The full study is available HERE.
Textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” have gained growing attention in recent years amid the increasing supply chain disruptions during the pandemic, the rising geopolitical tensions worldwide, and consumers’ increasing interest in sustainable apparel and faster speed to market. Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that U.S. textile and apparel production totaled nearly $28 billion in 2022, a record high in the most recent five years. Meanwhile, unlike in the old days, a growing proportion of textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” are sold overseas today. For example, according to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. textiles and apparel exports exceeded $24.8 billion in 2022, up nearly 12% from ten years ago.
By leveraging U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA)’s “Made in U.S.A. Sourcing & Products Directory,” this study explored U.S. textiles and apparel manufacturers’ detailed production and export practices. Altogether, 432 manufacturers included in the directory as of October 1, 2023, were analyzed. These manufacturers explicitly mentioned making one of the following products: fiber, yarn, fabric, garment, home textiles, and technical textiles.
Key findings:
First, U.S. textile manufacturers exhibit a notable geographic concentration, whereas apparel manufacturers are dispersed throughout the country. Meanwhile, by the number of textile and apparel manufacturers, California and North Carolina are the only two states that rank in the top five across all product categories, showcasing the most comprehensive textile and apparel supply chain there.
Second, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers have a high concentration of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Highly consistent with the macro statistics, few textile and apparel manufacturers in the OTEXA database reported having more than 500 employees. Particularly, over 74% of apparel and nearly 60% of home textile manufacturers are “micro-factories” with less than 50 employees.
Third, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers have limited vertical manufacturing capability. A vertically integrated manufacturer generally makes products covering various production stages, from raw materials to finished products. Results show that only one-third of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers in OTEXA’s database reported making more than one product type (e.g., yarn or fabric). Meanwhile, specific types of vertically integrated production models are relatively popular among U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers, such as:
- Apparel + home textiles (5.8%)
- Fabric + technical textiles (5.1%)
- Yarn + fabric (3.9%)
However, the lack of fabric mills (N=38 out of 432) appears to be a critical bottleneck preventing the building of a more vertically integrated U.S. textile and apparel supply chain.
Fourth, it is not uncommon for U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers to use imported components. Specifically, among the manufacturers in the OTEXA database, nearly 20% of apparel and fabric mills explicitly say they utilized imported components. In comparison, given the product nature, fiber and yarn manufacturers had a lower percentage using imported components (11%). Furthermore, smaller U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers appear to be more likely to use imported components. For example, whereas 20% of manufacturers with less than 50 employees used imported input, only 10.2% of those with 50-499 employees and 7.7% with 500 or more employees did so. The results indicate the necessity of supporting SME U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers to access textile input through mechanisms such as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB).
Fifth, many US textile and apparel manufacturers have already explored overseas markets. Specifically, factories making textile products reported a higher percentage of engagement in exports, including fiber and yarn manufacturers (68.4%), fabric mills (78.9%), and technical textiles producers (69.1%). In comparison, relatively fewer U.S. apparel and home textile producers reported selling overseas.
Sixth, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers’ export markets are relatively concentrated. Specifically, as many as 72% of apparel mills and 57% of home textiles manufacturers in the OTEXA database reported selling their products in less than two markets. These manufacturers also have a high percentage of selling to the U.S. domestic market. Likewise, because of the reliance on the Western Hemisphere supply chain, more than half of U.S. fiber and yarn manufacturers reported only selling in two markets or less. In comparison, reflecting the global demand for their products, U.S. technical textile manufacturers had the most diverse markets, with nearly 40% exporting to more than ten countries.
Seventh, while the Western Hemisphere remains the top export market, many U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers also export to Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world. For example, nearly half of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers in OTEXA’s database reported exporting to Asia, and over 60% of U.S. technical textile manufacturers sold their products to European customers.
