Image courtesy of thebusinessoffashion.com
Since Donald Trump entered the 2024 presidential race, the word tariff has become synonymous with his political platform. He vowed to raise tariffs on imported goods, and he has largely delivered on that promise, though he has walked back or delayed many import tariffs several times since taking office in January of this year.
Fashion has not been spared from the economic policies of the Trump administration. The U.S. imports 89 percent of the apparel and leather products sold domestically, and those industries have felt the repercussions of rising tariffs according to Business of Fashion’s State of Fashion 2026 report.
Designer Larissa Muehleder recently had to hold a major sale on her brand’s website to help pay her tariff bill. Even stylists borrowing pieces from European fashion houses have been hit with unexpected charges from FedEx and DHL before receiving their goods.
For independent designers, the tariffs have been a sledgehammer to their businesses. In April 2025, Trump’s tariffs took full effect following the 90-day implementation period, causing apparel and footwear tariffs to spike from 15 to 54 percent. While some tariffs were later reversed, the average tariff rate for apparel and footwear from the top 10 importers still sits at roughly 36 percent. For comparison, the average tariff rate for U.S. exports is 17 percent.
Image courtesy of shein.com
Tariffs also do not discriminate by price point. They affect companies like Shein and Temu—which can easily absorb the costs—as well as luxury giants like Louis Vuitton and Chanel. But they hit small contemporary and independent brands the hardest, as they lack billions in reserves to cushion the blow.
Before diving further into the fashion fallout, it’s important to define what a tariff is: a tax on imported goods. By making imported products more expensive, tariffs are intended to protect domestic industries.
The challenge for apparel and footwear is that the U.S. produces so little of these goods that there is relatively little industry to protect. While the idea may sound sensible in theory, it only works if the country has strong manufacturing hubs. New York City’s Garment District—once the center of American fashion production—is now a shadow of its former self. What were once factories have largely become showrooms and office spaces. Although many independent designers still work there, it is no longer the manufacturing powerhouse it once was.
Today, the major apparel manufacturing hubs are China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Together, they account for 63 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports—and 75 percent of the countries hit hardest by Trump’s tariffs. And the impact doesn’t stop at corporate balance sheets.
To compensate for higher tariff costs, companies are raising prices. Nike, Hermès, and Ralph Lauren have all signaled plans to increase prices in 2026.
Image courtesy of thebostonglobe.com
While major brands can absorb the financial shock, smaller ones cannot. In a recent New York Times interview, shoe designer Ruthie Davis—known for her towering stiletto heels—said her products are now piling up at the Brazilian factory where she manufactures. Shipments to the U.S. have been paused due to soaring tariffs.
Davis chose Brazil because it was more affordable than Italy and offered lower minimum order quantities. But she has halted new shipments out of fear of the massive tariff bill she might face upon arrival in the U.S.
“The problem is, a 50 percent tariff for these smaller brands—we can’t absorb it, and we don’t have any flexibility to move our production,” Davis told The New York Times. “We don’t have this huge budget and all this money sitting around.”
There may be one silver lining for independent brands: the Supreme Court could potentially strike down many of the tariffs. The Court recently heard arguments in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, two cases that could overturn a wide array of the president’s tariffs. Businesses might even be able to recover additional costs imposed by them. The central question before the Court is whether the administration exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act when imposing global reciprocal tariffs.
While independent designers struggle to keep up with the current tariff burden, some fashion sustainability activists see a potential upside: higher prices may curb overconsumption. Still, they caution against framing the Trump administration as having sustainability in mind. None of the tariffs were designed with environmental or labor considerations.
Although rising consumer prices often push shoppers toward thrifting and secondhand purchases—both more sustainable options—the reality is less rosy for sustainable fashion brands. These labels tend to be smaller and have far fewer resources to absorb increased tariff costs. Fast-fashion companies, on the other hand, have the margins to weather the storm.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues adjusting the tariff regime, rolling back some measures while revising others. Combined with rising unemployment (despite limited reporting, major companies like Meta and Microsoft have announced layoffs), a slowdown in luxury spending, and 92 percent of Americans citing financial concerns for the coming year, the economic outlook for fashion is grim. The hope is that the Supreme Court will overturn many—if not most—of the tariffs so independent brands have a better chance of surviving and eventually thriving.
—Kristopher Fraser
Speak Your Mind