believe that if we only take care of the issues that affect us directly, we’re missing out on a lot of opportunities. Rebuilding manufacturing benefits all of us. Twenty years ago, we identified the need to increase domestic manufacturing capacity and jobs as a gap that no one else in Washington was exclusively focused on, so it was great to meet David and learn about PCBAA.

David Schild: Our focus and mission at PCBAA are to educate, advocate, and help craft legislation around America's printed circuit board industry, specifically, reshoring and restoring our manufacturing capacity.

I don't think we could have dreamed, when we started this association with five members, that there would be a documentary film focused on the industry. But very early, AAM and Scott had emerged as a leading voice on manufacturing. So, I made it my business to learn about AAM. We had shared articles and podcasts, and I was impressed with their film about the steel industry. It was a great storytelling device.

LaRont: Scott, what has interested you about making documentaries about manufacturing industries?

Paul: There’s always an interesting story to be told if you find the right characters to tell it, no matter the setting, whether it's a massive steel mill or a smaller PCB facility in rural California; the impact on people is the same. These themes of career opportunities, supporting families, and the struggles of globalization and economic turmoil have universal appeal. I want to show how individuals and companies have adapted and survived. It’s interesting and powerful.

LaRont: How did this project specifically come about?

Paul: We had done a film called “Relighting the Flame,” about the decline and recovery of the American steel industry, as well as some other storytelling projects that went beyond, “Here’s our legislative agenda.” We wanted to showcase the impact of family and community on manufacturing policy across the country. PCBs became a use case, something that no one buys off the shelf, yet everyone depends on, so it was an important behind-the-scenes story about how this important sector needs to grow alongside semiconductors. It needed to be recognized.

LaRont: David, what did you think about the opportunity to tell your story in this way?

Schild: My background is in corporate communications, so I knew it was an effective way to talk about reindustrialization. Through discussions, Scott mentioned the idea of making another film, this time about PCBs. We jumped at the opportunity.

Then, it was just a matter of figuring out who would best tell that story on a smaller and a larger scale. We settled on Summit Interconnect and K&F Electronics, and the end product is impressive as a storytelling vehicle. It shows the industry through the lens of workers, families, and manufacturing sites that are sustaining communities.

You can give people on Capitol Hill glossy handouts or ask them to listen to a podcast, but this film, in 20 minutes, is soup to nuts. It is the call to action we needed. You can't do much better than that.

LaRont: Good storytelling is so important. How did you choose Carl Kriss, the director?

Scott Paul: Carl founded Heartland Productions in Cleveland, Ohio. He had done a well-regarded PBS documentary called “Bring It Home”  about a General Motors factory closing in Lordstown, Ohio. We asked him to look at the broader steel industry, which led him to direct our first documentary project, “Relighting the Flame.” He has a special way of storytelling and knew he’d be the right fit for what we hoped to do. We are very happy with the end result. It brought people in Washington, D.C., to tears, and that’s saying something.

LaRont: You chose to feature a large fabricator, Summit Interconnect, and K&F, a more traditional, smaller, family-owned shop. How did these two facilities specifically highlight this message?

Schild: The industry has been split into two major segments: very large manufacturers focused on high-end aerospace and defense work, and smaller legacy companies doing really high-tech work and supplying key markets. The contrast is important to note, and we wanted to tell the story of both poles. Overlaying that was a very human story about career tracks, opportunities for growth and learning new skills, and where these technologies end up in our daily lives.

LaRont: Scott, were you surprised by what came out of the stories told in this film?

Paul: It's like variations on a theme. This industry is incredibly unique, interesting, and new for me, but it resonated clearly. I have seen a lot of shops in auto parts and other parts of the manufacturing supply chain face the same struggles of globalization, unfair competition, and changes in technology. A firm like K&F has had to ride these waves over the decades and is still providing long-term jobs.

In a way, they are like manufacturing combat veterans who have been through the trenches and come out the other side. When Carl presented the first cut, I was blown away at how universal—and unique—the stories and struggles are.