Additionally, over half of U.S. textile and apparel mills engaged in exports leveraged U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). U.S. textile mills, on average, reported a higher percentage of using FTAs than apparel and home textile manufacturers. As most U.S.-led FTAs adopt the yarn-forward rules of origin, the results suggest that while such a rule may favor the export of U.S. textile products, its effectiveness and relevance in supporting U.S. apparel exports could be revisited.
Moreover, in line with the macro trade statistics, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers in the OTEXA database reported a relatively high usage of USMCA, given Mexico and Canada being the two most important export markets. In comparison, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers’ use of CAFTA-DR was notably lower, even for fiber and yarn manufacturers (37%) and fabric mills (33.3%).
by Kendall Ludwig, Miranda Rack and Sheng Lu
Picture above: On December 13, 2023, Kendall Ludwig and Miranda Rack, FASH 4+1 graduate students and Dr. Sheng Lu, had the unique opportunity to present the study’s findings to senior U.S. trade officials from OTEXA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in Washington DC, including Jennifer Knight (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles, Consumer Goods and Materials), Laurie-Ann Agama (Acting Assistant US Trade Representative for Textiles), Maria D’Andrea-Yothers (Director of OTEXA), Natalie Hanson (Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative for Textiles) and Richard Stetson (Deputy Director of OTEXA).
Check the Udaily article that features the research project and the presentation (February 2024).
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 
It does not come as a surprise to me that apparel “Made in the USA” is growing in popularity and attention, mainly because nearshoring has become a trend for US manufacturers, and brands and retailers have begun to look in directions other than China for sourcing. Apparel that has been manufactured in the US comes from California or North Carolina, more often than not, and it shocks me that states such as New York or Texas are not as far up on the list of product manufacturers. I think it makes sense that, although nearshoring and apparel “Made in the USA” is growing in demand, US textile and apparel manufacturers cannot easily become vertically integrated. Some materials and resources are not easily accessible for US brands and retailers to come across, which inhibits their ability to become vertically integrated. In my opinion, it is good that US textile and apparel manufacturers are exporting to places outside of the US in order to grow their markets and expand their customer base.
This article was interesting to read and said a lot of unexpected information, like one of my classmates mentioned above. As “made in USA” is becoming more popular, it is mainly for textiles. This is because we are a tech and capital intensive production country. It Is also no surprise the Western Hemisphere is a top export for the US. This would make sense with FTAs with CAFTA-DR and also because the US is not able to be vertically integrated. With the Western Hemisphere trade agreements we get closer to a vertically integrated system and hopefully increasing the exports of the Western Hemisphere. It is interesting the post ends with “U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers’ use of CAFTA-DR was notably lower, even for fiber and yarn manufacturers (37%) and fabric mills (33.3%).“I am looking forward to seeing how the western hemisphere continues to grow in the future and see if the US chooses to invest more money in production partners such as Costa Rica, Mexico, and Nicaragua. I also wonder what we can expect in legislation in the near future to push Made in USA and a more vertically integrated and diverse Western Hemisphere market.
It is clear from this article that the textile industry in America is the main focus of production. Garments are not our main export which makes sense based on the theories discussed early in this class. The US is abundant in capital so we focus on textile production. It does beg the question of if we should care about our garment production in the US. It appears that “made in the US” is a selling point for some consumers, but only really in the US because we are not clothing exporters. Should we put more attention and influence on textile manufacturing since it is more aligned with the US’s strengths or should we attempt to help the garment manufacturing industry to increase vertical integration? Is there a way that policy can do both? These are interesting questions that I would want answered based on what I read in this article.
As an individual who has not purchased new clothing in over 3 years, the contrast between clothing worn in the United States 50 years ago versus now is very clear. It is has been very rare to find garments that are made in the U.S. that have been made within the past 10 years. I find it very exciting, yet not surprising, that there is a trend of textiles being made in the U.S. As my classmate stated earlier, this is partially due to the fact that the U.S. is a tech and capital intensive production country, but I believe that the consumer is what is creating this dynamic in the textile industry. Many consumers are moving towards options that are more environmentally friendly, such as thrifting, where you can find many garments that are “made in the U.S.A”. I believe we will start seeing more garments actually made in the U.S within the next 10 years.
