Remaking the Manufacturing Sector

* Original is imperative form. While the title is fine, it does not suit the content. The title sounds more like a decree or manifesto. Better say as the corrected as "the act of remaking..."

Trump is driving the manufacturing sectors to return to the U.S.

The problem isn't that those factories could be buildt in America.

* passive infinitive form.

Rather, will Americans like to assemble parts along the working belt?

Appropriate term would be: "working belt" -> "conveyor belt"

In the future, will America face a shortage of labor whilose unemployed people are only interested in subsidies from the government?

I think better use "whose" since unemployed people is a person.

Better:
"In the future, will America face a shortage of labor while those unemployed are only interested in subsidies from the government?"

Remaking the Manufacturing Sector

Trump is driving manufacturing sectorcompanies to return to the U.S.

Manufacturing is arguably one big sector, so you could also say "driving _the_ manufacturing sector."

The problem isn't thatwhether those factories could be buildt in America.

The way you used 创建, I take to mean something like 被建造，so it is passive.

Rather, will Americans like to assemble parts along the working belt?it is whether Americans are willing to work on an assembly line.

For this sentence, I would translate 愿意 as "willing to", because the work is 枯燥. 尽管不喜欢这个工作，但还是这么做。You "like" 有趣的工作，you "are willing to do“ 枯燥的工作。

"Assembling parts along a conveyor belt" is a more direct translation of what you said, but most people just say "working on an assembly line" when talking about that situation.

It is definitely a boring job.

There's nothing wrong with this, but in context I think many native English speakers would frame it the opposite way: "it's definitely not a fun job."

Trump is drivingtrying to get the manufacturing sectors to return to the U.S.

The actual problem isn't that those not a lack of physical factories could buillocated in America.

Rather, will Americans likereturn to assembleing parts along the working belt?

Return because there were factories

It is definitely a boring job.

In the future, will America face a shortage of labor while the unemployed people are onlyare interested in subsidies from the government?

Remaking The Manufacturing Sector

The problem isn't that those factories could be buildt in America.

Rather, will Americans like to assembleing parts along the workinga conveyor belt?

I've sometimes heard "belt" used to refer to geographic regions of the United States, named so since they stretch across a region of the country like a belt. For instance, the "Rust Belt" is known for having a lot of industrialization. They're often used very colloquially, though.

But if you mean the piece of machinery that moves items from one end to another, we call those "conveyor belts".

In the future, will America face a shortage of labor whileith unemployed people are only being interested in subsidies from the government?

Another way you could write this: "...a shortage of labor while unemployed people become only interested in subsidies..."

The original isn't wrong at all. I just think it's more natural to not use "am/is/are" in a future, theoretical situation like this. It's difficult to explain why, but "are" in this sentence almost feels like it is trying to make a statement about the present, even though we are talking about a theoretical future.

In fact, if you DO want to make a statement about the present, I'd say something like this: "...face a shortage of labor while unemployed people RIGHT NOW are only interested..."