Apparel Tariffs Climbed to Historic Highs in April
Tariff rates on apparel imported from across the globe spiked in April, and that upward trend seems poised to continue amid protracted negotiations between the United States and its preeminent trading partners, according to Dr. Sheng Lu.
The University of Delaware professor of fashion and apparel studies assessed the U.S. International Trade Commission's (USITC) recently released data from April, which showed that as a result of President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs, announced on 'Liberation Day' on April 2, the average tariff rate for U.S. apparel imports reached 20.1 percent.
More from Sourcing Journal
Vietnam's Ready For High Stakes US Trade Talks To Avoid Steep Tariffs
RH Continues to Mitigate Tariff Pressure; Says Revenues Will Take Short-term Hit
China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here?
That's a 13.8-percent increase from the same period a year prior and a 14.7-percent jump from January of this year, and the highest average duty rate on clothing imports seen in decades.
The tax hikes were predictably particularly acute for apparel imported from China, which has seen numerous duty rate hikes since February, including an executive order setting tariffs at a whopping 145 percent for products across the board—a figure that' has fluctuated throughout a series of trade negotiations. In April, the average tariff rate for clothing imported from the sourcing superpower reached an unprecedented 55 percent, up from 37 percent in March and 22 percent in January. The data was skewed by the fact that many importers frontloaded orders to hit open waters before the steepest tariffs took effect, Lu said.
China was far from the only sourcing locale that faced higher duties, though it is the most prolific producer of apparel. Removing China from the equation revealed an average tariff rate for apparel imports from other countries totaling 15.2 percent in April, Lu found. Though the rate was higher than the 12 percent to 13 percent seen in early 2025 before Trump took office, it was significantly more modest than the theoretical 10-percent universal baseline tariff increase announced by the administration.
He told Sourcing Journal that average tariff rates for U.S. apparel imports from leading Asian suppliers like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia followed similar patterns—higher tariffs, but well below a 10-percent increase. 'Similar to China's case, it appears that U.S. apparel imports from other countries in April 2025 included a significant proportion of products that were exempt from reciprocal tariffs because they were loaded onto a vesselearly enough,' Lu said.
April's data illuminates some notable trends, chief among them, the quick-thinking actions taken by importers to frontload orders. But within the context of day-to-day evolutions in trade policy perpetuated by the Trump administration, April feels like lightyears, not months, in the past. And dealmaking with more than a dozen of the nation's prominent trading partners is still underway ahead of the expiration of the pause on reciprocal duties on July 9—a deadline the administration now says could be extended.
This week, the president took to Truth Social to announce a new 55-percent tariff rate for China-made goods—the result of two days of trade negotiations between U.S. and China officials in London. While the president was quick to take a digital victory lap, hailing the deal as 'GREAT' on Thursday, neither head of state has officially ratified the terms.
The trade truce won't 'help much in reducing market uncertainty,' Lu believes. 'Not only are the details of the agreement yet to be announced, but the nature of the deal, the pending legal case against Trump administration's imposition of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs, and the pending tariff rates affecting U.S. apparel imports from other sources also contribute to this uncertainty,' he said.
In other words, U.S. brands and retailers are still in a holding pattern, unwilling to make major decisions that could upend their global supply chains. But should the 55-percent rate on China imports stick, Lu believes American firms 'will further increase their sourcing volume from other leading Asian suppliers, particularly other leading apparel suppliers in Asia that are still subject to a relatively lower tariff rate, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India.'
This is a pattern that's already emerged over the past few months as China has been 'singled out' by the president, facing a much higher tariff burden than other Asian nations. Apparel imports from China fell in April by 13.3 percent as a result of the heavy duties, while imports from Vietnam (up 23.4 percent), Bangladesh (up 37.8 percent), Cambodia (up 38.6 percent), Pakistan (up 25.7 percent) and Sri Lanka (up 26.4 percent) positively 'surged,' Lu said.
That doesn't necessarily mean Trump's plan to rebalance the trade deficit with China is working, though.'It should be noted that many apparel exports from these Asian countries may come from factories owned by Chinese investors,' Lu explained. 'It will also become increasingly common for Chinese garment factories to become 'super-vendors' with production capabilities in multiple countries.' In other words, China's reach and influence may grow as it adapts to increasingly prohibitive trade constraints levied by the U.S.
It remains 'highly uncertain' which countries will be among the first to reach trade deals with the Trump administration, Lu said.