To my understanding, it makes sense why there were record numbers of apparel consumption in 2022. Because it was right after the pandemic, people most likely were ready to shop and get new apparel items for the slow entrance back into normal life. Just like how there was an increase of loungewear in 2021 and 2020, this follows the trend. I also believe that there may be a certain group of people who prefer to purchase items that are strictly made in the USA compared to other countries because of possible stigmas. I think in the future because of rising taxes and tariffs there will be a trend of an increase of “Made in the USA” items. I think that their vertical product model makes sense for now, and also establishes good connections with other countries by getting textiles from other countries. But, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me why the US doesn’t ship more products/apparel out to sell in other countries. It has proven to be successful for many other countries as there is always going to be a demand for foreign trade. So my questions would probably be why don’t they expand more to offer USA made products in other countries?
This study highlights the increasing potential for countries in both Asia and Europe to be more viable options for exports in the US manufacturing industry. However, as we have discussed in class, these countries reliance on trade agreements, in this case USMCA, cause these relationships to be difficult and at times can put the sourcing countries in a vulnerable position. When agreements like USMCA are up and running, these trade relationships are beneficial for both parties. However, agreements like USMCA are constantly teetering on removal; governments discuss the end of agreements like this as they can seem unnecessary for struggling economies. I think that it is essential for countries like the US to be conscious of these intricacies of trade and provide support to the countries they source from as best they can. If they are not able to provide this source, it might be better for them to consider near-shore sourcing or vertical integration, bringing the manufacturing of their products closer to our borders, reducing carbon emissions and dependence on imports.
The growing popularity of “Made in USA” labels is unsurprising, especially given the current global climate. This trend is particularly evident in textiles, where the US excels in tech-intensive and capital-intensive production. The Western Hemisphere continues to be a key export destination for US goods, supported by trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. However, US textile and apparel manufacturers utilization of CAFTA-DR remains relatively low, with only 37% of fiber and yarn manufacturers and 33.3% of fabric mills taking advantage of its benefits. This shows that there may be unused potential within these trade agreements to further strengthen regional trade and production.
Hi Laura, your answer is very interesting. I agree that the U.S. should be able to grow their production of textiles and apparel more locally due to their technology and capital-intensive production. However I think that it may be difficult for companies to make this shift quickly as many of these facilities are small and heavily rely on imported materials, especially small businesses. Additionally, I believe that it may be more difficult for the U.S. to take advantage of the CAFTA-DR benefits as tariffs from Mexico are set to increase. I worry how much this will affect the development of CAFTA-DR.
“Made in the USA” textiles and apparel popularity is unsurprising because consumers crave transparency and for a consumer in the US where the garments are made is a big part of that. What is surprising is the popularity of that tag overseas. Looking at the conclusions from the data collected it seems that the US textile and apparel industry is valued because of its smaller concentration and lack of vertical integration. The concentration of manufactures depicts a very solid supply chain. The manufacturers in the US are also using free trade agreements that are already established to their advantage and downsizing their usage of agreements such as CAFTA-DR. I am curious to see how the textile and apparel industry in the US will adapt as it grows especially with some of its limited capabilities.
I’m curious to see how textile and apparel manufacturing will shift to the United States as tariffs are projected to rise over the next four years. With over half of the U.S. textiles and apparel mills engaged in exports leveraged by U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs), the rise in tariffs are likely to encourage U.S. companies to move manufacturing more locally. Unfortunately, it may be extremely costly for brands to make this shift quickly as U.S. textiles and apparel production remains sparse with a high concentration of small-medium sized enterprises. To remain competitive in the long run, I believe that U.S. brands should try to invest in textiles and apparel manufacturing facilities in North Carolina or California as they have done a good job with their vertical integration. Like I said, these investments will be expensive but will be worthwhile as tariffs, especially from China, are set to increase over the next four years.
