It’s 6 November and Donald Trump has been declared the winner of the US election, making him the 47th president of the country as the footwear and apparel sectors brace for change under the new leader.

Trump has surpassed the 270 electoral votes he needed to win and the time of going to press he had 279, while Harris had 223.

In his public address, he promised to fight for the future of US citizens, adding it was “very nice” to win the popular vote.

But for the US fashion and retail industries, Trump at the helm could prove problematic.

GlobalData senior apparel analyst Louise Deglise-Favre tells Just Style exclusively: “Trump likely has the potential to exacerbate tensions with China, which could lead to supply chain disruption and cost increases for globally integrated fashion businesses. However, Trump’s overall liberalism might also help break down barriers to trading within the United States, which would benefit local players.”

In fact, Trump has floated a wide range of proposals to impose new tariffs on imports into the United States. Two specific proposals call for greater scrutiny: A) a universal tariff of 10% or even 20% on all imports into the United States from all countries, and B) an additional tariff of 60% or even 100% on all imports from China on top of existing tariffs.

First Name

Last Name

Company Name

Job title *

Phone number *

UK   USA   Afghanistan   Åland Islands   Albania   Algeria   American Samoa   Andorra   Angola   Anguilla   Antarctica   Antigua and Barbuda   Argentina   Armenia   Aruba   Australia   Austria   Azerbaijan   Bahamas   Bahrain   Bangladesh   Barbados   Belarus   Belgium   Belize   Benin   Bermuda   Bhutan   Bolivia   Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba   Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana   Bouvet Island   Brazil   British Indian Ocean Territory   Brunei Darussalam   Bulgaria   Burkina Faso   Burundi   Cambodia   Cameroon   Canada   Cape Verde   Cayman Islands   Central African Republic Chad   Chile   China   Christmas Island   Cocos Islands   Colombia   Comoros   Congo   Democratic Republic of the Congo   Cook Islands   Costa Rica   Côte d"Ivoire   Croatia   Cuba   Curaçao   Cyprus   Czech Republic   Denmark   Djibouti   Dominica   Dominican Republic   Ecuador   Egypt   El Salvador   Equatorial Guinea   Eritrea   Estonia   Ethiopia   Falkland Islands   Faroe Islands   Fiji   Finland   France   French Guiana   French Polynesia   French Southern Territories Gabon   Gambia   Georgia   Germany   Ghana   Gibraltar   Greece   Greenland   Grenada   Guadeloupe   Guam   Guatemala   Guernsey   Guinea   Guinea-Bissau   Guyana   Haiti   Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See   Honduras   Hong Kong   Hungary   Iceland   India   Indonesia   Iran   Iraq   Ireland   Isle of Man   Israel   Italy   Jamaica   Japan   Jersey   Jordan   Kazakhstan   Kenya   Kiribati   North Korea   South Korea   Kuwait   Kyrgyzstan   Lao   Latvia   Lebanon   Lesotho   Liberia   Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein   Lithuania   Luxembourg   Macao   Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of   Madagascar   Malawi   Malaysia   Maldives   Mali   Malta   Marshall Islands   Martinique   Mauritania   Mauritius   Mayotte   Mexico   Micronesia   Moldova   Monaco   Mongolia   Montenegro   Montserrat   Morocco   Mozambique   Myanmar   Namibia   Nauru   Nepal   Netherlands   New Caledonia   New Zealand   Nicaragua   Niger   Nigeria   Niue   Norfolk Island   Northern Mariana Islands Norway   Oman   Pakistan   Palau   Palestinian Territory   Panama   Papua New Guinea   Paraguay   Peru   Philippines   Pitcairn   Poland   Portugal   Puerto Rico   Qatar   Réunion   Romania   Russian Federation   Rwanda   Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha   Saint Kitts and Nevis   Saint Lucia   Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa   San Marino   Sao Tome and Principe   Saudi Arabia   Senegal   Serbia   Seychelles   Sierra Leone   Singapore   Slovakia   Slovenia   Solomon Islands   Somalia   South Africa   South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands   Spain   Sri Lanka   Sudan   Suriname   Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland   Sweden   Switzerland   Syrian Arab Republic   Taiwan   Tajikistan   Tanzania   Thailand   Timor-Leste   Togo   Tokelau   Tonga   Trinidad and Tobago   Tunisia   Turkey   Turkmenistan   Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu   Uganda   Ukraine   United Arab Emirates   US Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay   Uzbekistan   Vanuatu   Venezuela   Vietnam   British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands   Wallis and Futuna   Western Sahara   Yemen   Zambia   Zimbabwe   Kosovo  

Industry *   Academia & Education   Aerospace, Defense & Security   Agriculture   Asset Management   Automotive   Banking & Payments   Chemicals   Construction   Consumer   Foodservice   Government, trade bodies and NGOs   Health & Fitness   Hospitals & Healthcare HR, Staffing & Recruitment   Insurance   Investment Banking   Legal Services   Management Consulting   Marketing & Advertising Media & Publishing   Medical Devices   Mining   Oil & Gas   Packaging   Pharmaceuticals   Power & Utilities   Private Equity   Real Estate   Retail   Sport   Technology   Telecom   Transportation & Logistics   Travel, Tourism & Hospitality   Venture Capital  

Tick here to opt out of curated industry news, reports, and event updates from Just Style.  

