Dan Tully: I trust my fellow service members will abide by the Constitution
Having served as a captain and judge advocate in the Army Reserve, graduated from Stanford Law School and deployed overseas in Iraq, I have thought deeply about military command and the obligations incurred by swearing an oath to the Constitution. These concerns weigh especially heavily as President Donald Trump deploys active-duty military members as a show of force against peaceful demonstrations in Los Angeles and potentially here in Chicago.
I want my fellow citizens to know something important. I trust the common sense and decency of my fellow American service members. I have served alongside them, some who consider themselves to be MAGA Republicans. I know they understand how grave and serious it would be to use force against their countrymen and countrywomen.
Let me explain why.
All service members swear an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Enlisted service members continue swearing to 'obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,' expressly conditioned by, 'according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).' With that condition, the enlisted oath is not absolute; if an order is unlawful, an enlisted service member is responsible not to obey.
The obedience language is absent from the officer oath. Instead, officers swear to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.' In short, while all members of the military must act in accordance with the UCMJ, each officer must exercise an even higher level of responsibility, remaining loyal not to a president but to the Constitution. No service member should ever follow a clearly unlawful command, especially when that command is to harm unarmed, peaceful citizens of their own country.
It is infuriating that we are even in this situation. Trump doesn't care about members of the military, referring to fallen soldiers as 'suckers' and 'losers' for not escaping their obligations as he did during the Vietnam War. He denigrates the records of patriots such as the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, degrading his war hero status. He has saddled them with an incompetent secretary of defense in Pete Hegseth. Most dangerously, Trump intentionally disregards centuries of the military's most essential tradition of nonpartisanship, eroding American faith in our most trusted institution.
What troubles many of us in the military — something I would advise my fellow soldiers and commanders to consider — is the terrifying prospect of an unlawful order coming down from this reckless president. Trump has openly mused about service members using lethal force to control protesters, portraying them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. In fact, it's the opposite: The protesters are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly in support of the 14th Amendment rights of people being kidnapped and deported without due process.
To the extent that there have been acts of violence and vandalism in the vicinity of the protests, those acts are unlawful. Police in our cities are fully capable of addressing the situation. Protests — even ones that include civil disobedience — should not be met with violence unless there is no other option available. But this president believes violence against our citizens is an acceptable first choice because he doesn't value the rule of law or, by his own admission, his duty to uphold our Constitution.
American military members are trained and proficient at understanding the conditions under which it is lawful to use force in the heat and exercise of war. They are taught to obey the chain of command, especially on a battlefield. Unit cohesion and effectiveness depend on the obedience of orders.
But a service member is not a robot, blindly obligated to fulfill a command received from a superior with no application of context or thought. Especially if that command is given outside the theater of war, with no imminent danger to personnel, and even more so when present on the streets of an American city where the people those soldiers swore to defend are petitioning the actions of their government.
American soldiers have misused lethal force in the past, and they have faced consequences. Second Lt. William L. Calley Jr. was convicted by court martial of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese in the famous My Lai massacre. He was convicted because the threshold for disobeying an order is, according to the Manual for Military Courts-Martial and case law, 'a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.'
With a president so intent on sowing chaos every day, it must be a difficult position for the American troops who have deployed to Los Angeles and are rumored to be on their way to other cities. But Americans stand up to do what's right in difficult moments all the time.
We must not forget that there are numerous institutions available to us all to safeguard our rights. Our military, state and federal criminal justice systems are populated with true patriots who believe in the rule of law.
This is, ultimately, why I trust that our service members will do the right thing when the time comes. They have been trained well, and they know their obligations to their country.
I have sworn an oath to the Constitution three times — as a lawyer, an Army officer and a federal civil servant.
