Join executive Americas editor, Hilary Milnes, on Thursday 15 May, to explore the best practices for fashion and beauty executives as tariffs and trade policy evolve in real time at our upcoming Insider Roundtable. Register here.
The global apparel sourcing map has shifted repeatedly in recent years — but few disruptions have hit with the surprise and potential severity of President Donald Trump’s proposed reciprocal tariffs.
Announced earlier this month before being paused for 90 days, the tariffs targeted virtually every nation with duties and hit apparel manufacturing countries hard: 37 per cent on Bangladesh, 46 per cent on Vietnam, 29 per cent on Pakistan, 49 per cent on Cambodia, 26 per cent on India, 20 per cent on the European Union, and 32 per cent on Taiwan. China, the original target of Trump’s trade war in 2018, faces the steepest rate of all: 145 per cent, still firmly in place with few exemptions — and none for apparel, though Trump last week said the “very high” rate will come down “substantially”. A 10 per cent universal tariff currently applies across the globe, though Canada and Mexico are exempt provided exports comply with the terms of the United States-Canada-Mexico trade agreement.
While the tariffs are paused, brands have scrambled to make sense of how they can protect themselves from a global trade war when their supply chains are exposed. While the 90-day pause is due to end in July, it’s entirely unpredictable how it will play out. Trump has said that negotiations with countries were underway, but that if they didn’t reach a deal, tariffs would be set in the “next two to three weeks”.
While the situation has rattled markets and sparked urgent calls with trade attorneys and supply chain teams, it hasn’t yet redrawn the sourcing map. Brand executives and founders have said that the uncertainty has made it impossible to make big decisions — like moving sourcing to a new country just for the tariffs to later disappear. If anything, it underscores how deeply entrenched the existing system remains — and how paralysed brands can become in the face of political whiplash and rumblings of an all-out trade war.
Most responses have been temporary fixes. Logistics giant Flexport reported a rush to move cargo into the US from tariff-hit nations ahead of the 9 April deadline. “For companies importing from China, that turned out to be a smart move,” says Sanne Manders, president and founding member of Flexport. “But for most other countries, it didn’t change much. Yes, a 10 per cent tariff still matters — but in retail terms, that’s closer to a 3 per cent impact.”
Manders says Flexport data shows a 30 per cent decline in shipments from China to the US. Some clients paused or postponed shipments; others went further, cancelling purchase orders entirely.
Still, the urgency hasn’t triggered a wholesale reordering of supply chains — yet. “Nobody can have a rational reaction to the Trump tariffs,” says Miran Ali, a board member of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association. “There’s a tendency to overstate their impact, but the reality is more nuanced. Yes, they inject chaos. But we’re seeing recalibration, not abandonment.”
Here, we drew up the industry’s current manufacturing map, and what’s at stake should tariffs go into effect.
A reshuffling in theory — but not yet in practice
China remains the top source of apparel imports to the US, despite a steady decline since the first round of Trump tariffs took effect in 2018, says Julia K. Hughes, president of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA). That decline accelerated during the Covid-19 disruption, as brands looked to diversify. But so far, the rebalancing has been measured rather than monumental.
Asian countries still accounted for 71.5 per cent of the total value of US apparel imports as of February, says Dr Sheng Lu, director of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, citing data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel. “That’s unchanged from the year prior.” The top five sourcing countries — China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and India — made up 63.7 per cent of total US apparel imports by value in the first two months of 2025, up from 59.7 per cent in the same period last year.
China’s share remained relatively stable: 18.4 per cent by value and 32 per cent by volume, far outpacing rivals.
“Interestingly enough, sourcing diversification efforts have slowed — largely because of policy uncertainty,” says Lu. “Brands are talking about change, but the numbers don’t show dramatic movement,” since tariffs were announced.
The myth of “China plus five”
Luis Arandia, a partner at business law firm Barnes Thornburg, notes that in the absence of clear regulatory guidance, brands are effectively left in limbo — unable to chart a definitive path forward. When the reciprocal tariffs were announced, fashion and apparel companies across the sector were left navigating a patchwork of country-specific rates — particularly complex across Southeast Asian markets.
Already, following Trump’s re-election last autumn, brands and sourcing executives began exploring “China plus four” or “China plus five” strategies. Many quietly began contingency planning: scouting factories in Cambodia, touring facilities in Vietnam, and evaluating capacity in India. But until Trump’s 2 April announcement from the Rose Garden, there was no clarity around which countries might offer safe harbour from tariffs. But the tariffs plan proved there was no such safe harbour. Instead, there was mounting uncertainty around the mechanisms of in-transit exemptions, as well as whether any grace provisions might be strategically leveraged. Notably, these tariffs apply to the non-US content of an article if at least 20 per cent of its value is derived from US-originating components — an intricate threshold with significant implications for globally sourced collections, he says.