'From the apparel industry's perspective, a deal with leading Asian suppliers, including Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, and Cambodia, as well as CAFTA-DR members, would be the priority,' he added. The administration has indicated that talks with some of these nations, including India and Vietnam, have been ongoing.
U.S. fashion firms are understandably itching for a fuller picture of what tariff rates they'll face in the next few months, never mind the coming years. In Lu's estimation, given the only two trade deals that have been worked out thus far, 'the chances that U.S. fashion companies would pay a lower tariff rate than they currently do are quite low.'
China's 55-percent rate represents a massive burden for those importing from the country, and the recently announced trade deal with the United Kingdom leaves importers to face a 10-percent duty rate. According to Lu, 'it is more likely than not that the final 'reciprocal tariff' rate reached between the U.S. and a trading partner will be 10 percent or even higher.'
Because the president is laser-focused on rebalancing trade, medium-sized major economies that could potentially import more American made products could be well-positioned to make more favorable deals with Washington—and sooner.
Lu's assessment of the April USITC data uncovered a surprising downside—namely, for America's nearshore neighbors.
'It is interesting to note that the reciprocal tariff resulted in the most significant increase in tariff rates on U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members,' he said, referring to the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, which encompasses countries including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
While imports from these nations are presumably duty-free under the trade agreement, the average tariff rate paid on apparel imports hit 6.7 percent in April. Lu said that's because the short shipping distance between Central America and the U.S. actually worked to their disadvantage. 'Due to the short distance between the U.S. and CAFTA-DR members, there [was] limited flexibility for U.S. fashion companies to utilize the timing of shipping to avoid paying tariffs,' he said.
Lu broke it down this way: 'Except for Mexico and China, U.S. apparel imports from all sources in April 2025 should face an additional 10-percent reciprocal tariff on top of the existing MFN tariff rate. However, the increase in tariff rates was actually much more modest (i.e., only about a 2-3 percentage point increase instead of 10 percent) for U.S. apparel imports from most Asian countries, as many imports were loaded onto vessels early enough to qualify for tariff exemption.'
Only apparel imports from CAFTA-DR saw an increase in tariff rate as high as 6.7 percent in April, 'partially because, with transit times of days, not weeks, orders had to be placed after tariff announcements, forcing U.S. fashion companies to absorb the increased tariff rate,' Lu said. These countries also have a more limited ability to fulfill new orders on short notice, unlike their Asian counterparts.
There's no evidence that Trump's tariff regime has benefited nearshore countries in the Western Hemisphere at all, Lu said. In fact, CAFTA-DR nations accounted for just 8.8 percent of clothing imports from January through April, down from 10.3 percent during the same period last year.
Of course, all this could change with the release of May's data—and with the continual shakeups in sourcing that will most certainly result as the administration solidifies trade deals in the coming weeks.
'Overall, it remains uncertain how the U.S. apparel tariff rates will continue to evolve in response to Trump's shifting tariff policy,' Lu said. 'It appears that the trade volume and timing of shipment will be highly sensitive to short-term tariff rate changes, whereas adjusting sourcing bases and product structures will be a consideration for U.S. fashion companies in the medium- to long-term.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Graph Shows US Births Decline Over 50 Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Newsweek has created a graph to show how births in the United States have declined over the last 50 years. This has happened for every age group, fluctuating across the decades, rising steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, and declining sharply after 2008, according to the U.N. Population Division. The Context America is one of many countries around the world struggling with falling birth rates. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. The Birth Rate Situation In America Different age groups have been affected differently by the shift in births. While mothers between the ages of 50 and 54 had no babies in 1975, this number gradually increased to more than 100 over the years and was 159 in 2024. Conversely, teen pregnancies have drastically and consistently declined since 1975, when there were 599,926 before this number started to go down in the early 2000s, to 136,376 in 2024. The issue with a lower number of births, taking place while the elderly live longer, means that is that the country is headed for a time when there are more elderly, dependent people than there are working-age people. At the beginning of this year, a report by the McKinsey Global Institute warned that major economies are heading toward a "population collapse" by 2100 because of falling fertility rates. Trump said during a speech in December: "We want more babies, to put it nicely." Many trying to tackle this issue have focused on public health policies and financial plans, often citing the 2008 financial crisis, its effect on housing, inflation and pay as a major contributor to why people delay having children, have fewer of them or to not have them at all. Parental leave, improved childcare services, and financial independence in general are all things advocates call for in the hopes of making it easier for people to have children. Earlier this month, Trump announced a $1,000 tax-deferred investment account for American babies born during his second term. The White House said the so-called "Trump Accounts" will "afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning." Meanwhile, the United States could make childbirth free for privately insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. Beth Jarosz, a senior program director of U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, said that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Culture's Impact On America's Birth Rates However, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it, too, is facing a birth rate crisis. The Nordic country offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged 1 or older in 2008. