While Donald Trump is by no means considered a ‘fashion icon’, that won’t stop him from taking the industry by storm. From trade tariffs, lax environmental policies, and a lack of diversity, equity and inclusion schemes, how will Trump’s ‘America-first’ policies and ‘anti-woke’ sentiment impact the industry?
Trump’s Tariff Threat to China
Trump’s new policies are centred around his desire to put America first, and considering the large trade deficit with China, he’s set his sights on changing tariffs to suit these goals. He has decided to implement a 10% tariff on imports from China. Alongside this, he’s also looking into changing America’s $800 de minimus duty-free exemption, a ‘de minimus’ threshold means that items worth less than $800 shipped to individuals in the US are exempt from tariffs.
From the perspective of the fashion industry, this could cause major disruption. China has become the fashion industry’s main manufacturing hub, with the likes of Shein, Zara, and H&M producing the majority of their garments there. China is the biggest exporter to the American fashion industry, accounting for 26.1% of America’s textiles and apparel imports. In November 2024, it was found that of the top 10 clothing suppliers to the US, nearly 61% of the imports come from China.
This means that many fashion brands selling to the US market may look to expand their manufacturing locations. Vietnam and India are two key locations which could see a growth in garment production. After China, Vietnam and India are the second and third largest exporters of textile and apparel to the US. With a 21% increase in manufacturing between 2019 and 2023, India is starting to be seen as a growing powerhouse in clothing production. Vietnam, on the other hand, has various trade agreements with the US, allowing tariffs on apparel imports from Vietnam to be reduced (for now), this makes it an attractive option for US fashion brands.
25% Tariffs on Canada and Mexico
On 1 February Trump implemented a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, although this has now been paused, once reinstated, it could have a huge impact. Not only could it spark a trade war, but Mexico has played an increasingly important role in the supply chains of various fashion retailers. This is because Mexico is a common location for American companies to near-shore production. This is when an organisation moves their manufacturing location closer to where the company operates in order to improve communication between suppliers, or to reduce the time it takes to transport products from factories to shop shelves. In 2023, near-shoring made up around 12% of US apparel and textile imports (this includes Mexico, Canada, and Latin America), to be more specific, Mexico is the 6th largest exporter of textile and apparel to the US.
This will likely cause a lot of disruption considering 65% of US fashion companies in 2023 claimed to have increased their sourcing from the US to Mexico and Canada. Mexico is considered by many fashion brands to be an excellent option for near-shoring. This is because Mexico, like China, has cheaper labour costs, but is situated much closer to the US, reducing times for garments to get from the factory to the store.
It’s therefore possible that the fashion industry will see a decrease in the number of businesses willing to near-shore their production, as tariffs will only increase their costs. This wouldn’t only be a loss for Mexico’s employment rate, but also for the wider environment. Near-shoring reduces the distance garments have to travel before reaching their end destination at the retailer, and therefore reduces greenhouse gas emissions caused by transporting goods. With the reduced financial incentive to produce in Mexico, many brands may look to Vietnam and India.
The environmental cost of Trump’s policies
One of the first items on the agenda for Donald Trump was to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. This is one of his efforts to break down ‘woke capitalism’. Under the Paris Climate Accords, the Fashion Charter was established, which helped set guidance for fashion brands to follow to reduce their environmental impact. This included objectives such as the Net-Zero goal (reaching net-zero emissions by 2050) and setting standards for supply chain transparency.
Due to the extensive network of manufacturers and suppliers in the fashion industry, transparency is essential to keep track of not only quality but more importantly, workers’ rights. It helped to ensure manufacturers in less direct contact with the brand further down the supply chain were adhering to standards surrounding working conditions and treatment of employees, which is essential to running an ethical business.
As a result of this, fashion retailers wouldn’t be pressured to provide evidence for their progress relating to their sustainability targets. This allows brands to set more vague environmental goals and could foster a culture of greenwashing. Unless fashion retailers have centred their whole brand around being sustainable, it will now be very easy for companies to backtrack on their green initiatives with little consequence. What incentive would a fast fashion brand have to continue implementing that expensive carbon offsetting scheme when no one’s holding them accountable anymore?