Submit and download

Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how we may use, process and share your personal data, including information of your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

Neil Saunders, analyst at GlobalData, told Just Style previously he would expect further tariff extensions under Trump’s leadership which could continue driving costs up for consumers on apparel and footwear imports.

Equally, he noted they did little to reduce imports from major manufacturing countries like China.

However, Trump’s proposed extension of the 2017 tax cuts, which mainly benefit corporations and higher-income individuals, would likely reduce operating costs for large apparel and footwear companies, enabling reinvestment in production and expansion, argues Rob Antoshak of Gherzi Textil Organisation.

But again he comes back to concerns over trade tariffs whose impact, specifically on the cost to consumers, may outweigh any benefits of reinvigorated US production.

“These tariffs could force apparel companies to shift production to other countries or bring manufacturing back to the US, potentially raising production costs,” Antoshak explains. “Apparel companies would need to balance these higher costs against market demand elasticity, which could lead to reduced profits or higher consumer prices.”

What Trump tariffs mean for US apparel and footwear

According to the National Retail Federation, such tariffs would significantly impact the costs of a wide range of consumer products sold in the United States.

In a research piece prepared by Trade Partnership Worldwide, the NRF says an increase in tariffs from Trump’s proposal would be “dramatic”.

Specifically to apparel, under scenario A, consumers could see prices surge by 12.5% while in footwear they would rise by 18.1%. This would result in a loss of consumer spending power of $13.9bn and $6.4bn respectively.

Under scenario B, consumers could see apparel prices increase by 20.6% and footwear prices increase by 28.8%. It would also result in a loss of consumer spending power of $24bn and $10.7bn respectively.

China has always been the target of Trump’s ire so it’s unsurprising when it comes to implementing tariffs, China is at the top of the list.

The report examines the scenario of shifting import sourcing, but even after changes in sourcing, the proposed tariffs would still have “a substantially negative impact on American consumers purchasing the targeted products.”

“In brief, we find that the additional costs associated with these proposed tariffs would be too large for US retailers to absorb and, when passed on to consumers, would result in prices higher than many consumers would be willing or able to pay. Some consumers would stop purchasing the items and demand would fall,” reads the report.

While others might continue to buy at higher prices, it would mean they’d be paying $13.9bn to $24bn more for apparel and $6.4bn to $10.7bn more for footwear.

It would come at the expense of purchases of other goods and services and represent lost household spending power.

Apparel

Trump’s proposal would add new tariffs on top of already high tariffs faced by imports from all countries. Nearly all of those apparel items currently face even higher duties under Section 301 tariffs when imported from China. Currently, US apparel tariffs average 14.7% (reflective of trade under free trade agreements as well as Section 301 tariffs on imports from China). The proposed tariffs would increase that average rate to 37.5% (Scenario A) to 56.0% (Scenario B).

Under its analysis the NRF says prices of apparel would increase by 12.5% to 20.6%, and consumers would cut back spending on apparel by 22% to 33%.

“These higher prices and loss of spending power would hit low-income families especially hard. Low-income households spend three times as much of their after-tax income on apparel as do high-income households.

The prices of infant pyjamas, currently $15, would increase to $17 to $18; a $50 woman’s cotton sweater would cost $56 to $60; an $80 pair of men’s jeans would cost $90 to $96 and a $100 coat would cost $112 to $121.

“So, while the increases in dollar terms may seem inconsequential, they are not for lower-income families already struggling to make ends meet,” reads the report.

“Notably, a recent poll found that while 62% of Americans are sympathetic to a tariff on imported blue jeans meant to boost production and employment in the domestic blue jean industry, that support evaporates if the tariffs make the jeans $10 to $25 more expensive – which our analysis suggests would be the case.”

What would it mean for US apparel manufacturers?

US apparel manufacturers stand to benefit from the tariffs but at a higher cost to families.

Apparel imports would decline, particularly from China and US production would increase. However, while US apparel manufacturers would see revenues grow by about $712m to $1.2bn, consumers would pay $20 for every additional dollar earned by US apparel producers. Even after accounting for domestic manufacturing gains and new tariff revenue, the result is a net $16bn to $18bn loss for the US economy, with the burden carried by US consumers.

Footwear

Currently, US footwear tariffs average 11.9% (reflective of trade under free trade agreements as well as Section 301 tariffs on imports from China). The proposed tariffs would increase that average rate to 44.2% (Scenario A) to 69.1% (Scenario B).

Prices of footwear would increase by 18% to 29%. If these price increases are fully passed through to retail prices, US consumers would lose spending power and be forced to reduce overall purchases by 30% to 41%.

• The price of a $90 pair of athletic shoes would jump to between $106 and $116
• A $48 pair of women’s slippers would cost between $57 and $62
• A $30 pair of girls’ “Mary Jane” shoes would cost between $35 and $39.

The impact of this extra cost to American families would range from $6bn to $11bn annually, reads the report.

What would it mean for US footwear makers?

Again, as footwear imports decline, particularly from China, US production is likely to increase.

However, while US footwear manufacturers would see revenues grow by about $203m to $329m, consumers pay $32 for every additional dollar earned by US footwear producers.

After accounting for domestic manufacturing gains and new tariff revenue, the result is a net $4bn to 8bn loss for the US economy with the burden carried by US consumers.

By Just Style