The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is the supreme law of the land. Even if our president won't abide by it, I trust my fellow service members will.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Donohoe: Pharma Tariffs Could Cost Ireland 75,000 Jobs
00:00 The pharma tariffs is one thing that, you know, President Trump has promised that those will come very soon. He said that last week. That's a sector where we know that Ireland has particular exposure as well. How are you quantifying those risks? How serious do you see that as being potential damage to the Irish economy? So it's very difficult to quantify what the risks could be while a decision has yet to be made regarding what America may do. From a general point of view, The macroeconomic modelling that we've done for the Irish economy would indicate that there could be approximately 75,000 jobs that could be affected by it across the medium term, with 20 to 25 of those affected across next year. And it's indicated that from a growth perspective, there could be 1 to 1 and a half points of growth that we could lose across the medium term. But again, to put that in the context of what our strengths are, with 2.7 million people at work, we have a growth outlook for our economy even now of 2 maybe even more than 2% per year. So those risks could materialise. They will become clearer in the time ahead. But the reason why these companies have part of their global supply chains here in Ireland is because we've the skill, the experience and the competitiveness built up to keep them in our country. And we will look down at how we can maintain that, even if the trade environment around it does begin to change. What sort of tools would you be looking at? I mean, if you're talking about there being a potential of 75,000 job losses? Well, in terms of the job losses, it's not really jobs that could be lost. That could happen. It could also be jobs that might otherwise not be created And again, looking at all of that, we still believe if that were to happen, it will happen at a time in which the number of people at work in Ireland would still be, by our standards, at a historic high. In terms of the decisions that are available to us to respond back. It is many of the matters we're working on at the moment how we can increase investment levels within our economy. If you look at Mike's article in the business post yesterday about Ireland, he talked about our strengths, but he also pointed to the need to invest. He also talked about the need to maintain openness within our economy. And Minister Chambers and I, who, as you know, it's the Minister who focuses a lot on our public expenditure. I looking at the investment decisions we can make in energy and infrastructure in the next few years, that could strengthen our economy at a moment of change so they are the big decisions that we're looking at at the moment.
Atlantic
16 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Five Ways Iran May Respond
'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' Donald Trump posted on Truth Social right after the United States launched a bombing campaign against three sites crucial to the Iranian nuclear program. But Iran gets a vote on whether that time has indeed come, and its leaders are instead vowing 'everlasting consequences.' What happens next in this rapidly expanding war largely depends on what exactly Iran means by that. That's not easy to predict, because the next stage of the conflict now hinges on an Iran facing unprecedented circumstances. The Iranian regime is arguably more enfeebled and imperiled than it has been since the 1979 revolution ushered the Islamic Republic into existence. Even before Israel launched its sweeping military campaign against Iranian nuclear and military targets just over a week ago, it had dramatically degraded two of the three pillars of Iran's defenses: Tehran's regional network of proxy groups (such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) and its conventional military arsenal (assets like missiles, drones, and air defenses). Now Israel and the United States may have reduced the third pillar—the country's nuclear program and its position at the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons—to smoldering ruins as well. Given these conditions, past behavior by the Iranian regime may not be a reliable indicator of its future actions. Iran's leaders, for example, have developed a reputation for biding their time for months or even years before retaliating against foes, but the speed and scale at which their nuclear program and the regime itself are coming under threat may force their hand. For Iran experts, the north-star assumption tends to be that the regime's overriding priority is ensuring its survival. Viewed through that prism, the Iranian government currently lives in the land of bad options. If Iran responds forcefully to the United States, it could enter an escalatory cycle with the world's leading military power and an archenemy already pummeling it, which in turn could endanger the regime. If Tehran responds in a limited manner or not at all, it could look weak in ways that could also endanger the regime from within (enraged hard-liners) or without (emboldened enemies). 