On 20 January, his first day in office, President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement; declared a national energy emergency to expedite the permitting process for oil, gas and power infrastructure projects; and proposed the loosening of emissions regulations through executive orders. Together, these moves represent a seismic US policy shift with profound implications for the fashion industry, threatening to derail progress on climate goals, deepen reliance on fossil fuels and disrupt global trade dynamics.
Trump’s Paris Agreement pull-out marks a major setback for global climate efforts, says Julia Hughes, president of the United States Fashion Industry Association. The international treaty, signed in 2016, aims to limit global warming to below 2°C — with ambitions for 1.5°C — by achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century. For the fashion industry, the US’s withdrawal (its second: Trump withdrew in 2020, before the Biden administration rejoined in 2021) complicates the path to net-zero emissions goals. “The big question is whether the actions by President Trump will have an impact globally or will the main impact be only here in the US,” she says.
The Paris Agreement plays a crucial role in shaping global fashion sustainability policies by setting ambitious targets for emissions reduction. While the EU and other regions have introduced stringent regulations to align with the agreement, the US fashion industry faces challenges due to the country’s initial withdrawal from the accord under the previous Trump administration. This regulatory gap has resulted in faltering federal climate leadership, leaving brands to navigate varying state-level policies. Despite this, many global fashion players are still motivated by international commitments and consumer demand for more sustainable practices, with many pushing forward with green initiatives regardless of federal shifts.
Meanwhile, orders to remove emissions regulations for the energy and industrial sectors could increase the carbon footprint of US-based fashion production, which represents a small-but-impactful share of global apparel output. Processes like dyeing, finishing and manufacturing — known for their energy intensity — may become more dependent on fossil fuels, undermining efforts to transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Claire Bergkamp, CEO of non-profit Textile Exchange, cautions that weakened regulations may also encourage greater use of cheap, petroleum-derived virgin polyester, a major contributor to microplastic pollution, while delaying investments in textile recycling infrastructure.
Unless stricter regulations emerge elsewhere, such as Stand.Earth’s proposal for an EU tax on fossil materials, producers of natural fibres could struggle to compete with low-cost petroleum-based textiles. “We hope decision-makers will consider the lifetime impact of synthetic textiles, such as microplastics that are known to cause harm to the environment, animals and humans, as well as the textile waste created by making fast and cheap fashion,” says Lisa Bergstrand, founder of Bergstrand Consultancy, a sustainability advisor to fashion and textile companies.
Global implications and policy context
The repercussions of US deregulation extend beyond its borders. “This interconnectedness means that policy shifts in one country, while impactful, are part of a broader context shaped by international climate commitments and market demands,” says Bergkamp. Frameworks like the European Green Deal continue to drive emissions reductions, compelling brands to align with global sustainability goals despite US federal rollbacks.
More relaxed regulations in the US may attract investors interested in erecting new production facilities, says Greg Tulquois, a partner at law firm DLA Piper, who advises consumer goods clients.
Without the proverbial carrot of federal climate policy pushing US brands to minimise their carbon footprints, fashion companies may lose motivation to demand cleaner operations from suppliers. “If those pressures are no longer felt by brands, we may see reduced pressure throughout the value chain, reverting to the cheapest and most convenient energy sources, which are typically fossil fuels,” says Michelle Gabriel, programme director of sustainable fashion at IE New York College (formerly Glasgow Caledonian University). Local policies in vendor countries that prioritise green energy could mitigate this risk, but the absence of federal oversight in the US will have ripple effects, she adds.
Raw materials and energy trends
Weaker environmental standards could exacerbate unsustainable practices in raw materials sourcing. For cotton production, for example, the increased use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers could accelerate soil degradation, water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
“The risks extend to climate-driven disruptions in raw material production,” says Elizabeth Cline, professor of fashion policy at Columbia University. Extreme weather events, intensified by climate change, already threaten resources such as cotton and wool. Without robust climate policies, the US risks destabilising its agricultural base, with global ripple effects for textile supply chains reliant on American raw materials like Supima cotton.
Trump’s policies could hinder US innovation in critical areas like climate tech and circular business models, ultimately weakening the country’s competitiveness in a global market increasingly driven by green technologies. Looser environmental regulations may also diminish the incentive for the apparel sector to invest in research and development of more sustainable raw textile materials, including those incorporating recycled fibres, according to Dr Sheng Lu, director in the department of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware.
Meanwhile, expanded drilling for oil and gas could worsen climate-related disruptions, jeopardising both raw material production and worker safety in garment-producing regions. “Parts of Southeast Asia are already experiencing extreme heat waves that endanger workers’ health and force factories to close for parts of the year,” says Cline. “Droughts and floods are also devastating cotton crops in other regions, driving up prices.”
While US garment production may grow increasingly reliant on fossil fuels, other global players are charting a different course. China, the world’s largest garment producer, is advancing renewable energy investments to reduce dependency on US oil and gas imports. “Asia will fill the void in renewables development, while the EU continues to lead climate action in the Western world,” says Cline.
Brand roles and state efforts
Although deregulation could offer short-term cost savings for American brands, experts warn against complacency. “The fashion industry was already heavily deregulated regarding climate action, and brands must continue their climate investments,” says Cline. California’s new climate disclosure laws, alongside the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), ensure robust global climate efforts despite a lack of US federal leadership.
California’s Senate Bills 253 and 261 set new standards for corporate climate transparency, affecting fashion’s biggest players. SB 253 mandates emissions disclosures across supply chains, while SB 261 requires biennial reports on climate-related financial risks. Together, these laws cement California’s leadership in sustainability and could influence global corporate practices.
The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement could strain trade relationships with nations adhering to stricter emissions standards. Sustainability-focused consumers and investors will likely amplify scrutiny on brands, particularly in regions where environmental accountability remains a priority. “Companies are not absolved of their responsibility to protect the climate despite government inaction,” says researcher for Private Eye’s clean clothes campaign David Hachfeld. Failing to uphold commitments risks reputational damage and lost market share.
While the federal landscape in the US shifts, investors committed to sustainability may remain undeterred. “Investors interested in sustainability in the first place probably won’t be swayed by this new administration,” says Bergstrand. “Many investors have longer horizons than the term length of a presidency.” This fortitude underscores the importance of private sector leadership and international collaboration in driving a sustainable future for fashion.
Despite significant challenges arising from the US government’s shift away from climate action, this moment also highlights the persistence of the private sector and international frameworks. Bergkamp emphasises the importance of continued global collaboration, saying: “Together, we can drive the transition to a resilient and regenerative industry that not only secures the future of our planet but also ensures a liveable and thriving world for generations to come.”
Sign up to receive the Vogue Business newsletter for the latest luxury news and insights, plus exclusive membership discounts.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
