Industrial Policy Fireside Chat




In and out of vogue throughout US history, industrial base policy has reemerged as an arguably viable option to balance pursuit of prosperity and security in the global competitive environment. Other nations, notably China, Taiwan and South Korea have effectively used large government investment into sectors as diverse as shipbuilding, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and rare earth minerals to effectively dominate global supply chains in these sectors. The CHIPS and Science Act and the DoD’s Defense Industrial Strategy are just two recent examples where the United States have taken a more aggressive industrial policy. What has worked for the US in the past when it comes to industrial policy and what might work in the future? Can America remain loyal to long-held values like free trade while still designating winners and losers in the marketplace?

The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies regularly engages with a spectrum of experts to elevate insights on the primary challenges and opportunities associated with technology policy and national security. The Institute’s Global Competition Project (GCP), focused on societal level competition, develops foundational references for national security professionals, policymakers, industry leaders, and others while driving awareness in how the U.S. might address the most consequential aspects of the globally competitive environment. The Project has delivered on that goal through its research, publications, panels, and continuous dialogue, all through the lens of the Institute’s mission intersecting science and technology, business, and government.

Please join the Potomac Institute’s Global Competition Project for an exploration of approaches to contemporary industrial policy, a focused discussion for policymakers, industry, and academia geared toward action. What might the United States do to improve its competitive posture using industrial policy? What are the potential perils to that end? What should policymakers, private sector players, and the science and technology and research and development communities consider as we go forward?


Hon. Al Shaffer, Board of Regents, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies


Dr. Benjamin W. Bishop, Deputy Director for Transition in the Adaptive Capacities Office (ACO), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

Ms. Mackenzie Eaglen, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Dr. Christine (Chris) Michienzi, Board & Strategic Advisor, Supply Chain & Technology Expert, MMR Defense Solutions, LLC

Ms. Stacie Pettyjohn, Senior Fellow and Director of the Defense Program, Center for a New American Security (CNAS)


Benjamin Eaglen Michienzi Pettyjohn Shaffer
Dr. Benjamin W. Bishop   Ms. Mackenzie Eaglen   Dr. Christine (Chris) Michienzi  Ms. Stacie Pettyjohn  Hon. Al Shaffer