'There are no good options, but Iran still has options,' Sanam Vakil, an expert on Iran and the broader region at the think tank Chatham House, told me. She ticked off the goals of any Iranian retaliation: 'Inflict pain. Transfer the costs of the war outside of Iran. Showcase resilience, survivability.' In my conversations with experts, five potential Iranian moves kept surfacing. 1. Close the Strait of Hormuz Iran could take a big step and use its military to disrupt shipping or even seek to shut down commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, a crowded international waterway near southern Iran through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes. Indeed, in the hours after the U.S. strikes, the Iranian parliament reportedly granted its support for such a measure, though Iran's leadership hasn't yet followed through with action along these lines. Such a move would affect the global economy, driving down financial markets, driving up the price of oil, and inflicting steep costs on economies around the world. It would likely get the attention of the economic-minded American president. But in addition to the fact that the U.S. military might contest such a move, the dispersed pain of this measure could ultimately make it an unattractive option for Iran. The economic shock would boomerang back to Iran, in addition to harming Iran's patron, oil-importing China, as well as oil-exporting Gulf Arab states. In recent years, Iran has been improving its relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—the Saudis even restored diplomatic ties with the Iranians in 2023. The Iranian regime will likely be wary of alienating partners at a time when it is so isolated and diminished. 2. Attack U.S. personnel or interests in the Middle East Iran could also choose, either directly or through what remains of its regional proxy groups, to attack U.S. forces, bases, or other interests in the region. That could include attacks on U.S. personnel or energy-related infrastructure based in Gulf countries allied with the United States, with the latter option serving as another way to induce economic shock. But Tehran's assessment here may be similar to its calculations regarding the Strait of Hormuz. If the Iranians hit targets in the Gulf, that could 'bite the hand that feeds' Iran, Vakil told me. 'They need the Gulf to play a de-escalation role and perhaps a broader regional stabilization role. I think they will try to protect their relationship with the Gulf at all costs.' Vakil deemed it more probable that Iran would strike U.S. targets in nearby countries that don't have close relations with Tehran, such as Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain, which hosts the headquarters of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). If Iran were to take this approach, much would depend on whether its strikes are relatively restrained—essentially designed to claim that it has avenged the U.S. attack without provoking a major response from Washington—or whether it decides to go bigger, perhaps galvanized by the devastation wrought by the U.S. attacks and the U.S. government's sharp public messaging. 'If the Iranians really strike all of the NAVCENT base in Bahrain,' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy national-intelligence officer for the Near East who is now my colleague at the Atlantic Council, told me, they may 'open up a world of hurt.' Such an attack might embarrass Trump and spur him to make good on his threat in his address to the nation on Saturday evening to respond to Iran with even greater force. The United States could, for example, hit Iranian oil and gas facilities or other energy sites, army and navy targets, or even political and military leaders. The war in Iran could quickly metastasize into a regional conflict. Consider, as one case study, what transpired after the United States killed the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani during the first Trump administration in 2020. Analysts predicted all sorts of potential Iranian retaliatory measures of various sizes and scales, but Iran ultimately opted for an intense but circumscribed missile attack on the Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, resulting in no fatalities but more than 100 U.S. personnel with traumatic brain injuries. The Trump administration downplayed the attack and limited its response to imposing more economic sanctions on Iran, and the two countries even swapped messages via the Swiss embassy in Tehran to defuse tensions. 