In an actual military conflict with China, all those countries are more vulnerable to infrastructure damage than the US.
I believe the thinking is to shore up the supply chain so that the US is in a stronger negotiating situation if relations with china deteriorate to the point where the threats are less implicit.
There is also a significant "America First" mentality that wants to boost our economy, no matter what it costs our allies.
I think it is less about the likelihood of a major conflict and more about the position of strength in negotiations to prevent a major conflict.
Edit: Any major military conflict would come at a large economic cost to both sides (which is why I agree it is pretty unlikely.) However there is an element of negotiating strength that comes when the economic costs to your side is relatively lower than the economic costs to the opposing side.
I believe the thinking is to shore up the supply chain so that the US is in a stronger negotiating situation if relations with china deteriorate to the point where the threats are less implicit.
There is also a significant "America First" mentality that wants to boost our economy, no matter what it costs our allies.