Insights

The passage of The Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) on Friday, July 4th, marks a decisive recalibration of U.S. clean-energy policy and incentive structure—elevating urgency, compliance, and strategic flexibility for corporations. The upending of financial incentives create a real-time operational challenge. Boards must respond by aligning capital schedules, fortifying supply chains, and taking out cost from their decarbonization strategies. How should enterprises evolve their capital allocation for operational effectiveness, ESG targets, and financial return?

Recent shifts in U.S. trade policy—particularly the return of tariffs under President Trump—are more than a political issue. They’re a material business risk. Higher input costs, reduced demand, and overall macroeconomic uncertainty are forcing multinational companies to revisit financial projections and stress-test their assumptions. One area now under pressure: impairment testing for non-financial assets such as property, plant, and equipment (PP&E), intangible assets, and goodwill.

President Trump recently announced the Golden Dome project – his equivalent to his second term’s moonshot with a goal of completion by 2029. The $175 billion project is envisioned to be a multi-layered defense architecture to shield the U.S. from advanced threats, including hypersonic and space-launched missiles. While certain defense and aerospace contractors—the likes of SpaceX, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Boeing—remain obvious winners, industrial and CPG companies should consider the ramifications for their sectors over this decade-long investment. With the rise of national security investment, what will be the financial opportunities and operational complexities?

With the reorientation of manufacturing to the U.S. in response to President Trump’s trade policy, multinationals focus on potential site evaluation and selection. Be it Hyundai in Indiana, Apple in Texas, or Toyota in North Carolina, global companies have made public commitments to bring back parts of their complex supply chains to the U.S. While a myriad of factors must be considered – talent pools, state incentives, land availability, access to first-tier supplies—an underrated question is that of physical climate risks. As manufacturing returns, management teams will have to ask their teams what climate-driven risks—water shortages, extreme heat, or flooding—will these new sites face? Where will climate-related hazards pose the greatest threat to business continuity and long-term profitability? Is it enough to reconsider our site location?