As trade tensions simmer, industry experts are examining whether the advancement of reciprocal tariffs could fundamentally reshape fashion sourcing from key production hubs such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Even in their nascent stages, the mere prospect of such tariffs may already be catalysing shifts in supply chain strategies.
For large-scale US fashion companies, China’s role in sourcing has already diminished, accounting for only a single-digit share of value or volume, says Lu. Today, these players rely on China largely for complex orders — those demanding a wide variety of styles in smaller batches — that are less feasible to fulfil elsewhere. In contrast, bulk manufacturing is increasingly anchored in countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia and, more recently, India, which have become essential to powering the US fashion supply chain.
While large US fashion players have diversified their sourcing strategies, many small and mid-sized brands remain more dependent on China, drawn by the ease of one-stop sourcing and the suitability for smaller order volumes.
Still, the momentum is shifting. According to Lu, US fashion companies are expected to further deepen their sourcing relationships with China’s regional competitors — namely Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia and India — as trade tensions continue to escalate. Yet China is unlikely to disappear from the equation. Its role is evolving rather than simply shrinking, he explains, with many of its suppliers transforming into so-called “super vendors”: firms that own and operate manufacturing facilities across Southeast Asia. In practice, this means a US brand might contract a Chinese supplier whose production footprint spans Vietnam, Cambodia or Bangladesh — offering both geographic diversification and operational continuity.
However, Manders envisions a scenario in which the US government could eventually shift from targeting goods shipped from China to imposing duties based on Chinese content — regardless of the product’s final point of export.
New powers, new unpredictability
What’s most destabilising for brands isn’t just the tariffs — it’s how they’re being implemented.
“By declaring an emergency and using IEEPA powers to impose tariffs, this round is totally different from the 301 tariffs during Trump’s first administration,” says Hughes. “Back then, there were hearings, public comments, and review. Now, changes can happen in an instant.”
The result is a sourcing environment defined not just by cost or compliance — but by political volatility.
That hesitation is evident in the data: there’s little evidence to suggest that the current trade climate has meaningfully accelerated nearshoring to the Western Hemisphere, Lu notes. On the contrary, the numbers tell a different story: in February, just 7.6 per cent of US apparel imports originated from CAFTA-DR member countries — a notable decline from 9.6 per cent a year earlier. Mexico’s share also edged down to 2.3 per cent, compared to 2.4 per cent the previous February.
One reason for the stagnation is that even long-standing free trade partners, such as Mexico, are not immune to the uncertainty posed by potential Trump-era tariffs, dampening US brands’ confidence in nearshoring strategies. In addition, production capacity across Mexico and CAFTA-DR member states remains limited — particularly when it comes to the diversity of garments and fibre types — posing a challenge to scaling sourcing efforts.
Still, David Spooner, co-chair of the international trade practice at Barnes Thornburg and counsel to the USFIA, sees opportunity ahead, noting that countries with existing US free trade agreements may eventually benefit, as brands look to mitigate risk and unlock duty savings by sourcing within established trade frameworks.
As brands rethink their sourcing strategies, many are first focused on adapting to the immediate reality before overhauling production models. According to Craig Cardon, partner at Sheppard Mullin, most enquiries his firm fields centre on whether it’s possible to list tariffs as a separate line item, rather than embedding them in the product price. The approach offers more flexibility than blanket price increases — allowing brands to adjust charges if tariffs are lifted or cost structures shift.
However, implementing this strategy is far from straightforward. “The problem is that this can be quite complicated to implement due to ‘drip pricing’ and similar laws in various states,” Cardon notes, referring to regulations that prohibit the practice of disclosing only part of a product’s total cost upfront, with additional fees revealed later in the checkout process. These laws, reinforced by the Federal Trade Commission, aim to prevent misleading pricing tactics, like an airline advertising low fares without initially disclosing baggage fees.
Amid preparation for the possibility that tariffs could be reinstated in full this summer, many brands will have to weigh the cost of indecision against the risk of sudden change. For now, the map hasn’t changed — but the ground beneath it is increasingly unstable.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
What do Trump’s tariffs mean for fashion suppliers?
Chinese designers rethink US ambitions in light of tariffs
As brands grapple with tariffs, is US distribution worth the investment?