Marcy LaRont: David, where do the biggest risks lie in not having a secure and domestic supply chain available for critical infrastructure and defense?

Schild: The story begins five or six years ago, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which illuminated for the general public how, when supply chains around the world are stretched, they become brittle and fragile. Other examples include shipping disruptions and natural disasters that can shut down whole regions for extended periods. When store shelves are empty or we have to depend on one of our major global competitors for critical supplies, that focuses attention in Washington. This is what led to the CHIPS and Sciences Act, a bill to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States.

On the heels of that, there's a focus on the rest of the technology stack. You've seen our government invest in rare earth minerals and raw materials to ensure we have what’s required to make electronics without relying on a global adversary or our largest global competitor.

That’s happening for semiconductor manufacturing in Ohio and Arizona, which was pointed out in our documentary. PCBs and IC substrates are right in the middle of that technology stack, but we do not have resilience or surge capacity.

LaRont: No matter what we are able to bring back to the United States in the name of security and supply chain resilience, China will remain an important part of the electronics supply chain. Some would say we have to be careful about what might be viewed as China-bashing. What do you say?

Paul: That’s fair, but there is an impressive body of evidence indicating an imbalance, that there is a legitimate challenge to be addressed, and that China has not played by the rules. That is just stating simple facts. There is also a recognition that we lost a tremendous amount of capacity, which partly was by our own design. We thought we would be fine just shifting into services and sending manufacturing overseas. That experiment hasn’t worked out. China has moved up the value chain and has been public about its goals for global domination in microelectronics manufacturing and owning the rare minerals market. China had a long-term plan and executed it.

China will remain a part of global trade, but it is not healthy to have a concentrated capability in one place, from any perspective. It’s also not economically healthy for the U.S. to be overly dependent on imports for many key products, including printed circuit boards.

Schild: Scott is spot on. I'm not anti-globalization; I'm anti-dependency. A global economy needs global trading partners, and nobody is trying to undo the global economic order that has been built over the past 40 or 50 years. The U.S. is running an industrial policy race it began over five years ago, but we’re playing catch-up to our major competitors around the world that have been running that race for decades.

The argument we are making here is not dissimilar to what is being said about raw and refined materials, steel, glass, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals. We are amongst many voices arguing that the U.S.’s manufacturing capacity is key to its economic and national security.

LaRont: In an environment where the focus is on high levels of monetary investment and growth, it is easy to see the place for larger manufacturers, but will there be room for the little guy, which has traditionally been the backbone of the American economy?

Schild: I believe there is a role for both small/medium and large-scale manufacturing in the United States. Certainly, we'll see some consolidation. But look at the demand signal; there’s a growing need for electronic production for the Internet of Things (IoT), data centers, and so many digital products. This clearly mandates an enormous supply of microelectronics. There's an incredible market out there, if policymakers are willing to help shape it as other nations have done.

We are inventing the next generation of semiconductors right now within the 50 states. Do we need next-generation PCBs to service those chips? We absolutely do. Who will invent them? Who will own the IP, and where will they be manufactured? These are critical technology policy questions.

LaRont: What can and should American manufacturing companies and their stakeholders be doing to amplify their message to representatives in government?

Schild: First, share “The New Frontier” on YouTube. It is a tremendous product, and I can't express how grateful we are to AAM and Scott for helping bring this to life. There has been no better storytelling vehicle for our industry than this film in recent memory.

Next, be involved in the political process, whether that means being a part of PCBAA, coming to Washington, or writing your members of Congress. There's a phrase in Washington that if you're not seated at the table, you're on the menu. We have to be a vocal and active industry. In a very real sense, our industry is beginning to understand the importance of advocacy and speaking to lawmakers at all levels about the nature of the problem and specific solutions.

LaRont: It has been a pleasure speaking to you both this morning. Congratulations again on your film, and thank you for doing it.