The US apparel industry should prepare for uncertainty as reports claim US President-elect Trump's advisors are considering a new tariff approach that might not include apparel.

US President-elect Donald Trump’s aides are said to be considering this new approach to tariffs, according to a report by The Washington Post, which cites three individuals familiar with the ongoing discussions.  

Shortly after the publication of The Washington Post’s report Trump took to his Truth Social platform to denounce its coverage as erroneous and labelled it another instance of “Fake News.” 

He wrote: “The story in the Washington Post, quoting so-called anonymous sources, which don’t exist, incorrectly states that my tariff policy will be pared back. That is wrong. The Washington Post knows it’s wrong. It’s just another example of Fake News.”

However, if the publication’s sources are to be believed a pared back tariff plan would mark a significant change for the apparel and fashion retail sectors from the stance Trump presented during his 2024 presidential campaign.  

US apparel industry warns of uncertainty

The president and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) Steve Lamar, tells Just Style exclusively: “This week’s tariff rumours (so far) should be a reminder that there is still little clarity about exactly how the incoming Administration will fashion and announce its new tariff policies.”

The United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA)’s president, Julie Hughes agrees, stating: “We are in uncertain times during the transition to the new Trump Administration.”

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.

She adds: “The contradictory messages about tariffs reflect the fact that no one knows for certain what policies will be enacted on Day One. No one likes uncertainty but it is the reality for at least the next few weeks.”

Trump’s 2024 election campaign stance on tariffs

During his campaign, Trump advocated for across-the-board tariffs of 10% or 20% on all foreign imports into the US. Such proposals drew cautionary notes from economists about potential inflationary shocks and were likely to face opposition from Republican members of Congress. 

The National Retail Federation (NRF) disclosed in a November report that US consumers might experience a reduction in their annual purchasing capacity by an amount ranging from $46bn to $78bn if the proposed tariffs were implemented on internationally sourced products.  

This projection included the impact of the comprehensive tariffs introduced by the Trump administration, along with the potential increase of 60% to 100% on products imported from China. 

Alleged new pared back tariffs for essential imports but targeting all countries

Currently, two weeks shy of his inauguration, Trump’s team is debating the imposition of import duties targeting every country; however, these would be selectively applied to sectors deemed vital for national or economic security.  

This refined strategy would effectively sideline a major component of Trump’s initial pledge, at least temporarily, according to The Washington Post‘s sources who requested anonymity due to the private nature of the plans. They also emphasised that deliberations are ongoing and subject to change. 

The specifics regarding which imports or industries might be subjected to these tariffs remain unclear. Preliminary talks are said to have concentrated on various sectors that Trump’s advisors aim to repatriate to the US, including defence-related manufacturing (with potential tariffs on metals such as steel and aluminium), critical healthcare supplies (like syringes and pharmaceutical components), and energy production materials (including batteries and rare earth minerals). 

The relationship between these tariff plans and Trump’s previously stated intentions to levy 25% tariffs against Mexico, Canada, and China in response to migration and drug trafficking issues is also uncertain.  

Vince Haley, a prominent figure from Trump’s campaign expected to lead the White House Domestic Policy Council; Scott Bessent, nominated for Treasury Secretary; and Howard Lutnick, selected for Commerce Secretary, are said to be among those spearheading this internal tariff strategy development. 

The Washington Post quoted one of the sources as saying: “The sector-based universal tariff is a little bit easier for everybody to stomach out the gate. The thought is if you’re going to do universal tariffs, why not at least start with these targeted measures?  

“And it would still give CEOs a massive incentive to start making their products here.” 

The Washington Post quoted Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the Trump transition team as saying: “President Trump has promised tariff policies that protect the American manufacturers and working men and women from the unfair practices of foreign companies and foreign markets. As he did in his first term, he will implement economic and trade policies to make life affordable and more prosperous for our nation.” 

How would this new tariff direction impact apparel?

Lamar explains the apparel industry is increasingly finding “itself on a new playing field where one end is marked by uncertainty and the other is marked, most likely, by higher tariffs”.

He continues: “Neither outcome bodes well for an industry that demands predictability and faces tough pricing pressures.”

However, he’s keen to point out the AAFA looks forward to working with the Trump Administration “to educate them on what steps they can take to ensure a competitive US industry that employs millions of Americans making, marketing, and selling responsible and authentic fashion.”

Hughes hopes the new Administration will not target fashion and consumer products like apparel and footwear for additional tariffs. 

She explains: “While the average duty on manufactured products is 2%, tariffs on clothing and footwear, including clothing for children and babies, can be as high as 32% for clothing and 65% for footwear. The elimination of these regressive taxes on American families — and the resulting lower prices — would be the best economic stimulus programme in recent history.”

The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) had not responded to Just Style’s request for comment at the time of going to press.

Last month, Mexico increased its import duty on apparel products from 20-25% to 35%, however the US apparel sector is urging the country to pause the decision and liaise with stakeholders and an industry expert told Just Style the hike could complicate its trade relationship with Asia. 

By Just Style