3. Attack U.S. personnel or interests beyond the Middle East An even more escalatory approach would be for Iran to directly attack U.S. targets beyond the region, Panikoff noted, referencing countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Central Asian nations. But he thinks such a move is 'very unlikely' because the Iranians would be taking a 'hugely retaliatory' step and inviting conflict with those countries. 'Having an actual missile attack—say, into Pakistan against the U.S. embassy—would be devastating and shocking,' Panikoff told me, adding that he could envision Iranian leaders doing this only if they believed that the end of their regime was near and they had 'nothing to lose.' Alternatively, the Iranians could revert to more rudimentary, older-school practices of theirs such as directly executing terrorist attacks or sponsoring proxy-group terrorist attacks against U.S., Israeli, or Jewish targets around the world. That 'would be a lower bar' for the Iranians, Panikoff said, and 'is something to be worried about.' 4. Dash toward a nuclear weapon The Iranian regime could draw the lesson from its escalating war with Israel and the United States that only possession of a nuclear weapon can save it. Even before Israel's military operation, Iran seemed to be tentatively moving in the direction of trading its position on the brink of nuclear-weapons power for actual nuclear weapons, which appears to have contributed to the timing of Israel's campaign. But although prior to the war Iran may have been capable of enriching uranium to 90 percent, or weapons-grade, within days or weeks, it was further away—perhaps months or more—from the capability of turning that weapons-grade uranium into a usable nuclear weapon. And now its nuclear program has been seriously degraded, though the extent of the damage isn't yet entirely clear: Iran may have retained its stockpile of enriched uranium. Any push for the bomb could also invite further economic sanctions and military operations against Iran. That makes a race for a nuclear bomb in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, with whatever resources it has left, unlikely, although Iran could take steps short of that such as seeking to develop and possibly use a crude nuclear device, scrambling to rebuild its nuclear program, or withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran will emerge from this war with dead nuclear scientists and destroyed physical nuclear infrastructure, but what will persist in some form is the technical expertise that enabled it to enrich uranium to 60 percent, and that probably can be applied to further enriching the material to weapons-grade, because that isn't much of an additional leap. The longer-term threat of a nuclear Iran is unlikely to be wiped out as long as the current Iranian regime, or any like-minded or even harder-line one, remains in power. 5. St rike a nuclear deal with the United States It may seem like the most improbable scenario, given the bellicosity of Iranian rhetoric, but another potential outcome is that Iran concludes that the regime will be existentially threatened by an escalatory spiral with a militarily superior Israel and the United States and that, beyond a muted response, its next move should be striking a new nuclear deal with the United States that results in the end of the war and the regime in Tehran still in place. But this would require Iran to agree to U.S. conditions that it forswear any nuclear enrichment, to which Iran hasn't given any indication of being amenable. So for the moment, this outcome appears unlikely as well. Iran may want to carefully calibrate its response to the U.S. strikes, but calibration in volatile conflicts isn't always possible. The Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq after Soleimani's killing five years ago may have been smaller than some anticipated, but it has still been described as 'the largest ballistic-missile attack against Americans ever.' Troops later recounted that one soldier in a shelter behind the base's blast walls was nearly blown up by the barrage. Frank McKenzie, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, has estimated that had he not ordered a partial evacuation of the airbase, an additional 100 to 150 Americans might have been wounded or killed. If that had happened, the Trump administration might have responded much more forcefully, which in turn could have sparked further escalation from Iran. The effort to achieve a calibrated response might have produced a full-blown war. All actors in this current war now contemplating their next moves should keep that lesson in mind.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Tech Tariffs Slow U.S. Growth?
