Donald Trump has won the US Presidential election, and this win will definitely influence the country’s trade and business sectors, including the fashion industry. Trup is known for his ‘America First; stance, and his policies are likely to emphasise more on domestic production, restructuring tariffs, taxes, and trade agreements. These changes will affect the fashion brands that depend on international supply chains but will also change consumer pricing, availability, and industry practices. Let’s take a better view of what might lie ahead for the United States fashion industry by considering the trade policies of Donald Trump and also have a speculative look at what things might have looked like under a Kamala Harris administration.

Trump’s ‘America First’ policies and their impact on fashion
The Donald Trump administration has always taken enormous interest in transforming trade policies to support the American product. During his first gig as the President of America, his campaign of ‘America First’ aimed to strengthen domestic producers and minimise the country’s dependence on overseas products at large, as is the case with most fashion brands. Tariffs, a centrepiece of his trade policy, directly impacted the cost and sourcing of raw materials and manufactured goods for fashion brands across the US. These tariffs often covered key inputs like textiles, clothing, and accessories, which are typically sourced from Asia, especially China.

The intention of the policy was to bring back more fashion manufacturing jobs into the US. Reality, however, proved otherwise. Although tariffs are expected to boost domestic manufacturing, most of the brands could not find a big manufacturing facility for their ready-to-wear apparel due to infrastructure and high-cost issues associated with running an apparel manufacturing facility in the US. Most the brands were consequently faced with an increased cost of production they either pass on to their consumers or absorb at personal cost.
That scaled back their pricing structures or compromised on the range and quality of materials adopted. Fast fashion brands were unable to sustain their appeal of low cost due to a rise in costs for importing. This meant both luxury and affordable brands succumbed financially, but some smaller brand went under due to lack of ability to meet higher production costs.

The goal was to bring in more fashion manufacturing jobs in the US. But things turned out a tad too complicated for that reason alone. Even though it intended to make domestic production more attractive, high cost factors and the absence of such infrastructure in the country as far as large apparel manufacturers are concerned made a turnaround unattractive on behalf of most brands coming home without raising the overall costs. As a consequence, production became more costly for them, and most of these brands either passed this along to their customers or absorbed it themselves in the form of reduced profit margins.
This meant, therefore, that luxury brands of fashion and high-class retailers would have to trim down their price structures or reduce the scope and grade of material they used. Conversely, fast fashion brands suffered the pressure of losing their ‘value for money’ by rising import costs. Eventually, the new production costs presented both the luxury and economy brands with financial stress, to which some smaller brands ultimately closed down.

Tariffs and taxes on imports: A mixed bag
Under Trump, the United States placed tariffs on goods from several countries, targeting China in particular, which represents a large share of raw materials and finished goods used by American fashion brands. The tariffs were placed on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods, which include various textiles, clothing, and accessories.
For some of these companies, the tariffs multiplied the price paid for raw materials, stripping off profits or forcing brands to raise prices to consumers. Large brands- Nike and Levi’s-diversified their manufacturing base across different countries. They easily arranged for shifting their production units to other geographic locations, such as Vietnam or Mexico. The smaller brands had it tougher. Many had to find other places to manufacture products, an expensive and time-consuming process involving renegotiating contracts, finding new suppliers, and adjusting to the new production environment.
Changes had the effect of making items on clothing and accessories costlier for consumers, especially on brands that had no other choice but to pass those extra costs down the line. This made it an incredibly difficult landscape for the US. fashion market in terms of brands and consumers trying to adapt to higher costs of fashion items.

Made in USA, a distant dream?
Infrastructure on textiles and apparel in manufacturing sectors has declined over time when such production was outsourced because it was cheaper elsewhere. However, with renewed vigour toward domestic manufacturing, this could not be adequately answered for a number of infrastructural, skilled workforce needs, and capacity reasons-especially given the sensitivity in apparel markets to prices-paying high prices for apparel as much as possible. Plus, the cost of garments and apparels produced within America would be significantly more costly compared to other nations as well, where the overhead cost of labor and making was relatively lower.
Brands that attempted to produce domestically often found it challenging to compete with the affordability of imported goods. For instance, denim production in the US can cost two to three times more than in countries like Bangladesh or China. As a result, only high-end or niche brands were able to adopt the ‘Made in the USA’ label without losing their competitive edge.

How the fashion industry adapted
The fashion industry sought creative changes in order to adapt to the new landscape of trade. Many brands started looking to diversify their supply chains, reducing dependence on China and shifting production towards countries with favorable trade agreements such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and India. The tendency continues to grow as more and more brands seek ways to avoid tariffs and reduce production costs.
Some companies began a nearshoring strategy by bringing operations closer to the United States in places such as Mexico or through Central America. The nearshoring option allows brands to maintain supply lines that are shorter than from Asia; however, it means going up against different kinds of logistical hurdles and, often, slightly higher production costs from Asia. Besides this, many brands are investing in sustainable practices and using materials that appeal to their growing consumer base that finds value in environmental responsibility while using this shift as an opportunity to market their services as potentially more expensive.

Advantages and disadvantages of Trump’s policies toward the fashion industry
Benefits
Boosting local brands: Trump’s policies focus on the production of more locally manufactured items, thus boosting those firms that already were using more of local products or could now shift their production.
Less vulnerability in supply chain: In the past, imposing tariffs on the products from China led the firms to diversify their supply chain so that in the future any such disturbance may not again create the same type of problem for them.
Drawbacks
Increased production cost: If Trump sticks to his old plan, then the prices of buying imported products will rise, and things may become unaffordable for the consumers.
Economic uncertainty: Under Trump’s rule, constant changes in trade policies created uncertainty, complicating long-term planning and budgeting for many companies.
Reduced market growth: Higher prices due to tariffs will limit consumer purchasing power, especially for fast fashion brands that rely on low-cost goods.

How Kamala Harris’ Presidency may have affected fashion commerce
Had Kamala Harris become the president instead of Donald Trump, the fashion trade could have seen a different terrain. Harris has frequently championed free trade and economic policies that focus on inclusivity and sustainability. Her administration might have taken a more cooperative approach to trade with nations like China and in the multilateral trade agreements. This would have meant much stability for the industry.
Harris’s approach to fashion trade likely would have emphasised sustainable practices, and her administration might have introduced incentives for brands that prioritise ethical labour practices and environmental responsibility. For example, instead of tariffs, Harris might have encouraged companies to shift toward sustainable fabrics and production methods through tax breaks or grants. This could have provided both economic and environmental benefits, appealing to a growing consumer base that values eco-conscious practices.

Furthermore, as a woman of colour and a daughter of immigrants, Harris may have fostered stronger relationships with Asian countries, including India, where a large portion of textile production occurs. This would have facilitated smoother trade relationships and helped maintain affordability for fashion imports.