SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son wants to build ‘Trump Industrial Parks’ across the nation, report claims — project proposes using federal land to build manufacturing sites for data center infrastructure
SoftBank wants to bankroll Washington's plans for onshoring advanced semiconductor manufacturing.
SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son has been in talks with the Trump administration to build Project Crystal Land, Son’s grand vision for a U.S. competitor to Shenzhen, China’s electronics manufacturing hub, with a population of over 17.5 million people, often dubbed as China’s Silicon Valley or the Silicon Valley of Hardware. According to the Wall Street Journal, the plan was originally for a single $1 trillion high-tech industrial city that encompasses the size of Los Angeles and will be built to the north of Phoenix, Arizona. This was supposed to house chip fabs, packaging plants, and processing facilities — basically, an entire semiconductor supply chain — while also providing housing to all the people working within it.
However, the administration’s plan has reportedly since changed from one mega site into several “Trump Industrial Parks” that will be built on federal land across the nation. Son then revised his proposal and said that the funding for the first phase of the plan would be part of Japan’s investment commitment to the U.S. as part of the trade deal the country struck with President Donald Trump in July. This updated plan tracks closely with Washington’s list of potential investments that Japan can fund, including nuclear power plants, energy infrastructure, and AI projects.
Despite Son’s enthusiasm, there is still no clear answer from the U.S. government on whether it would proceed with SoftBank’s proposals. The WSJ says that the required investment on the various sites would likely exceed Japan’s $550 billion commitment to U.S. manufacturing, plus it would also have to go through a lot of hoops to use federal land.
There’s also the complicated planning process to determine what kind of industries will be built on them, as well as which companies will be allowed to do so. Taiwan is set to help the U.S. build its own industrial parks, including assisting it with “science park management, attracting companies, integrating academic research with industry,” Taiwan National Science and Technology Council Minister Wu Cheng-wen to the Financial Times. “No other country has done what we have done.”
However, TSMC has already declined to work with SoftBank on its Project Crystal Land, so unless the U.S. government compels it to work with the Japanese investor, Son would have to find another partner to help him build his industrial parks. Aside from that, he has also been in talks with other Japanese tech companies like Toshiba, Murata Manufacturing, and Fujikara, discussing projects that would support Washington’s push to develop local semiconductor manufacturing.
SoftBank has been betting big on semiconductors, investing billions of dollars in Arm, OpenAI, and, more recently, Intel. The U.S.’s push for AI supremacy thus would go well with the company’s strategy of going all-in on AI after it missed out in the early years of the LLM boom.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
thestryker Well that's a nightmare in the making for many reasons. If the goal was actually more onshoring of jobs and capability there's a lot better ways to spend money most of which surrounds education and job opportunities. While the semiconductor industry is important for day to day it's not a very high volume of jobs (of the sort that people in the US have shown they're willing to do).Reply -
Tanakoi Reply
You're a little confused over the project itself as well as its goals. The idea is to create a manufacturing hub: a counterpart to China's Shenzhen economic zone, and one focusing on AI and robotics. "More education" isn't going to help that -- the majority of Chinese students come to the US to study already -- but then they return to China to actually perform the manufacturing.thestryker said:Well that's a nightmare in the making for many reasons. If the goal was actually more onshoring of jobs and capability there's a lot better ways to spend money most of which surrounds education and job opportunities. -
thestryker Reply
No, I'm not confused at all. Perhaps you don't understand what they're actually trying to do.Tanakoi said:You're a little confused over the project itself as well as its goals.
False and if you bothered to read the article you'd have realized that this was the original idea, but is no longer the situation at hand.Tanakoi said:The idea is to create a manufacturing hub: a counterpart to China's Shenzhen economic zone, and one focusing on AI and robotics.
This is all about building infrastructure to support AI which means power and datacenters. The end goal being fabrication as well, but none of these things actually create jobs in any meaningful volume. They do generate a lot of money for rich people to get richer on though and in this case with government involvement which tends to minimize private risk.
This is false. Chinese students aren't coming to the US and then going back to work manufacturing jobs. They're going back and working in hardware and software engineering to help develop the future of manufacturing which is something that already exists in the US.Tanakoi said:"More education" isn't going to help that -- the majority of Chinese students come to the US to study already -- but then they return to China to actually perform the manufacturing.
What I'm referring to when I say investing in education means practical education and retraining for jobs that do exist. This is especially important for regions that have seen job cuts as industry has either pulled manufacturing or reduced headcounts as technology has enabled it. -
Tanakoi Reply
Wrong again. As reported yesterday by the WSJ, they're not building datacenters, but rather,thestryker said:False and if you bothered to read the article you'd have realized that this was the original idea, but is no longer the situation at hand. ... This is all about building infrastructure to support AI which means power and datacenters.
"...would produce the equipment necessary to build data centers...They would also ultimately manufacture AI chips .....".
The overall goal is to put the US on the leading edge of AI and robotics manufacturing.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/trump-softbank-masayoshi-son-factory-plans-7fbb904e
Who's talking about jobs? As I intimated in my first post, this isn't some jobs welfare program, but an initiative intended to prevent China from dominating a critical -- perhaps the most critical -- industry of the 21st century. You may not consider that an important goal today, but in 15 years when China has a 10-million strong autonomous robot military, you really won't want Japan and the US to have to beg the CCP's permission to make our own smart weapons.thestryker said:... but none of these things actually create jobs in any meaningful volume.