The tariff roller coaster rumbles on, and for American manufacturers, there's no getting off the ride anytime soon. Even with a drastic reduction in duties on China-made goods and a respite from global 'reciprocal' tariffs, the looming threat of taxes on foreign wares will continue to sow confusion. For some footwear, apparel and textile manufacturers based in the United States, tariff turmoil has been a boon to business, and for others, it's resulted in orbiting by brands and retailers that are voicing interest but aren't quite ready to pull the trigger on onshoring. The uncertainty of President Donald Trump's tariff strategy hasn't just paralyzed retail decision-makers, but the supply chain. Without clarity about the future of trade policy, manufacturers are left wondering about when to scale up—and how. More from Sourcing Journal Amazon and FedEx Continue to Up Their Game on AI-Enabled Logistics Robots AGI Denim's Apparel Park: A LEED Platinum Pioneer in Sustainable Denim Manufacturing Tariffs Stall Long Beach Imports, Marking Slowest May Since Pre-Covid Era Much of the U.S. manufacturing landscape, across sectors and applications, relies on advanced, automated technologies that take the place of cobbler's benches and traditional sewing machines. Some next-generation processes, like 3D printing, are on the verge of breaking through as production drivers in the U.S. But all of these activities, new and traditional, rely on machinery, much of which is sourced overseas and, under the current tariff regime, subject to potentially onerous duties. 'There's a combination of issues happening right now. I think uncertainty in the marketplace has stymied some orders from coming to fruition, because people are wondering how the 90-day pause will conclude,' said Kim Glas, president and CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), regarding the opportunities coming to American producers. According to Glas, the rapid evolution of trade policy may be driving up interest in American manufacturing, but it's not providing any clarity for producers that are trying to understand their place in the puzzle. In the absence of a clear path forward, the textile sector is waiting until July 9—the date that the deferral of reciprocal duties concludes—to see 'what kind of market signals' will materialize. NCTO has long been supportive of holding 'trade predators' like China and Vietnam accountable for non-market activities. 'But we have also advocated, including in the first Trump administration, for a few exceptions that we think are critical,' Glas said. Access to state-of-the-art textile manufacturing equipment is necessary to help improve processes at the nation's plants, both in order to drive efficiency and cost-competitiveness. But those upsides come with a hefty price tag. 'It's very expensive,' Glas said. 'When you apply a 10-percent tariff, or another tariff differential, it can make a real difference about whether or not you can afford to reinvest in your operation,' she explained. 'When you do a big capital expenditure like that, you have to amortize those costs over a period of time.' But duty costs are paid upfront. And on a machine that costs tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, even a 10-percent duty could be make-or-break for a small operation. There are significant limitations to such equipment production in the U.S., Glas explained, and the advanced machinery is essential to most modern operations. Devices used for extruding, drawing, texturing or cutting man-made textile materials aren't made stateside. Many of these technologies hail from Europe, and of course, China. Glas stressed the tightness of margins in a price-competitive industry like textiles, where companies are likely to spring for the lowest-cost option. The risk in not having access to advantageous technologies is that foreign operators will gain those capabilities, underscoring their own attractiveness. 'We have to think about this in a holistic way. If the design is to unleash more U.S. investment, we're all for that. We want to see our U.S. textile industry grow and we need the administration's help,' Glas said. 'But there is a recognition across the industry that a lot of the textile machinery is no longer made here, and will not be made here overnight. So we need to have a special dispensation for that.' The NCTO lead said exemptions for production machinery could be written into potential forthcoming trade agreements or tariff regimes, or an exclusion process could be established after tariffs are reinstated (as was the case with Trump 1.0's Section 301 duties on China). Either way, she hopes decisions surrounding solution for American manufacturers are 'expeditious.' 'The tariffs are definitely making the machinery more expensive,' Mitch Cahn, owner of Newark, N.J.-based apparel and gear manufacturer Unionwear, told Sourcing Journal. The producer, which specializes in items like baseball caps and tote bags, imported machinery earlier this year from Canada, before Trump's tariff announcements. 'We didn't make the investment because we expected tariffs, we actually made the investment to ramp up for the U.S.A.'s 250th birthday' in 2026, he said. Cahn anticipates a surge of business surrounding the occasion, along with events like the World Cup and the Olympics. According to the business owner, doubling down on automated machinery (this time, on an apparatus that sews canvas totes) was a matter of necessity. 