This study provides valuable insights into the current state of U.S. textiles and apparel manufacturing, highlighting the emphasis on leveraging free trade agreements such as USMCA and CAFTA-DR. It shows how critical it is to have policy frameworks for supporting exports. However, the study also points out the relatively low utilization of CAFTA-DR, raising questions about its accessibility or relevance to certain segments of the industry. This analysis prompts me to consider how emerging technologies or sustainability initiatives might address some of the outlined challenges, such as limited vertical integration and reliance on imported materials. Ultimately, the research presented in this analysis exemplifies the kind of work that can drive impactful policy changes.
This article provides valuable insights into the current state of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing. It shows how “Made in the USA” products are growing in popularity. The record $28 billion production value in 2022 reflects the sector’s resilience and its appeal to consumers prioritizing sustainability and faster market delivery. However, many manufacturers face challenges, like not being fully integrated to handle all steps of production. Most still rely on imported materials, which makes it harder to grow domestic production. It’s great to see U.S. products being exported worldwide, but the low use of trade deals like CAFTA-DR shows there’s room for improvement. Focusing on better use of trade agreements and building stronger supply chains could help the industry grow even more.
Hi Grace! I totally agree with your point about the challenges and opportunities in U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing. The $28 billion production value truly shows how much people are valuing sustainable and locally-made products. But, the fact that so many manufacturers still depend on imported materials and aren’t fully integrated makes it harder for the industry to grow. Focussing more on producing fabrics domestically and using trade agreements like CAFTA-DR better, could make a big difference. It is great to see U.S. products doing well globally, although, there is definitely room to grow.
The rise of “Made in the USA” textiles and apparel shows how consumers and companies are focusing more on sustainability, supply chain reliability, and competing in global markets. While U.S. production has grown, challenges remain, like fewer fabric mills and a reliance on imported materials, especially for smaller manufacturers. Exports are increasing, especially for technical textiles, but many businesses aren’t fully using trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Helping small businesses, expanding fabric production, and making better use of trade deals could strengthen the U.S. textile industry and meet the growing demand for ethical and sustainable products.
This study shows the increasing popularity for “Made in the USA” products. I feel as though this tag is not something you used to see often. I think that after COVID especially and with the increasing prices for shipping and importing, it is more common for fashion companies to consider near-shoring sourcing. It is also smart for fashion companies to utilize the textile and sourcing hubs in North Carolina and California for their production. It is also beneficial that manufacturers in the US can use free trade agreements. I am curious to see how this trajectory progresses and how it can potentially benefit the US fashion market.
The US textile and apparel industry has experienced major shifts in production and export strategies. In 2022, US textile and apparel exports were over $24.8 billion dollars. These shifts have been driven by global supply chain disruptions and growing consumer demand for sustainable, “Made in USA” products. U.S. brands should invest in textiles and apparel manufacturing facilities in North Carolina or California, especially with rising tariffs about to occur. With exports increasing, more manufacturers should be utilizing CAFTA-DR, with only 37% of fiber/yarn manufacturers, and 33% of fabric mills currently using it.
I think the most interesting part of this article for me was the takeaway that the U.S. faces a “bottleneck” when it comes to the lack of fabric mills in the country. There’s such a huge push for “Made in America” apparel, but I have to wonder if that’s realistic, considering that the U.S. is a capital-intensive — not labor intensive — nation. On top of this, there’s a tendency for U.S. apparel and textile brands to use imported components. I think if this were to stop, it would even further slow down the possibility to lean more into a “Made in the U.S.A.” narrative. If businesses were to further utilize agreements such as CAFTA-DR, I think there could be much more progress for “Made in the U.S.A.” tags than there currently is.
The first thing that stood out to me when reading this article is the rise in interest in “Made In USA” apparel and textiles as production hit a record high in 2022. This is also surprising, given that it is post-pandemic. Additionally, the second thing that stood out to me was the challenges associated with vertical integration and the low utilization of CAFTA-DR among manufacturers. These two things show that there are future opportunities in policy to help strengthen the supply chain.