'Did We Do a 5 Why to Figure This Out?' Readers Respond to MEP Cuts

IndustryWeek's Nov. 17 story on the Trump administration's plan to eliminate federal funding for Manufacturing Extension Partnerships struck a chord with readers. Some highlighted the positive impact of MEPs on both individual smaller manufacturers and the U.S. manufacturing economy, while others felt the MEP organizational and funding structures could use re-evaluating. 

But lean consultant, author and IndustryWeek contributor Jamie Flinchbaugh argues it's past time to rethink the MEP model. "The wheels had already starting coming off this, as IndustryWeek has previously reported on. Programs hopefully had enough time to start making adjustments. States will put huge dollars of tax incentives into play to help manufacturers move to their state, it's probably time for them to take a hard look at how they fund these efforts for those manufacturers already in their state."

“Enjoyed your timely article on NIST’s intent to defund the MEP Program,” wrote Anthony “Tony” Schweiger, managing principal and CEO of enterprise and risk-management consultancy The Tomorrow Group. “While it certainly raises awareness about the program, it’s my sense that Commerce Secretary [Howard] Lutnick is missing a critical issue.  

“Small and mid-sized manufacturers play a pivotal role in the broader industrial supply change.  What’s more, these firms are located in lower-populated areas where part of their strategic competitive advantage is lower labor costs. And, in many rural areas they also play a pivotal role in their local economy. These firms often account for 20% or more of the regional employment and contribute a similar, if not greater, impact to the regional GDP.  

“This administration is oblivious to the impact on local, county and even state economies if these firms cannot remain competitive. In addition, these firms play an important role in ensuring a strong domestic supply chain.  

A “broader regional approach” rather than 50 state MEPs could make the program more productive, he qualifies, “but at this stage there seems to be no interest in rethinking the program and instead just cutting it out entirely.”

Rich Brown, executive vice president of staffing firm Compass Tech International, said  IndustryWeek should have spent more time gathering the perspective of the Trump administration and “evaluating program accomplishments—spending versus achievements and the realities of a massive federal budget deficit.” IndustryWeek, he wrote, “painted the Trump administration as adversarial and non-supportive of smaller manufacturers,” when “the trillions of new investments, lower taxes, improved depreciation schedules and reduced bureaucracy and regulatory burden” say otherwise.

Dennis Goldensohn, a retiree who spent 45 years in manufacturing operations, wrote that the administration’s funding cuts smacks of “If someone doesn’t like something, they just cut the legs out from under the program.”

“This approach never worked in the past and will never work going forward,” he adds.  “If the MEPs are either too expensive and are not working, why? Did we do a Five Why to figure this out? If something doesn’t meet our expectations, then there should be a program designed to improve on the performance while reducing costs.

“There are just too many slash and burn patterns currently, while there are no solutions. If we want to bring manufacturing back here to the USA, then manufacturing companies need these resources so they can get a foothold and thrive in the marketplace.”

Carrie Hines, president and CEO of the American Small Manufacturers Coalition, wrote: "Thank you for shedding light on the uncertainty around MEP funding. There’s still a lot to sort out in the FY2026 budget process, but I’m hopeful. There is a long history of bicameral, bipartisan support for MEP, and I’m confident we can get to a solution that keeps U.S, manufacturing strong. hashtag#MEPMatters

And finally, as we noted in the Nov. 19 "So That Happened" column, Chris Baichoo, CEO/executive director of Wisconsin’s MEP, commented on the hands-on work his organization is doing with manufacturers in areas including workforce development, productivity improvements, quality systems, new technologies and export readiness. He also shared three recent MEP success stories of projects with Basin Precision Maching, Kuhn North America and Shark Crates.

“WMEP’s purpose is straightforward,” he wrote. “We help small and mid-sized manufacturers improve productivity, strengthen operations and build capabilities they need to compete. The work is practical, hands-on, and tailored to each company’s priorities.

“These examples reflect what we see across the manufacturing community: companies are looking for practical support that helps them run better, adapt to changing customer needs, and build stronger foundations for future growth,” Baichoo commented.

“The needs vary, but the goal is always the same,” he added. “Strengthening their competitiveness and their ability to serve customers.