Trump's Tariff Plans Spark Uncertainty for the Denim Industry
'Many consumers might not know this, but the U.S. heavily relies on Mexico for our denim. In fact, in 2023, Mexico was the leading importer of denim fabric (made from at least 85 percent cotton) to the U.S., with imports valued at nearly $56 million, according to Statista,' said Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council (USHBC). 'If Trump's tariffs on Mexico are broad and ultimately apply to many goods—including materials or products related to denim—the ultimate cost of importing denim from Mexico will greatly increase.'
While specifics are currently scarce, twice-deferred 25-percent duties on goods from Mexico and Canada not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) took effect on April 2, which Trump refers to as America's 'Liberation Day.'
Fast-forward to 2025, and the president has continued his aggressive trade policies—this time with an even sharper focus on addressing trade imbalances and 'protecting domestic industries.'
While China was a primary target of Trump's trade policies, his efforts to reshape global commerce extended beyond Asia. He also imposed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—signed in 1992 by Canada, Mexico and the U.S.—to create a 'more balanced and reciprocal trade environment, support high-paying jobs for Americans and foster economic growth in North America,' according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on $380 billion worth of Chinese goods. In response to these aggressive trade measures, the U.S. and China negotiated a Phase One trade agreement in early 2020, aiming to rebalance their trade relationship and safeguard American intellectual property and technology.
Since taking office as the 47th president just over two months ago, Trump has signed multiple executive orders that have caused panic across the globe, including efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and reduce the federal bureaucracy. However, one order that has put the denim industry—along with many others like pharmaceuticals and automotive—on edge is the president's plan to impose new tariffs on key trading partners, including Mexico.
Story Continues
Despite the challenges ahead, denim mills and brands remain cautiously optimistic.
While Artistic Milliners (AM) is based in Pakistan, where most of its production takes place, it recently expanded its global footprint by acquiring VF Corporation's Dickies de Parras S. de RL de CV facility in Parras, Mexico.
When the acquisition was announced, AM moved quickly to upgrade the 10-acre complex, which consists of two buildings. The company also reaffirmed its commitment to expanding in Mexico, stating that it remains on track to scale its operations in the region. Its decision to push forward with these plans showcases AM's confidence in the long-term viability of its expansion strategy, regardless of looming tariffs.
'We are continuing business as normal. We strongly believe in the add value benefit of being in [Mexico] and investing in it,' Sergio Turbay, executive vice president of global strategy and sales at AM, told SJ Denim. 'The great thing is that our brands and partners believe in this as well. So, we are continuing our investment, and we look forward to expanding our manufacturing in the region [even further].'
Los Angeles-based women's denim brand Ética is also unconcerned about Trump's tariffs and is 'proceeding with business as usual.'
'As of right now, we're not too worried about it—but we'll see what happens [further down the line],' a sales representative at Ética Denim, which operates a factory in Puebla, Mexico, told SJ Denim. 'I've been asking our CEO [Agustin Ramirez] about it, and he doesn't seem too concerned. So, for now, we're taking a wait-and-see approach.'
The representative added that Ética's size gives it more flexibility compared to larger brands. 'We're still a relatively small brand and company, so we're able to be a little nimbler than some of our bigger partners. That gives us some breathing room to adapt if needed.'
Dr. Sheng Lu, professor of apparel studies at the University of Delaware, is not as optimistic, though. Lu noted that if denim products made in Mexico do face new tariffs when exported to the U.S., their price competitiveness could be significantly impacted, potentially leading to a loss of market share.
Lu's research for the '2024 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study,' conducted in collaboration with the United States Fashion Industry Association, shows that a significant portion of U.S. denim imports from Mexico serve the mass and value market segments, where consumers are highly sensitive to price changes. 'While Mexico is a key supplier of denim products to the U.S. market, similar products are also widely available from Asian countries like Bangladesh and China,' he said. 'Additionally, many 'Made in Mexico' denim garments incorporate U.S. cotton, yarns and fabrics through a regional supply chain. As a result, a decline in U.S. denim apparel imports from Mexico could also have a negative impact on the U.S. textile industry.'
Beyond the tariff increases themselves, Lu noted that a major concern for U.S. denim brands is the ongoing uncertainty surrounding trade policy. With no sourcing destination considered 'safe' or immune to Trump's tariffs, U.S. brands and retailers are hesitant to commit to expanding production in any country, he added.