You've misread again. Chinese students are learning AI and robotics skills in the US then returning to found, manage, and perform crucial R&D for companies that manufacture these products. No one said they're returning home to be assembly-line worker drones.thestryker said:This is false. Chinese students aren't coming to the US and then going back to work manufacturing jobs
This couldn't be more incorrect. EVERY major robotics maker in the US -- from Tesla's Optimus to OpenAI's FigureAI to Boston Robotics entire product line -- has its most critical components made overseas: chips from Taiwan and actuators and sensors from China.thestryker said:. They're going back and working in hardware and software engineering to help develop the future of manufacturing which is something that already exists in the US. -
thestryker Reply
First of all I want to say that I did not write clearly what I was referring to. They're talking about making the equipment in the US and the way I wrote it made it sound like I was saying they were delivering equipment.Tanakoi said:Wrong again. As reported yesterday by the WSJ, they're not building datacenters, but rather,
"...would produce the equipment necessary to build data centers...They would also ultimately manufacture AI chips .....".
The overall goal is to put the US on the leading edge of AI and robotics manufacturing.
If you continue reading the article you'd see phase one all about power infrastructure and fiber optic cabling equipment. Anything beyond that is a hope for the future and given that phase one isn't even guaranteed it doesn't make much sense to put any weight on that part.
Infrastructure certainly has to come first, but the rest is the hard part.
I said it'd be a better use of money in my original post than this is. You're trying to dispute that with some obtuse logic which is anything but logical and shows great misunderstanding of how US military production works.Tanakoi said:Who's talking about jobs?
If your argument is that completely domestic robotics and AI are pivotal to the future that would at least be an opinion that makes sense. It's not one I particularly agree with, but easily something we could just agree to disagree on.
I didn't misread anything as you literally said "they return to China to actually perform the manufacturing". R&D is not manufacturing so if that's what you meant you should have said so.Tanakoi said:You've misread again. Chinese students are learning AI and robotics skills in the US then returning to found, manage, and perform crucial R&D for companies that manufacture these products. No one said they're returning home to be assembly-line worker drones.
Who's misreading now? I was literally talking about R&D and you decided to pivot back to manufacturing. They're not interchangeable even though you seem to want them to be.Tanakoi said:This couldn't be more incorrect. EVERY major robotics maker in the US -- from Tesla's Optimus to OpenAI's FigureAI to Boston Robotics entire product line -- has its most critical components made overseas: chips from Taiwan and actuators and sensors from China. -
Tanakoi Reply
You stated they were simply "building power and datacenters". This isn't the plan, and was never the plan.thestryker said:First of all I want to say that I did not write clearly what I was referring to. They're talking about making the equipment in the US and the way I wrote it made it sound like I was saying they were delivering equipment....
That's rather like claiming Tesla was founded to do nothing but produce wire for electric motors, because that's the first component it began production on. Project Crystal has one goal, period: making the US a powerhouse for the manufacturing of AI chips and robotics components.thestryker said:If you continue reading the article you'd see phase one all about power infrastructure and fiber optic cabling equipment. Anything beyond that is a hope for the future
"More education" isn't going to increase US high-tech manufacturing. We've led the world for decades in education in these sectors, and yet we produce essentially zero of these components. And the money here is coming from Softbank and the Japanese government. The "federal" portion is in the form of tax incentives only.thestryker said:I said it'd be a better use of money in my original post than this is.
Oops! The F-35 alone contains more than 3,500 parts from several dozen foreign nations, including a current waiver to allow us to source a couple critical components from China. If and when China realizes its dream to retake Taiwan, the situation will become a thousand times worse.thestryker said:You're trying to dispute that with some obtuse logic which is anything but logical and shows great misunderstanding of how US military production works.
You're still misreading. I stated that Chinese students come to the US to study AI and robotics, then return to manufacture those components there. Quite obviously I wasn't referring them getting advanced university degrees to work minimum-wage assembly line jobs, but rather to found, operate, and perform R&D for Chinese firms which do so.thestryker said:Who's misreading now? I was literally talking about R&D and you decided to pivot back to manufacturing. -
thestryker I was just going to ignore your post entirely as I have better things to do than get in circular arguments with people I don't know on the internet, but facts matter and here yours are lacking:Reply
You mean a single component which used alloys illegally sourced from China. One which caused delivery of the planes to be halted until a full review could be done. Once the review was done and found the part to be of no security concern the supplier had to setup a domestic supply chain before the waiver was granted to allow delivery to continue.Tanakoi said:including a current waiver to allow us to source a couple critical components from China. -
Tanakoi Replythestryker said:You mean a single component which used alloys illegally sourced from China.
This AI overview is for just China itself, and ignores the far larger issue of Taiwan, a nation which China is currently stating its intent to forcibly reintegate in the near future:
"...The U.S. military relies heavily on China for components, with reports indicating
over 80,000 parts in nearly 1,900 weapon systems using critical minerals (like Gallium, Germanium, Tungsten) dominated by China, affecting about 78% of all DoD platforms, especially Navy (91.6%) and Marine Corps (61.7%) systems. This dependency extends to semiconductors (over 40% for DoD systems) and other electronics, creating significant vulnerabilities in advanced military hardware like fighter jets, drones, and carrier systems, despite efforts to diversify...