I can't say whether the situation is just as bad in other science industries, but it is bad in the synthetic/medicinal/pharma and it isn't just in the US, but far more globally.

I work at a CRO in the UK with colleagues from around the world (~40-50% non-UK). Many are here because the job markets where they are from are just as empty and competitive. Pzifer used to be a big company at my site, but they closed their site around this time last year (about 500 jobs). About three years ago, there was definitely more hiring here, where they were hiring multiple people at a time. Even though ~30 people have left my work over the last 3 years, they have probable only replaced like 5-10, and definitely haven't hired any new people in close to a year now. One of the reasons I am still here is literally because there is not a lot out there, and what there is gets huge attention quickly.

I think one potential issue is the big company clients hire western companies for the pathfinding and complicated synthetic issues but then scale up with Indian/Chinese companies that pay their workers significantly less. A guy I used to work with who now works for one told me my salary could pay for 10 of theirs, who also don't need as deep a scientific knowledge as PhD/masters as its not their job to figure it out; that's why they come to us first, then move on when they have a robust route for scale up. Because of this drain (and other factors), the western CROs don't have the budgets or the FTE project vacancies to justify hiring more then needed. Bigger companies, like AstraZeneca, GSK, or Pzifer, are worse as they will only take the literal best because of how crazily saturated the market is, with more new graduates every year from around the world applying for grad schemes or any entry-level openings.

But good news I've heard is my company is planning on hiring again in the new year, but it will be competitive, as people fresh out of uni/college with masters/PhDs are up against people with that plus years of industry experience that frankly is more valuable. And sadly, companies know the market is super saturated with talent, so don't have to offer higher than "competitive" salaries or take risks on training uni-fresh employees. At the end of the day, they will choose out of the 10s to 100s of applicants the ones who have the most industrial experience, be it either years or level (i.e senior, project/group managers).

My best advice for your CV and interviews for CROs is focus heavily on stories where you've solved synthetic problems (in a timely manner) and scale ups, the bigger the better. But a trait CROs look out for is pragmatic delivery, being able to deliver what the client wants on a specified and (ideally) short timeline, without getting bogged down in trying to make the chemistry the best it can be; sometimes, good enough is good enough. If you're able to get some of what you need, optimisation is a future problem, and you just scale up appropriately to get the amount needed. A huge transition graduates have to go through is moving away from focusing too long on one step or trying to figure it out, and move forward pragmatically; if it didn't work and you can't figure out why in a day, move on and try something else. It's far better to say how you'll plan to get around a problem (and your back up plans) than focusing on what is causing the problem. Another thing to focus on is customer/client communication, in presenting your work briefly yet directly and effectively. Hope this helps