New research from CSC reveals a massive "Great Onshoring" trend, with 45% of global C-suites planning U.S. expansion this year to secure supply chains. However, half of those already operating in the States report being blindsided by a "50-jurisdiction" regulatory trap. We explore why the U.S. is the top destination for 2026 and the compliance hurdles CFOs are failing to anticipate.
For years, the narrative of global commerce centered on “offshoring” the pursuit of lower costs in distant markets. However, new research suggests a dramatic pivot is underway. According to an upcoming report Navigating U.S. Market Entry: Insights, Risks, and Opportunities for Global Businesses from CSC, a leader in business administration and compliance, the United States has reclaimed its status as the primary destination for global expansion.
The data is startling: 45% of global C-level executives plan to establish a U.S. legal entity within the next 12 months. When you extend that horizon to three years, nearly three-quarters of the global C-suite are eyeing a “Made in America” strategy.
For the modern CFO, this isn’t just about market share; it’s a fundamental recalibration of risk, supply chains, and capital access.
The primary catalyst for this migration isn’t cheap labor it’s resilience.
65% of executives cite supply chain or manufacturing efficiency as their main driver.
56% point to strategic positioning, including M&A opportunities and partnerships.
56% highlight access to U.S. capital markets and investors.
In an era of geopolitical volatility, proximity to the U.S. consumer base (approximately 340 million people) and the stability of American capital markets outweigh the traditional benefits of operating in lower-cost jurisdictions. We are seeing this trend across high-growth sectors: AI, biotech, energy, and critical infrastructure like data centers.
While the appetite for entry is high, the “honeymoon phase” of expansion often hits a regulatory wall. A common misconception among international firms is treating the U.S. as a single, monolithic market.
“International companies often see the U.S. as one jurisdiction, but it’s over 50 and states are regulated on a county, municipal, or city level too,” notes Myrna Reijnders, Market Leader, Americas at CSC.
This complexity is reflected in the anxieties of C-suite leaders:
88% identify federal and state tax reporting as their most significant compliance burden.
80% struggle with the labyrinth of employment and labor laws.
50% of companies already operating in the U.S. admit they were blindsided by the complexity of financial reporting once they were “boots on the ground.”
Consider New York as a prime example. A C-Corp operating there doesn’t just face federal taxes; it must navigate New York State Corporate Franchise Tax and, if based in the Five Boroughs, New York City Business Corporation Tax all while managing distinct payroll and sales tax nexus rules.
Strategic geography is playing a massive role in how these entities are structured. While Delaware remains the “gold standard” for corporate law and investor protection, other states are winning on specific industry needs.
| State | Popularity | Primary Draw |
| Florida | 59% | Asset managers (tax treatment) and hubs for Latin American operations. |
| New York | 51% | Financial institutions and firms requiring direct access to capital markets. |
| California | 44% | Tech-heavy firms seeking proximity to Silicon Valley and sustainability-minded consumers. |
| Delaware | 40% | Preferred for flexible corporate laws and specialized “Chancery” courts. |
To understand the “how” of this trend, look at a recent move by a Singapore-based asset manager. Their goal was simple: establish a New York presence to attract U.S. LPs and conduct deal origination within six months.
The challenges were multifaceted, relocating executives, navigating New York’s specific “investment” naming conventions (which can trigger extra regulatory scrutiny), and managing cross-border payroll for multi-national employees. By leveraging a “one-stop-shop” for entity formation and registered agent services, they avoided the “death by a thousand vendors” trap that often delays market entry.
Confidence remains high, 53% of leaders feel “very confident” in their internal compliance resources but the data suggests a gap between confidence and reality. Half of all respondents were surprised by the operational costs (labor and real estate) and the sheer friction of state-vs-federal rules.
As a result, 79% of executives now indicate they will likely outsource their U.S. compliance or governance functions. The goal is to “test the water” with a scalable partner rather than building a massive, fixed-cost administrative infrastructure from day one.
The full research, Navigating U.S. Market Entry: Insights, Risks, and Opportunities for Global Businesses, contains deeper dives into the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and specific state-by-state incentives.