Tariff Reversals, Trade Chaos, And The Cost To Fashion

What began as a calculated revival of protectionist policy has rapidly spiralled into something more chaotic, reactive, and destabilising. The Trump administration’s introduction of sweeping tariffs – branded “Liberation Day” duties – was initially presented as a decisive move to restore America’s industrial strength. But within a week of their rollout, the majority of those tariffs were suspended for 90 days. All except one. Tariffs on Chinese imports were not only preserved, but amplified to a staggering 125%.

If the intent was to send a message, it did. But what’s followed hasn’t been strategy, it’s been improvisation masquerading as strength. The fashion industry, particularly its most vulnerable constituents – small and mid-sized enterprises – now finds itself exposed to a volatile global trade environment with no consistent signals.  

Multinational corporations, fortified by risk-diversified portfolios, capital liquidity, and expansive compliance departments, are structurally equipped to absorb such shocks. Their response mechanisms include the deferment of discretionary product lines, renegotiation of supplier contracts, and rapid pivots to alternative production geographies. For SME’s, these options are aspirational rather than operational. Businesses operating on constrained cash flows and compressed production timelines are presented with stark, binary options: delay production or face existential risk. 

Over the last two weeks (two weeks!? It feels like months) numerous independent fashion labels have surfaced with testimonies of disruption, forcing them to enact hiring freezes and suspend incoming orders, reactive but necessary steps that reflect the thin economic buffer these companies operate within. The assumption that tariffs impact all players uniformly is not just flawed, it’s structurally misleading. These measures introduce a cascading economic burden that flows upstream from the most vulnerable tiers of the fashion ecosystem. SMEs lack the elasticity to absorb shock. When costs rise, they bleed first and most profusely. 

This all adds up to an atmosphere of profound strategic hesitation. In such conditions, enterprise suffers. Not for a lack of ideas, but for lack of confidence that the rules of the game will stay consistent long enough to justify investment. 

Central to this instability is the enduring, but increasingly untenable, myth of reshoring. That rising tariffs will force manufacturing back to American soil, rebuilding domestic jobs and restoring economic sovereignty. While emotionally resonant, this proposition wilts under close scrutiny. Presently, 97% of U.S. Apparel is made overseas. In 1979, the American apparel industry employed over 2 million people. By 2019, that figure had fallen to just over 300,000. The erosion is systemic, and not easily reversible. Core manufacturing competencies, specialised infrastructure, and vertically integrated production ecosystems have not simply been paused, they’ve been lost altogether. 

Even the consumers who claim to love “Made in America” don’t consistently put their money where their hearts are. According to Cotton Inc., there’s still a disconnect between preference and purchasing behaviour. Even when onshore production is technically feasible, it remains economically prohibitive. 

The deeper truth is that global supply chains, particularly China’s, aren’t just built on low wages, or aggressive pricing. They’re built on decades of infrastructure, manufacturing clusters, policy alignment, and deep rooted efficiency. As Apple CEO Tim Cooke famously said in 2018 “”The popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs… the truth is China stopped being the low labor costs country many years ago…The reason is because of the skill, the quantity of skill in one location, and the type of skill it is”. 

Even Shein, for all its controversies, has explored diversifying out of China, but the gravitational pull of its homegrown production ecosystem, unmatched in speed and scale, remains too strong to escape entirely.

Tariff escalation doesn’t negate this reality, it merely increases operational cost and exacerbates volatility.

Even countries once heralded as viable alternatives – Vietnam and Bangladesh – have found themselves enmeshed in shifting tariff regimes. Initially subject to 46% and 37% duties, respectively, both countries have been temporarily returned to the 10% baseline as part of the 90 day suspension. While this adjustment offers a monetary reprieve, it provides no durable clarity. Brands are now locked in operational limbo: should they recalibrate supply chains based on fleeting incentives, or preserve existing alignments and risk another policy whiplash?

The result is paralysis. For SME’s already navigating thin margins and shorter decision cycles, the absence of a stable, long term policy direction is deeply destabilising. Rather than providing strategic options, the changing landscape has turned diversification into a gamble. 

This uncertainty extends to adjacent innovation sectors. The fashion industry is in the midst of a transformation, at the last mile: drone fulfilment, AI-driven logistics, on-demand production, and experimental retail are finally moving from vision to viability. Startups like Zipline are investing in radical delivery infrastructure that hinges on predictable margins and stable access to components. When the cost of sensors or chips triples overnight, the entire product timeline collapses. Tariffs are not merely inflationary, they are destabilising to the very assumptions that underpin product development and market forecasting. 

While some within the administration, notably Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have framed the current tariff policy as a calculated negotiating tactic, an aggressive play designed to bring international trading partners to the table, the president’s own language betrays a less systemic intent: “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy, you know.” These words do not inspire confidence in a long range strategy. They suggest volatility as governance.

And the global markers have responded accordingly. The initial announcement of the tariffs triggered a historic sell off, wiping trillions from global indices and spiking bond yields. The 90 day partial reversal led to a rebound, but the damage was already done. Investors, planners, and analysts have been left trying to decipher not only the policies, but the psychology driving them. 

This is the macroeconomic backdrop against which fashion brands are trying to function. Planning cycles have been upended. Investor confidence has frayed. Their shipping partners are unsure of costs from one week to the next. Innovation, once seen as the great equaliser for smaller brands, is now being deferred in favour of risk mitigation. The result is an industry in a holding pattern. One that bigger companies will survive, albeit with wounds to address long term, but that positions SME’s dangerously close to a cliff’s edge.

All of which brings us to the real tension: What is this policy actually solving? Because it isn’t returning jobs to the U.S. (at least not yet). Multinational manufacturing giants have not meaningfully changed course. The most observable outcome so far, has been the exacerbation of strain on the most vulnerable participants in the fashion value chain.

Trade policy, when deployed with clarity, can be a powerful tool. But when it becomes a theatre of ego and improvisation, its utility erodes. Tariffs become bludgeons, indiscriminate in their impact, with SME’s bearing the brunt.

And in a year already shaped by volatility and spectacle, it’s worth asking: what happens if these tariffs change again next month? Or next week? Or with the next social media post?

Because the only thing more destabilising than a 54% tariff is the knowledge that it could become 104% – or zero – with no warning at all. 

Best from The Interline:

In our first analysis of the week, The Interline explores AI, Ownership And The Legality Of Generative Inspiration.

Aasia D’Vaz-Sterling writes on Central Saint Martins’ Earthsuits initiative. From the crucible of the space race to the necessity of climate adaptation, what fashion can take away from past and present moments of fear, optimism, necessity, and invention.