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Newsweekspoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health, said. American Vice President JD Vance touched on cultural changes when he said in January: "We failed a generation not only by permitting a culture of abortion on demand but also by neglecting to help young parents achieve the ingredients they need to lead a happy and meaningful life. "Our society has failed to recognize the obligation that one generation has to another as a core part of living in a society. So let me say very simply, I want more babies in the United States of America."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive
As many as nine out of 10 retirees rely on their Social Security income to cover some portion of their expenses. Estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) are climbing, and President Trump's tariff and trade policy looks to be the culprit. Though an above-average COLA for a fifth-consecutive year would be welcome on paper, retirees continue to get the short end of the stick when it comes to annual raises. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Last month, Social Security's retired-worker benefit made history, with the average payout topping $2,000 for the first time since the program's inception. Although this represents a modest monthly benefit, it's nevertheless proved vital to helping aging workers cover their expenses. In each of the prior 23 years, pollster Gallup surveyed retirees about their reliance on the Social Security income they're receiving. Between 80% and 90% of respondents noted it was a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, only around one in 10 retirees could, in theory, make do without their Social Security check. For an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing precisely how much they'll receive each month -- and that begins with the program's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is announced during the second week of October. This year's COLA announcement will be of particular interest, with President Donald Trump's tariff and trade policies expected to directly affect how much Social Security beneficiaries will receive per month in 2026. But before digging into the specifics of how President Trump's policies are expected to impact the pocketbooks of seniors, survivors, and workers with disabilities, it's important to understand the building blocks of what Social Security's COLA is and why it matters. The program's COLA is effectively the "raise" passed along on a near-annual basis that accounts for the impact of inflation (rising prices) on benefits. For example, if a large basket of goods and services increased in cost by 3% from one year to the next, Social Security benefits would need to climb by a commensurate amount, or buying power for Social Security recipients would decrease. In the 35 years following the issuance of the first retired-worker check in January 1940, COLAs were assigned at random by special sessions of Congress. Only a total of 11 COLAs were passed along during this timeline, with no adjustments made in the 1940s. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was adopted as Social Security's inflationary measure that would allow for annual cost-of-living adjustments. The CPI-W has over 200 spending categories, each of which has its own unique percentage weighting. These weightings are what allow the CPI-W to be expressed as a single figure each month, which leads to crisp month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons to see if prices are, collectively, rising (inflation) or declining (deflation). When calculating Social Security's COLA, only CPI-W readings from the third quarter (July through September) are taken into consideration. If the average CPI-W reading in the third quarter of the current year is higher than the comparable period of the previous year, inflation has occurred, and beneficiaries are due for a beefier payout. Following a decade of anemic raises in the 2010s -- three years during the decade (2010, 2011, and 2016) saw no COLA passed along due to deflation -- beneficiaries have enjoyed four consecutive years of above-average cost-of-living adjustments and are hoping for this streak to continue. A historic increase in U.S. money supply during the COVID-19 pandemic sent the prevailing rate of inflation soaring to a four-decade high. This resulted in COLAs of 5.9% in 2022, 8.7% in 2023, 3.2% in 2024, and 2.5% in 2025, respectively. For context, the average annual increase in benefits since 2010 is 2.3%. While estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment came in below this average shortly after President Donald Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, the script has now been flipped. Nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) was forecasting a 2.2% COLA for 2026 as recently as March. Meanwhile, independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson, who retired from TSCL last year, was calling for a 2.2% increase in April following the release of the March inflation report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After the release of the May inflation report from the BLS, both TSCL and Johnson are now forecasting a 2026 COLA of 2.5%. A 2.5% COLA would increase the average retired-worker benefit by $50 per month next year, as well as lift monthly checks for the typical worker with disabilities and survivor beneficiary by $40 and $39, respectively. This 0.3% increase in both forecasts over the past couple of months is estimated to boost the average Social Security payout (for all beneficiaries) by approximately $5.57 per month in 2026. This "Trump bump" is the result of the president's tariff and trade policies having a very modest inflationary impact on domestic prices. Charging a global import duty on all countries while imposing higher "reciprocal tariff rates" on dozens of countries that have historically run adverse trade imbalances with the U.S. can result in these higher costs being passed along to consumers. Though a lot can change with Trump's tariff and trade policy in the coming weeks and months, its current design points to a modest bump in the 2026 COLA. On paper, a fifth consecutive year where COLAs are above average (compared to the previous 16 years) probably sounds great. With the average retired-worker payout cresting $2,000 per month, an added $50 per month would be welcome in 2026. But the fact of the matter is that a 0.3% bump in COLA estimates since Trump introduced his tariff and trade policy doesn't remotely move the needle when it comes to what retirees have been shortchanged for more than a decade. Though the CPI-W is designed to be an all-encompassing measure of inflation, it has an inherent flaw that can be seen in its full name. Specifically, it tracks the spending habits of "urban wage earners and clerical workers," who, in many instances, are working-age Americans not currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Urban wage earners and clerical workers spend their money very differently than seniors. Whereas the former has a higher percentage of their monthly budgets devoted to things like education, apparel, and transportation, seniors spend a higher percentage on shelter and medical care services. Even though an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries are aged 62 and above, the CPI-W doesn't factor in this added importance of shelter and medical care services inflation. The end result for retirees has been a persistent decline in the buying power of a Social Security dollar. According to a study conducted by TSCL, the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar has dropped by 20% since 2010. A very modest "Trump bump" isn't going to offset this. What's more, the aforementioned two costs that matter most to retirees -- shelter and medical care services -- have had higher trailing-12-month (TTM) inflation rates than the annually issued Social Security COLA. The BLS inflation report for May showed TTM increases of 3.9% for shelter and 3% for medical care services, respectively. As long as the program's cost-of-living adjustment trails the annual inflation rate for these two key expenses, retirees will continue getting the short end of the stick. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive was originally published by The Motley Fool
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
South Africa leads Africa in the latest global press freedom ranking
Only three African countries rank in the top 30 globally, while economic pressure, political control, and insecurity undermine press freedom across the continent. The 2025 World Press Freedom Index ranks South Africa 27th, marking it as the top African nation for press freedom. Namibia and Cape Verde also feature in the top 30 globally, showcasing their commitment to press freedom standards. The report highlights the interplay between economic and political instability and diminished media freedom across the continent. In the newly released 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), South Africa has been ranked as the most press-friendly country in Africa, placing 27th out of 180 countries globally, a notable jump of 11 positions from its ranking last year. The country retains its position in the 'satisfactory' category, lauded for its reliable legal protections, pluralistic media landscape, and relative independence from government and corporate interference. Namibia (28th) and Cape Verde (30th) also rank in the same category, joining a small group of African countries that uphold press freedom standards alongside European and Asian counterparts. However, the continental trend remains concerning, with most African nations falling into the "difficult" or "very serious" press freedom zones and several experiencing record declines in media safety, legal protection, and financial sustainability. What the World Press Freedom Index Measures The World Press Freedom Index evaluates media freedom in 180 countries and territories using five key indicators: Political context, Legal framework; Economic context; Sociocultural context and Safety of journalists Score Range Zone African Countries Meaning [85 - 100 points] Good Journalism is fully protected; few or no constraints. [70 - 85 points] Satisfactory South Africa (27), Namibia (28), Cape Verde (30) Media is mostly free, but vulnerable to institutional or commercial pressure [55 - 70 points] Problematic Ghana (49), Mauritius (50), Senegal (74), Seychelles (59), Botswana (65), Malawi (72), Gabon (41) Structural issues and pressure from political or economic actors exist. [40 - 55 points] Difficult Nigeria (122), Tunisia (129), Cameroon (131), DR Congo (133), Somalia (136), Libya (137), Kenya (117), Benin (92), Togo (121), Guinea (103), Burkina Faso (105), Mali (119), Uganda (143), Burundi (125) Press freedom is significantly constrained; journalists often self-censor [0 - 40 points] Very Serious Rwanda (146), Ethiopia (145), Egypt (170), Eritrea (180 Journalism is dangerous or impossible; extreme censorship and violence occur RSF's findings highlight a concerning trajectory between economic elites' influence over media and editorial self-censorship. In many African countries, media outlets rely heavily on advertising revenue from state actors or politically aligned corporations, compromising their independence. Although some African nations demonstrate stability and openness, the media advocacy agency warns that the economic and political climate in much of Africa is becoming increasingly hostile to journalism. Despite challenges, RSF identifies South Africa, Namibia, and Cape Verde as examples of how legal protections, institutional accountability, and civic engagement can safeguard press freedom.
