logo
Trump wants US to make things again- but is it ready for the challenge?

Trump wants US to make things again- but is it ready for the challenge?

President Trump ignited a global trade war on a gamble that taxing other countries would bring jobs and factories 'roaring back' to the United States.
Many business leaders are skeptical. Some are incredulous. Sanjeev Bahl is optimistic.
From his factory in Los Angeles, Mr. Bahl oversees around 250 people who sew, cut and distress jeans for brands like Everlane, J. Crew and Ralph Lauren. They stitch together 70,000 pairs of jeans a month. America, he insisted, can make stuff again.
But there is a catch. The operation works only because his company, Saitex, runs a much bigger factory and fabric mill in southern Vietnam where thousands of workers churn out 500,000 pairs of jeans a month.
Mr. Trump's tariffs have upended supply chains, walloped businesses and focused the minds of corporate leaders on one question: Does America have what it takes to bring jobs back?
In many industries, the undertaking would take years, if not decades. The United States lacks nearly every part of the manufacturing ecosystem — the workers, the training, the technology and the government support.
'There are some harsh realities,' said Matt Priest, chief executive of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, a trade group. And Mr. Trump's strategy is shrouded in uncertainty. Last month, he said, 'We're not looking to make sneakers and T-shirts' in the United States. But his steepest tariffs, set to take effect in July, were directed at countries that make clothes and shoes for sale to Americans. Vietnam, at 46 percent, was one of the hardest hit.
Those tariffs, intended to push companies to bring factory work home, were deemed illegal by a ruling last week by the U.S. Court of International Trade. That decision was temporarily paused by a different court, giving judges time to evaluate an appeal by the Trump administration. Amid all the legal wrangling, Mr. Trump has promised to find other ways to disrupt the rules of trade.
Mr. Trump has exposed the difficulties in closing the vast distances, geographical and logistical, between where many products are made and where they are consumed. The gulf was laid bare during the Covid-19 pandemic, when strict health policies in Asian countries led to the shutdown of factories. When they reopened, orders had piled up and snarled shipping routes trying to ferry goods across thousands of miles. For executives like Mr. Bahl of Saitex, the turmoil caused by Mr. Trump's trade policies has brought fresh urgency to the challenges of managing global supply chains.
'The extended fear and uncertainty that Covid brought was unforeseen,' Mr. Bahl said. 'There was nothing that could help us except survival instinct.'
In response, Saitex opened a factory in Los Angeles in 2021. Since Mr. Trump announced his intention to impose steep tariffs on Vietnam, Mr. Bahl has been thinking about how much more he can make in the United States. He could probably bring about 20 percent of production to the States, up from 10 percent today, he said.
He believes Saitex could be a blueprint for other apparel companies. 'We could be the catalyst of the hypothesis that manufacturing can be brought back to the United States,' he said. But his experience highlights how hard it would be. There are no mills in America on the scale of what the industry needs, nor major zipper and button suppliers. The cost of running a factory is high. Then there is the labor problem: There just aren't enough workers.
American factories are already struggling to fill around 500,000 manufacturing jobs, according to estimates by Wells Fargo economists. They calculate that to get manufacturing as a share of employment back to the 1970s peak that Mr. Trump has sometimes called for, new factories would have to open and hire 22 million people. There are currently 7.2 million unemployed people.
Mr. Trump's crackdown on immigration has made things worse.
Factory jobs moved overseas to countries, like Vietnam, that had growing populations and young people looking for jobs to pull themselves out of poverty. The future that Mr. Trump envisions, with millions of factory jobs, would have to include immigrants seeking that same opportunity in the United States.
Steve Lamar, the chief executive of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, an industry lobby group, said there was a gap between a 'romantic notion about manufacturing' and the availability of American workers.
'A lot of people say we should be making more clothing in the U.S., but when you ask them, they don't want to sit in the factory, nor do they want their kids to sit in the factory,' he said. 'The problem is that there aren't any other people around,' he added.
At Saitex's Los Angeles factory, most of the workers come from countries like Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador.
Some 97 percent of the clothes and shoes that Americans buy are imported for cost reasons. Companies that make everything in the United States include firms like Federal Prison Industries, also known as Unicor, which employs convicts to make military uniforms for less than minimum wage, Mr. Lamar said.
Other companies make some of their fashion lines in the United States, like New Balance and Ralph Lauren. Others are playing around with a model where they make small batches of clothes in the United States to test designs and determine their popularity before commissioning big orders — usually from factories in other countries.
It is hard to make things in great volume in America. For Mr. Bahl, it boils down to the cost of a sewing machine operator. In Los Angeles, that person gets paid around $4,000 a month. In Vietnam, it is $500.
In Saitex's factory there, which Mr. Bahl set up in 2012 in Dong Nai Province, an hour's drive from Ho Chi Minh City, more than a dozen sewing lines are neatly laid out and humming six days a week.
On a recent day, hundreds of workers pushed panels of jeans through sewing machines so quickly that the fabrics, briefly suspended in the air, looked as though they were flying. The work was augmented by sophisticated machines that can stitch labels onto a dozen shirts at a time, or laser a distressed pattern onto multiple jeans. Nearby, at a spray carousel, a robot mimicked the precise movements of a worker spraying denim.
'The speed is much higher in Vietnam,' said Gilles Cousin, a plant manager overseeing the sewing section.
If Mr. Trump really wants to bring jobs back, Mr. Bahl said, he should give some tariff exemptions to companies like Saitex that are doing more in the United States. American factories like his can't expand without importing many of the things that go into their finished products. For its part, Saitex ships bales of American cotton to Vietnam, where its two-story mill turns fluffy cotton lint into thread and, eventually, rolls of fabric. That fabric is then dyed and shipped back the United States for his Los Angeles factory.
Until there is enough momentum from companies making things in the United States, the fabric, zippers and buttons will have to be brought into the country.
Moving production from overseas would require huge investments, too. Saitex has plowed around $150 million in Vietnam, where its factory recycles 98 percent of its water, air dries its denim and uses technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and cut down on labor-intensive practices. In the United States, Saitex has spent around $25 million. These are long-term commitments that take at least seven years to recover, according to Mr. Bahl.
Ultimately, if Mr. Trump decided to stick to his original 46 percent tariff on Vietnam and Saitex could not soften the financial blow, it would have to look to other markets to sell the products it made in Vietnam — like Europe, where it sends about half of what it currently makes.
'But then,' Mr. Bahl said from Los Angeles, 'what happens to our factory here?'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump has many ways to hurt Elon Musk
Donald Trump has many ways to hurt Elon Musk

