Over the last week and presumably in anticipation of next Tuesday’s presidential election, several news outlets decided to check in on whether three-plus years of President Trump’s nationalist, “America First” trade and economic policies boosted U.S. manufacturing, particularly in the industrial Midwest (“Rust Belt”), as promised. As the titles alone make clear, the consensus conclusion is that the president’s use of tariffs, subsidies and economic threats not only failed to reverse the seismic forces that for decades have affected corporate and consumer decision-making, and thus certain U.S. manufacturing companies and jobs, but may have actually made things worse:

“Trump’s Carrier deal fades as economic reality intervene: Jobs that were saved are dwarfed by others that left” (Washington Post)

“Factory Jobs Still Head Offshore Despite Trump Promises” (Bloomberg)

“China Trade War Didn’t Boost U.S. Manufacturing Might” (Wall Street Journal)

“Tariffs Didn’t Fuel Revival for American Steel: Initial job growth withers as demand and prices sink; older mills face a dim future” (Wall Street Journal)

“The Rust Belt boom that wasn’t: Heartland job growth lagged under Trump” (Reuters)

“Trump’s Manufacturing Promises Disappoint as Economy Sours: Foxconn’s failure to deliver on a Wisconsin project underscores the limits of the President’s power to make companies bend to his will” (New York Times)

“Kodak Loan Debacle Puts a New Agency in the Hot Seat: A stumbling effort to prop up the domestic generic drugs sector underscores the challenges of a Trump administration industrial policy” (New York Times)

And that’s just in the last week. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Question is: does the Trump administration?