'A significant increase in sourcing 'Made in the USA' products is unlikely due to limited production capacity,' he said. 'Even sourcing diversification—once a widely adopted strategy to mitigate risk—may be less effective this time, as any country could be targeted.'
Looming labor challenges
Another significant challenge facing mills and brands is the increasing labor shortage in Mexico.
For years, Mexico's appeal as a manufacturing hub has been driven by its low labor costs and young workforce. In fact, fully loaded manufacturing labor costs range from $6 to $8 an hour, including bonuses and benefits, while roughly one-third of the country's population—around 42 million people—is 19 or younger, according to Boston Consulting Group (BCG). However, Mexico's labor market has begun to show signs of strain.
According to AM, rising labor costs in the region are largely due to the USMCA agreement aimed at 'leveling the playing field.'
'Fabric pricing in the region reflects what our clients expect compared to other regions and their macroeconomic situations,' Turbay said. 'Just like our clients, we must remain calm and take a long-term view. We believe that trade policies for clothing will eventually be exempt, and we're in a strong position to compete due to our global presence. This is a key differentiator that we're very excited about.'
Erik Kingsley, partner at Kingsley Szamet law firm—where he focuses on employment law and workers' rights—echoed AM's sentiment, adding that Trump's proposed 25-percent tariffs on Mexican goods could have 'significant implications' for labor markets on both sides of the border.
'If these tariffs take effect, the immediate impact will likely be a downturn in Mexico's textile and apparel manufacturing sector. U.S.-based brands that currently rely on Mexican production may scale back orders, seek alternative suppliers or even relocate operations to avoid higher costs,' Kingsley said. 'This could result in job losses and wage stagnation for Mexican workers in these industries. In some cases, factories may shut down altogether if the cost increase makes them uncompetitive in the global market.'
Over the long term, Kingsley added, continued aggressive trade policies could push companies to diversify their supply chains, reducing reliance on Mexico in favor of other manufacturing hubs in Central America or Asia.
'Mexico may respond by incentivizing domestic production or strengthening trade relationships with non-U.S. partners,' Kingsley said. 'Additionally, we could see increased automation in manufacturing as companies seek to offset higher costs by reducing labor dependence.'
Beyond the impact on Mexico, these tariffs could also disrupt U.S. employment.
'If the cost of importing textiles rises significantly, American retailers and brands may face financial strain, leading to job cuts or price hikes that affect consumers. Additionally, since Mexico remains a key trading partner under the USMCA, these tariffs could strain diplomatic and economic relations,' Kingsley said. 'Businesses operating in both countries should prepare for potential volatility and legal challenges as these trade measures unfold.'
Although the future remains uncertain, Patricia Medina, principal of Mexico-based denim manufacturer Aztex Trading and co-director of Mexmakers, a collaborative network of Mexican textile and apparel manufacturers focused on sustainable and traceable full-package production, believes Mexico will continue to be a vital manufacturing hub—especially for brands that recognize the shifting global landscape.
'The world in which NAFTA was created no longer exists, but Mexico still has a crucial role to play,' Medina said. 'We can and will serve the new markets—those that prioritize more than just the initial cost of production.'
