- Post–April 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs have sharply raised apparel import costs and injected volatility, pushing up prices and squeezing margins.
- U.S. makers get limited protection because key inputs (fabric, trims, components) remain heavily imported, leaving “Made in USA” production exposed.
- Most firms are not reshoring, instead front-loading shipments, shifting sourcing away from China, using tariff engineering, and selectively raising prices.
- Uncertainty threatens smaller manufacturers and has broad inflationary effects, while courts and lawmakers question the scope of executive tariff authority.
Read More
The article “For U.S. Apparel Manufacturers, Chaotic Tariff Policy Isn’t Much Help” highlights how the Trump administration’s sweeping 2025 tariffs—aimed at rebalance trade and revive domestic manufacturing—have instead created cost shocks, uncertainty, and limited benefits for U.S. apparel makers. Key drivers include sharply increased duties, disruption of global supply chains, and unpredictable policy shifts. Businesses report material inputs are harder and costlier to procure, retail pricing is under stress, and planning cycles are severely disrupted by unpredictable enforcement and frequent changes in tariff levels.
Despite rhetoric about boosting domestic production, data show little reshoring is underway. Only 17% of fashion brands plan to increase U.S. sourcing in 2025, according to a study, while U.S. textile and apparel production respectively fell about 6.2% and 4.3% year-to-date. Domestic brands such as InStyle USA that produce and assemble in the U.S. are still highly dependent on imported raw materials; rising raw-material tariffs hurt their operations as much as those of importers.
Where companies are responding, strategic mitigation strategies include: 1) front-loading imports ahead of tariff changes; 2) hedging through “tariff engineering” or altering product designs to optimize classification and reduce duty; 3) selectively raising prices where market will bear; and 4) diversifying sourcing to regions less affected by the harshest rates such as parts of Southeast Asia, Western Hemisphere, or shifting non-China sources. However, these carry trade-offs: greater logistical costs, misaligned seasonal styles, increased complexity, and exposure to future policy swings.
For smaller and mid-market companies with thin margins, the rising costs and lack of clarity pose existential threats. Firms like InStyle have cut staff and warn that without clearer rules or relief, they may not survive six more months under worst-case exposure. At the same time, consumer inflation pressures (for footwear and apparel) look likely to amplify, disproportionately hurting lower-income households.
Legally and structurally, open questions persist: Can the executive branch impose such sweeping tariffs without legislative approval? Recent court rulings—such as in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump—have challenged the executive authority under laws like the IEEPA. Also uncertain are the thresholds for future carve-outs, how deeply U.S. input supply capabilities could scale, and whether the promise of revived manufacturing will ever materialize.
Supporting Notes
- Tariffs on imports from China have reached 145%; Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia have rates between 32%–54% depending on product and origin.
- U.S. imports of apparel from China have dropped to ~21.0% as a share over the past 12 months, down from 33.8% in 2017.
- Apparel imports were front-loaded—seaborne imports rose ~14.5% YoY in April 2025, inventory days increased from 64 to 71 over past year for major importers.
- Retail prices: footwear prices in department stores up to ~4.2% above Jan levels; apparel up to ~2%.
- Production: U.S. textile production down ~6.2%, U.S. apparel production down ~4.3% in early 2025.
- Only ~17% of brands plan to increase “Made in USA” sourcing in 2025; ~44% will expand sourcing from Western Hemisphere instead.
- Small manufacturers: InStyle USA cut staff by half after tariff unpredictability; may not survive six more months under current policy stress.
- Legal challenge: In V.O.S. Selections case, court ruled that the executive’s tariff orders under the “Liberation Day” policy exceeded authority under IEEPA.