Japan committed to as much as US$550 billion of US investment and South Korea $350 billion, in return for capping US tariffs at 15%. By this autumn, Japan had identified projects worth up to $109 billion and Seoul was still deciding where its first investments would go.
The argument has focused almost entirely on the money: who has control over the capital, which industries will be eligible and how quickly the cash will be deployed.
But that misses the scarcer ingredient. It takes a single day to wire capital; it takes months or years to find the person who will manage a South Korean battery factory in Georgia, a Japanese gas project in Ohio or a Taiwanese chip maker’s fab in Arizona.
Over 20 years of recruiting senior management for overseas companies in the US, I’ve seen far more US projects stall on leadership than on financing.
And we’re already seeing the problem surface with these Asian pledges. In 2023, Taiwan’s TSMC pushed back production at its first US factory in Arizona, blaming it on a shortage of workers with the right specialist skills.
In September 2025, US immigration officials detained 475 people at the Hyundai-LG facility in Georgia, more than 300 of them South Korean nationals, many of whom, according to LG Energy Solution, were in the country on business trips.
However you feel about the raid, it highlighted a reliance on sending experts in from the foreign parent company instead of developing talent locally. Four decisions determine whether such projects succeed or fail in America.
First is timing. Many Asian firms appoint the US leader only after the factory has been selected, approvals have been sought and contractors engaged. By then, the major decisions affecting US operations have already been taken by people who won’t have to deal with their consequences.
The US leader should be in the room while the incentive package, the labor plan and the supplier list are negotiated, which usually means hiring a year or more ahead of the opening rather than a few months.
Second is whether the leader is appointed from HQ or recruited in the US. An executive from Seoul or Tokyo understands the products, the culture and the decision-makers there. A US manager understands the regulators, the labor market and the politics. It’s rare to find both.
The most successful approach I’ve seen is a US CEO with real power backed by a senior HQ manager who acts as a translator, ally and source of early warnings in both directions. And neither role should be a sinecure.
Third is pay and decision-making power, where cultural differences are a bigger barrier than financial ones. US senior managers generally expect a significant portion of their compensation to be tied to performance and want a clear mandate to make decisions in the US without having to consult HQ.
A salary that’s high by Tokyo standards can seem low in the US and a title that appears senior can amount to little if any hire above a certain level requires permission from the parent company. Experienced candidates pick up on that quickly.
Fourth is the reporting line. In many firms, the US subsidiary reports to a regional or global function several levels below the CEO. If that’s what HQ considers a strategic investment, it’s a misnomer.
The US leader needs a fast, direct link to someone at the parent company who can take a decision in a week, not a quarter. When that line of communication is weak, US managers usually leave earlier and the company begins anew with diminished credibility.
None of this is unique to Asian firms. European companies expanding to the US confront the same challenges, only with higher stakes, given the investment is linked to an intergovernmental pledge and monitored by two governments.
Investors are asking whether the new US factories will be constructed on schedule and operated profitably. Boards might do better to consider a simpler question: who will be held responsible for the US operations and what powers will they have?
These investment promises were struck by trade officials. They’ll be kept or broken by plant managers, divisional bosses and US country heads who understand both the parent company and the American market.
Asian investors who bring that layer of talent in early and equip them with real authority will translate political commitments into viable businesses. Firms that overlook leadership might discover the hardest part of investing in the US isn’t the money.
Olivier Safir is CEO of Pact & Partners, where he has led global executive searches for 20 years, helping foreign companies hire leaders in the United States.