'We were having a lot of difficulty hiring more sewers; the pool was dry,' he said. 'We had to invest in machinery to make up the gap between what we were doing and what we want to be able to do next year.' The tote bag machinery, when it's operating at full speed, will do the work of 44 people with a single operator. 'We're still ramping up; the goal is to have it probably operating 18 to 20 hours a day by the end of the year,' he said. 'We didn't do it to speed up or save money. We just did it because there was really no way for us to grow linearly—not even exponentially,' he explained. 'There's no way for us to keep adding sewers to our operation, so we need it.' These planned investments in technology aren't a bid to replace human headcount with machines—in fact, Unionwear is holding on tight to the sewers that it employs. One prevailing issue inhibiting the growth of American manufacturing is the lack of a pipeline for skilled, affordable labor. The group has plans to automate other production processes, and is in talks with American manufacturers for those projects. Since the reciprocal duties on more than 60 countries were announced, Unionwear has seen a 'considerable' increase in interest and sales, Cahn said. 'If the tariffs are here to stay, the return is actually going to be much greater than it would have been without the tariffs,' he said of the investment in new technology. 'And the reason for that—and it's something we didn't expect—is the possibility that with automation, we actually can be competitive with import prices that have tariffs on them.' Cahn said that even if the Canadian-made machinery was tariffed at the 25-percent rate that Trump originally threatened, the company still would have made the buy. 'It really opens up a much bigger market for us,' he added. Kuba Graczyk, founder of Los Angeles-based 3D-printed footwear startup Koobz, agreed that investments in automation are key to expansion as a U.S. producer. The group, which prints mono-material, single-piece shoes, currently operates 60 3D printers and is building out a factory in Ventura, Calif. that Graczyk said will house 4,000 printers at the end of the next two years. This will give the startup the ability to churn out 'a couple million pairs of shoes a year,' he estimates. Since April 2—Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day'—business has picked up, he added. 'Customers who were actively working with us decided to substantially accelerate, customers who were just, like, looking at this as something interesting decided to launch projects with us to see where it could go instead of being hesitant,' Graczyk said. 'And those folks who ghosted me suddenly decided, 'Hey, let's get on that again.'' 'Of course, it tapered down' over the course of the ensuing weeks, which saw reductions in duties on China-made goods, deferrals on all reciprocal duties and a trade deal with the United Kingdom, among other trade developments. 'But out of all of this interest, we were able to create an amazing pipeline which is wired long-term, because one of our gauging questions was, 'If the tariffs get back to [what they were previously] would you still work with us?'' Koobz has decided only to take on business with partners that have a long-term plan for onshoring and budget allocated to the effort. But scaling up from 60 to 4,000 3D printers—which Graczyk said ring in at about $600 apiece—will require significant capital expenditure. While the price tag on the devices is modest, a tariff will add to it, and the group is looking to scale aggressively in a short period of time. Koobz looked into 3D printer options made outside of China, and found that the models made stateside as well as in Europe cost more and came equipped with fewer, less-advanced features. 'There are other sources than China. In Europe, there's still a handful companies that can manufacture equipment of that sophistication, at that scale—maybe not as good, maybe a little bit different architecture,' Graczyk said. But beyond price and performance, the factory owner is also looking to develop a smart and resilient supply chain, starting with machinery. One way to foster this could be to diversify sourcing for machines, but there would be differences between the units and the way they operate, as well as possible differences in quality and output. 'We are fortunate enough that we haven't pulled the trigger on any anybody yet, but we are at risk of slowing down because we would rather take more time to de-risk this as much as possible; to slow our progress instead of building while still thinking about where to source,' he said. 'We know we have to build a system which is very flexible.' Koobz is having discussions with 3D printer manufacturers about the potential of nearshoring printer production to free-trade-agreement countries like Mexico, and some are already considering doing so. 'Short-term, I'm not super worried about securing our next year's growth, because the printers that we're using for the current stage of products are already in the U.S., in distributor warehouses,' he said. 'We've already purchased some of them, so there's some frontloading of this equipment. But thinking forward, we need to add multiple colors, multiple materials—those machines are a little bit more sophisticated, and inventory of those doesn't exist.' The already-bought machines and those available onshore will float the company through to the last quarter of 2026, he believes. After that, Koobz will 'have to start solving the puzzle' of where to source the technology that powers its operations. 