This article is published in SJ Denim's spring issue. Click here to read the full issue.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs
Europe's exports dropped sharply in April as demand was squeezed by President Trump's tariff increases, leading to a fall in factory output that suggests economic growth has slowed after a strong start to the year. European Union exports fell by close to 10% compared with a month earlier, a dramatic reversal from the increase in March as American importers stocked up ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Senate GOP's hard-liners are suddenly sounding softer on the megabill
The Senate's conservative hard-liners vowed to wage holy war against the 'big, beautiful bill.' Now they appear to be coming to Jesus. The recent rhetorical downshift from some of the loudest GOP critics of the pending megabill underscores the political reality for conservatives: As much as they want to rail publicly about the legislation and the need to address any number of pressing national emergencies in it, very few are willing to buck President Donald Trump on his biggest priority. None of them are ready to cave just yet. But the White House and their GOP colleagues increasingly believe that three senators in particular — Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida — are now on track to support the bill. Johnson, in particular, has softened his once-fierce criticism of the legislation in recent days. 'We all want to see President Trump succeed,' he said in a brief interview this week. 'Everybody is trying to help. That's why, if I seem to have been striking a more hopeful tone, it's because I am more hopeful.' Just a couple of weeks ago, Johnson was demanding near-unworkable levels of spending cuts and warning that the bill would drive the nation off a fiscal cliff. Then the Trump administration and members of Republican leadership went to work. Johnson made a pitch to Trump during a recent one-on-one phone call to let him work with administration officials on his deficit reduction plan. That led to a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council. A person with knowledge of the meeting, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said afterward that the White House is 'optimistic that there's a path to getting Johnson to yes.' Trump also privately urged Johnson during a meeting with other Finance Committee Republicans last week to speak more positively about the bill. The callout came after Trump officials — and Trump himself — grew annoyed watching Johnson savage the bill on television. His message: You should be out there selling this bill proudly, he told Johnson, according to two White House officials granted anonymity to describe the meeting — arguing that even if he doesn't love every detail, there was plenty in the bill for Republicans to be proud of. 'When the president says, 'Ron, you've been so negative, that's just not even helpful,' I want to be helpful,' Johnson said, acknowledging Trump's message in the meeting and admitting he has 'downplayed what is good in the bill.' One of the White House officials summarized the approach to Johnson: 'Don't be negative to create leverage for yourself,' the person said. 'If you want to negotiate, like, we can negotiate in private. We're all reasonable people.' The hands-on efforts to win over Johnson are part of a larger effort to try to help the fiscal hawks find a soft landing — and at least the semblance of some concessions that will be able to hold up as wins in the end. That's played out in face-to-face meetings with administration officials, negotiations over pet provisions and discussions about how to continue the fight to cut budget deficits down the road. Being able to win over their deficit hawks would be a huge boon to Majority Leader John Thune, who has acknowledged that he's got one hard 'no' vote in Sen. Rand Paul, who firmly opposes the bill's debt-ceiling hike. Thune can only afford to lose three GOP senators, with Vance breaking a tie. That has given the fiscal hawks leverage, since the GOP leaders can't afford to lose all of them, and that's on top of the other potential headaches they have to navigate elsewhere in the conference. To hear the fiscal hawks tell it, they are sounding a more positive note about their ability to support the bill because the administration is starting to take their demands seriously. To help appease their holdouts, GOP leaders have tried to scrounge up additional savings beyond what is included in the House bill. 'I believe we'll get a deal done. I'm doing everything I can to represent my state,' Scott said in a brief interview. GOP leaders are working to assuage Lee by tucking one of his top priorities into the bill. The deregulatory proposal, known as the REINS Act, was initially expected to run afoul of Senate rules for the party-line reconciliation process, but leaders have been working to try to find a version that could pass muster. House conservatives, meanwhile, have grown increasingly worried that the Senate, with the blessing of their fiscal-hawk allies, will send back a bill that waters down some of their hard-fought victories. The House Freedom Caucus has laid out public demands, while its members have met privately with Lee, Scott and Johnson to strategize about additional spending reductions and maintaining their policy wins. The Senate hard-liners aren't ready to concede just yet. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has promised Johnson he will advance a second reconciliation bill, giving conservatives another chance to enact cuts. But Johnson said that wouldn't be enough to get him on board. Instead he wants a 'forcing mechanism' to maintain a longer-term push to return to 2019 spending levels. He's letting the White House brainstorm other ideas and described himself as 'reasonably flexible.' Lee said in a statement he's 'been working with my colleagues and the White House to make the Big Bill Beautiful.' But added: 'It's not where it needs to be yet.' 'We need to sell federal land to help fix the housing crisis, terminate benefits that flow to illegals, end the Green New Scam, and get rid of the Medicaid provider tax. I want to see this effort cross the finish line, but we need to do more,' he added. Even as they continue to push, their colleagues see the signs of late softening — and aren't surprised whatsoever. 'They'll fold,' said a GOP colleague who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said that Republicans have 'made progress' with Johnson and 'I wouldn't count him out.' And two others, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), said they expect Lee, Scott and Johnson to come around when the bill comes up for a final vote, even if they don't ultimately love every provision. 'They're very gettable,' Kennedy said. 'At some point people are just going to have to decide, is this good enough?' Rachael Bade and Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting.