Trump’s Re-Election and the Future of Fashion

With Donald Trump re-elected for a second term, the U.S. fashion industry finds itself at a crossroads as it navigates a renewed focus on economic growth, deregulation, and domestic production. These priorities, while potentially offering financial relief and flexibility for U.S.-based brands, also raise questions about the future of sustainability in fashion, both domestically and globally. Over recent years, fashion has made considerable strides toward more ethical and environmentally responsible practices. Now, with a Trump administration that prioritizes fewer regulatory demands and emphasizes profit-driven growth, the industry must re-evaluate its sustainability efforts in a landscape of shifting priorities and potentially looser regulatory oversight.

One of the most immediate impacts of Trump’s re-election on the U.S. fashion industry is the administration’s commitment to deregulation. Easing compliance burdens is intended to reduce costs for companies and allow them to operate more freely, but this also means that national standards around emissions, water use, and waste management may become less stringent. For U.S.-based brands focused primarily on the domestic market, deregulation could lead to variability in sustainability efforts. Some companies may capitalize on reduced oversight to cut costs, while others, especially those with an environmentally conscious customer base, may choose to uphold their green initiatives to maintain brand loyalty. This shift could also open the door to increased “greenwashing,” as some brands may be tempted to promote environmental claims that lack meaningful impact. This could dilute the public understanding of true sustainability in fashion and erode consumer trust.

Globally, however, deregulation in the U.S. doesn’t reduce the demand for meaningful environmental standards. Brands with an international presence, particularly those operating in regions with strict environmental regulations such as the European Union, will still be required to meet higher sustainability standards to retain access to these markets. The EU, for instance, requires clear and transparent reporting on environmental impact and resource use, and brands must adhere to these standards if they wish to compete in European markets. For U.S. companies with international goals, this means that environmental commitments will need to remain high even if domestic policies relax, or else risk losing credibility among global consumers. For U.S. brands that do uphold higher standards, transparency will be vital to communicate how they’re meeting international expectations despite a less stringent regulatory landscape at home.

Trade policy under Trump’s administration adds another layer to this complex sustainability landscape, with continued tariffs and trade restrictions aimed at promoting U.S. manufacturing. This shift is likely to impact U.S.-based fashion brands most directly, as they weigh the costs and benefits of overseas versus domestic production. While manufacturing closer to home could reduce the environmental impact of shipping, it also brings challenges. The U.S. currently lacks the large-scale apparel infrastructure and skilled labor force that make international production both efficient and affordable. Additionally, the U.S. textile production model is often more energy-intensive than that of some overseas production hubs, which could lead to higher emissions domestically if brands shift production without careful planning.

Nearshoring—sourcing materials and production from nearby regions like Mexico or Central America—may offer a compromise for U.S. brands, reducing reliance on long-distance supply chains while avoiding some of the challenges of large-scale domestic production. However, nearshoring also brings its own sustainability questions, as these countries have diverse regulations on environmental protection, and the benefits of regional production depend heavily on local practices. Brands considering this approach will need to assess not only the financial impact but also the environmental standards in each region.

A further challenge for the sustainability movement within U.S. fashion is the anticipated reduction in federal support for climate initiatives, which has previously been instrumental in helping companies transition to renewable energy and adopt sustainable materials. With less backing from the federal government, U.S.-based brands may find it more difficult to make the initial investments necessary for green infrastructure. This could slow the pace at which smaller and mid-sized brands—those that rely most heavily on federal incentives—can adopt sustainable practices. Larger companies with significant capital may still be able to pursue their environmental goals independently, but the lack of broad support risks creating a sustainability divide within the industry.

Despite these policy shifts, consumer demand for sustainable fashion remains strong, and this trend holds true both in the U.S. and globally. Today’s consumers are increasingly focused on buying from brands that demonstrate a clear commitment to responsible practices, not only in environmental efforts but also in social responsibility and transparency. This expectation for brands to “do good” could counterbalance some of the effects of deregulation by encouraging companies to remain accountable to their customers. In fact, a less regulated environment may place even more pressure on U.S.-based brands to offer transparency, as consumers look more closely at how companies are holding themselves accountable. Brands that choose to emphasize environmental practices despite fewer requirements will likely find that they have a competitive advantage, particularly among younger consumers who prioritize ethics in their purchasing decisions.

For U.S.-based brands with international ambitions, maintaining high environmental and social standards will also remain essential to compete in foreign markets. Major global markets, such as the EU, increasingly require that brands comply with strict sustainability regulations, from emissions reductions to ethical sourcing practices. Companies that fail to meet these standards could struggle to expand globally, and U.S. brands that hope to retain international credibility will need to uphold higher standards despite relaxed regulations domestically. Adopting independent certifications or reporting transparently on environmental impact could be valuable tools to maintain consumer confidence abroad, and for many companies, aligning with global expectations may be the only viable path forward if they want to thrive internationally.

Trump’s re-election brings both opportunities and responsibilities for the U.S. fashion industry as it redefines its relationship with sustainability in a profit-driven environment. While the administration’s approach offers financial flexibility for businesses, sustainability can’t be ignored if the industry hopes to stay relevant with consumers and remain competitive globally. The path forward for U.S.-based brands will likely involve an adaptable strategy that balances profitability with environmental goals. Some brands may choose incremental sustainability initiatives, focusing on the gradual adoption of recycled materials or improving resource efficiency where possible. This allows companies to contribute to environmental goals without overextending financially, particularly in a climate where federal support for green initiatives may be limited.

Looking ahead, the next four years under Trump’s administration will require a careful balance between economic flexibility and environmental responsibility for the U.S. fashion industry. While the U.S. regulatory landscape may ease, brands that aim to stay competitive globally and maintain consumer trust will need to hold themselves accountable to sustainability goals that align with consumer and international market expectations. By focusing on transparency, voluntary reporting, and measured sustainability progress, U.S.-based brands can adapt to this new era in a way that safeguards their environmental responsibilities while taking advantage of a less regulated environment. This balanced approach will be essential for creating a future where both profitability and sustainability remain achievable, ensuring that the U.S. fashion industry continues to evolve responsibly in an increasingly complex global market.