'Who are we going with for the next stage of building? Are we keeping the same equipment, the same manufacturer, buying higher-tier machines from them—or are we switching to something else because of the tariffs?' To Graczyk, there are bigger concerns than the added financial burden caused by the import taxes. It's the breakdown in the U.S.-China trade relationship—and the inkling that it could get worse, not better—that gives him pause about eating the cost of potential duties and sticking with Chinese suppliers. 'We already figured out how to work it out with the previous tariffs, the 145 percent, because [the printers] generate so much margin and profits that we can absorb [the tariff cost],' he said. But he worries about a 'complete decoupling' of the world's two biggest economies. 'We believe our business model supports the investment in this equipment, even with those outrageous tariffs, but the biggest threat is to business continuity; whether our business needs can be met long-term with companies based in China,' he added. But machines manufactured outside of China, too, will be subject to trade barriers—even those made in nations the U.S. considers allies. Desma, which crafts direct-injection molding machines used by the footwear industry in Germany, has also felt the impacts of tariff talk. While goods from the country face only a 10-percent duty rate (for now), the intense swings in the administration's tariff strategy are not doing anything to propel what was already a sustained and healthy trend toward onshoring, according to regional sales manager Marco Schafer. 'Many people consider options and discuss scenarios, but we have not experienced a rush into investing into manufacturing capabilities, and going at it full-steam,' he said. 'And I think people are right to be cautious, because you just saw what happened with China—you went from next to nothing to over 100 percent. Now they're back to 30 percent, and it's questionable if that has any effect whatsoever, or if the market will eventually just absorb those costs and not much will change.' Schafer said footwear firms have been eager to bring some portion of their manufacturing closer to home for at least three or four years, and those that understand the business case for doing so didn't need tariffs to push them over the finish line. 'It's not so much the Made in USA label; there are some hard economic figures' that underscore the appetite for reshoring. 'You are in the market you're selling in, so your logistics are shortened. The other thing is capital—if you order container loads of goods from Asia, your capital is tied up for quite a long time, whereas if you manufacture here and you have shorter lead times, your cash flow is actually improved.' But it's a decision every company has to make for itself, and much of it has to do with modeling costs versus output. 'A simplified view: you realistically have to make at least 500 pairs of the same or similar product in a day, in a one-shift operation, to even be able to consider an investment into automation,' he believes. Desma's 'bread and butter'—direct injection molding machines—allow footwear manufacturers to produce foam midsoles for performance shoes and sneakers. The largest, most advanced model can churn out 1,500 to 2,000 pairs per day. All told, it's a big investment, with machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ergo, the footwear manufacturers who are intent on scaling operations using these machines aren't doing so on a whim. 'All the major projects we're working on—whether those are already projects we have on order, or projects we hope to have on order soon—they all originated in 2024,' Schafer said. 'Those projects don't happen overnight; the machines and calculations are complex, so you have to really be sure that you believe in your product and in your forecast.' In short, tariffs are generating interest, but they're not turning the tides for makers of advanced machinery. Even if an American footwear firm decided today that the unstable trade environment necessitated a sea change in sourcing strategy, they couldn't fast-track that shift. 'We're dealing with six-to-seven-month lead times after we after we get an order, but to get the right configuration of the equipment, whether it's a machine or automation line, you're easily involved with engineering six to 12 months before a company is ready to place a [purchase order]. These are often two-year projects,' he said. 'People know that if they get into this field, it's a big commitment.' There are myriad other factors in the equation, from availability of raw materials (many of which are still sourced from Asia or Europe), to staffing (workers must be trained on robotics and electronics), and facilities, which must be equipped to support the machinery and its output. 'All that needs to be put into consideration,' Schafer added. 'And therefore, the whole tariff thing—yes, it triggered some discussions, but no active projects as of yet.' That could change with more clarity about the future of America's trade relationships. Of the volatility of the past two months, Schafer said, 'We hope that the worst is behind us, and that after the loud time comes the time of more quiet negotiations behind closed doors.' This article ran in SJ's Tech Report. To download the full report, click here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