Hindustan Times

time12 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Donald Trump has many ways to hurt Elon Musk

THERE WAS a time, not long ago, when an important skill for journalists was translating the code in which powerful people spoke about each other. Carefully prepared speeches and other public remarks would be dissected for hints about the arguments happening in private. Among Donald Trump's many achievements is upending this system. In his administration people seem to say exactly what they think at any given moment. Wild threats are made—to end habeas corpus; to take Greenland by force—without any follow-through. Journalists must now try to guess what is real and what is for show. So it is with the break-up between Mr Trump and Elon Musk, the world's richest man and until last week a 'special government employee'. A few months ago Mr Musk posted on X, his social-media platform, that he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man'. On May 30th, at a joint press conference in the Oval Office to announce Mr Musk's departure from government, Mr Trump called him 'an incredible patriot' and praised his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (known as DOGE). Yet by June 5th it had all broken down. On his Truth Social media platform the president posted that the billionaire was 'wearing thin' and 'went CRAZY'. Mr Trump then threatened to 'terminate' his government contracts. Mr Musk responded on X, claiming that Mr Trump's name appears in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier who was convicted of trafficking and having sex with underage girls. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' wrote Mr Musk. Later he agreed with a post saying that Mr Trump should be impeached. He also said he would begin decommissioning his Dragon spacecraft, which transports astronauts to the International Space Station. If carried out, the threats could be disastrous for both men. Mr Trump could lose a valuable donor and the supportive sway of X; Mr Musk's business interests could suffer enormously. But in response to a comment advising him to 'cool off', Mr Musk wrote 'good advice' and backtracked on his call to decommission the Dragon. Where things go from here is anyone's guess. The initial cause of the falling out between Mr Trump and his 'first buddy' was the president's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. Mr Musk was incensed that the measure would add enormously to the deficit, and so undermine the work of DOGE. On June 3rd he escalated his criticism, calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination'. On June 5th he added another complaint, saying that Mr Trump's tariffs are going to bring about a recession. Mr Trump has his own explanation for Mr Musk's sudden disloyalty. He says the Tesla CEO is unhappy because his bill would cancel a government subsidy for electric cars created by Joe Biden. If Mr Trump does decide to retaliate, the risks to Mr Musk and his businesses are extensive. The threats the president has already made, however, are the least credible. Cancelling the contracts of SpaceX, Mr Musk's space company, would be profoundly disruptive to the government. Without SpaceX rockets, it would struggle to put anything into space, including spy satellites. The Pentagon relies heavily on the firm's Starlink satellites. SpaceX itself could probably weather such moves. Though it has benefited greatly from government contracts, the firm's commercial revenues soared nearly three-fold last year, according to estimates by Quilty Space, a business-intelligence firm. Mr Musk has also wanted to cancel the Dragon spacecraft for some time. Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Mr Trump who is no fan of Mr Musk, has proposed even bigger penalties. He wants the South African-born billionaire to be stripped of his American citizenship—he says Mr Musk is an 'illegal alien'—and his companies nationalised under the Defence Production Act. Such actions also seem unrealistic. Stripping Mr Musk's citizenship would require a judge to rule he committed fraud. The Defence Production Act almost certainly does not permit sudden nationalisation, even if the country is at war. That does not mean Mr Musk can breathe easy, though. His interests are vulnerable to more routine measures. At the time he entered government in January, he and his companies were subject to 65 potential or actual regulatory actions by 11 federal agencies, according to the minority staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, an arm of the Senate. These include accusations that Tesla, Mr Musk's car company, lied about its self-driving technology; that Neuralink, his brain-implant company, violated the Animal Welfare Act with its experiments on monkeys; and that SpaceX repeatedly failed to follow the law when launching rockets. (As head of DOGE, Mr Musk was able to dismantle some of the agencies within the government investigating him, such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.) One of the reasons why Silicon Valley magnates like Mr Musk rallied around Mr Trump last year was that he promised a more favourable regulatory environment. But 'there was always the risk that what they were buying instead were the conditions of oligarchy', says Donald Moynihan of the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. That is, business leaders who are loyal to the president get to operate as they like, while those who are critical get the full force of the law. Mr Musk may be about to discover what life is like outside the tent. Perhaps on feeling the cold he will find a way back inside. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.

