The original post's point seemed to me to be "Reaganomics was bad for manufacturing jobs", and listed tariffs and subsidies as two things that are good for manufacturing jobs that were a reversal of Reagonomics. Do you agree that was the original point?
But Reagan implemented both tariffs and subsidies that were good for manufacturing jobs. So how are tariffs and subsidies a reversal of Reaganomics?
A common definition is something like "widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets" - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp - and in common parlance it is heavily associated broadly with "trickle down" ideas. Subsidizing manufacturing and putting more regulation around trade run counter to that. Especially when you're subsidizing not-immediately-defense-focused manufacturing. Reagan and the neoliberal era as a whole was very bad for most manufacturing, the existence of one area that Reagan invested in doesn't disprove that, but it should've led its supporters to say "hey, that worked, maybe it would be useful in other areas too."
Even the tax stuff, right? The idea being pitched was that lower rates would result in higher government revenues but in practice the old tax rates were not at such a point that they were strangling productivity in the ways that would've been required for that to be true. Yet the legacy is simply "tax less" instead of any associating remaining with the "we actually think we can get more revenue to fund our spending" part.
Where is the economic statistic that you can point to as being X during the Reagan years that was recently changed to Y, and that you think explains the increase in building factories over the last two years?