Already, 63% of retailers have fallen short of their 2030 carbon emissions goals, alongside the growing disregard for environmental concerns (which has accelerated with Trump’s influence), sustainability is likely to take a back seat in the fashion industry for the coming years. Although, unfortunately, it’s these next 4 years which will prove to be pivotal in the fight against the climate crisis.
What does it mean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?
Another measure taken by Trump to fight ‘woke capitalism’ was to put all US government diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) staff on paid leave. While this may seem to only affect the government, it sets the tone for the culture in businesses. As of now, Target, Walmart, Meta, and McDonald’s have all put an end to their DEI efforts.
This announcement divided the public with some saying to boycott Target, and others saying that would only make the problem worse. Target aimed to sell more than 500 Black-owned brands in its stores, which they were on target to meet. Black-owned brands are advising shoppers not to boycott, because if their products aren’t selling well, Target will simply no longer stock them.
While no fashion brands have announced that they’re ending their DEI schemes, it’s important to note that Bernard Arnault, CEO of LVMH, was present at Trump’s inauguration. Keeping on Trump’s good side could purely be good business sense, with the long-term aim of protecting LVMH’s brands from these new tariffs. However, if he’s seen to be supporting Trump’s plans for America, it could put DEI initiatives at LVMH at risk.
How will fashion trends be affected by Trump’s presidency?
Trump’s ‘American dream’ seems to be rooted in a culture of toxic masculinity and traditional gender roles. Elon Musk, who is leading the Department of Government Efficiency in the Trump administration, has claimed “Masculinity is making a comeback.” for 2025.
Last year trad-wives were a huge trend on TikTok, depicting women creating a life for themselves which has an uncanny likeness to 1950s housewives. While these TikTok creators sit on a spectrum and may not have explicitly revealed their political beliefs, this trend was largely associated with the right-wing, very traditional beliefs of gender roles where men sit at the top of the hierarchy. Women would stay at home to look after the kids, clean the house, and cook lavish meals from scratch, putting the your husband’s needs above your own. While on the surface, this is an interesting, but seemingly harmless corner of the internet, it puts a glossy sheen over a very oppressive time for women. It’s seen as a fun trend because today women have a choice- if they want to be a stay-at-home mum, they can, but they can also go out to work too.
On the opposite end of the political fashion trend spectrum is Charli XCX and the renaissance of the ‘party girl’ style, putting an end to the more minimal ‘clean girl aesthetic’. The Brat album, while not overtly political, is played in clubs and adored by Gen-Z so it has a sense of youth and openness to it, associated with left-wing politics. However, it became slightly more political when Charli XCX tweeted that “Kamala Harris IS brat”. The ‘brat’ style, as defined by Charli XCX, in an interview on BBC Sounds, is “just like a pack of cigs and a Bic lighter. And like, a strappy white top with no bra”, contrasting the more ‘modest’ cottage core style. The coming months could therefore see polar opposite fashion trends, with some dressing more conservatively and others dressing with more defiance, maybe a reflection of the political divide in the US.
Trump’s influence on luxury brands
Although most signs point to a troubling time for the fashion industry over the next 4 years, one sector which may benefit is luxury. Donald Trump has already pronounced the start of the “Golden age of America” with his inauguration. This conjures up images of luxury and affluence, which will undoubtedly seep into fashion and what’s on trend.
In 2019 during Trump’s first term as president, Bernard Arnault promised to create more jobs for Americans by opening a production plant in Texas for Louis Vuitton to manufacture their handbags and small leather items. This could hint that more projects of this nature may happen during Trump’s second term. Opening manufacturing hubs in the US could also be beneficial for workers’ rights, if the company is based in the US, factory audits would be more convenient to conduct. Alongside China’s declining growth, the US could emerge as the next big luxury market.
Could this inspire a shift towards formalwear and status symbols over dressing down? Could quiet luxury be out and logo mania be back in? Only the next 4 years will tell and it’s getting harder to predict what might happen next.