‘Time for a wheelchair': Internet reacts after Donald Trump stumbles on Air Force One steps
‘Time for a wheelchair': Internet reacts after Donald Trump stumbles on Air Force One steps

Time of India

time17 minutes ago

  • Time of India

‘Time for a wheelchair': Internet reacts after Donald Trump stumbles on Air Force One steps

(Source: X) US President Donald Trump stumbled while climbing the steps of Air Force One on Sunday, and the internet wasted no time poking fun. Trump was accompanied by US secretary of state Marco Rubio, who was boarding the plane en route to Camp David after speaking with reporters in Hagerstown, Maryland. The moment quickly went viral, drawing comparisons to the times Trump had mocked former US President Joe Biden for similar mishaps. 'Time to get Old Man Trump fitted for a wheelchair,' wrote political commentator Ron Filipkowski on X. Northwestern law lecturer Jason DeSanto added: 'More beta energy.' Political strategist Marco Frieri joked, 'Cannot wait for all the books and wall-to-wall coverage.' Journalist Aaron Rupar said, 'When Joe Biden did stuff like this, Fox would play the clips over and over like it was as significant as the moon landing.' RC Huffman quipped, 'I'm surprised he hasn't replaced those stairs with a portable escalator of some kind.' The stumble came shortly after Trump was asked whether he would invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to escalating protests in Los Angeles following a wave of immigration raids. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' he told reporters. When pressed further on whether he believes such an insurrection is taking place, Trump replied, 'No, no, but you have violent people. And we're not going to let them get away with it.' Asked if he would consider deploying troops even without invoking the law, Trump doubled down. 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump, who frequently criticised Biden for falling during public appearances, once called Biden's 2023 fall at a graduation event 'not inspiring.' At a campaign stop in Iowa, he had also said: 'I hope he wasn't hurt. You don't want that.'

How Trump's trade war is supercharging fast fashion industry
How Trump's trade war is supercharging fast fashion industry

Mint

time19 minutes ago

  • Mint

How Trump's trade war is supercharging fast fashion industry

Sydney, When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs. However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years. Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump's first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit. This trend accelerated with the newer 'reciprocal' tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative. From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A USD 5 dress or USD 3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot. Much of Shein's production takes place in the so-called 'Shein village' in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items. When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145 per cent , and closing the 'de minimis' loophole, which had allowed imports under USD 800 to enter tariff-free. But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17 per cent, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can't provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer. So why does Australia matter? Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia. Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally. Just 3 per cent of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis. The hidden costs of cheap clothes The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump's tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion. The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia. Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage. Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions. Will ethical fashion ever compete? Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates. Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards. Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential. Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing. Australia's new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way. Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a USD 5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step. Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm. Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game Trump's trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than USD 34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was. Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it. PY PY This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store