What Will a Second Trump Term Mean for Fashion’s Sustainability Ambitions?
Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, can’t say he didn’t warn us.
“Trump, Vance and all other climate chaos denier politicians will greatly hasten the chance we won’t even have a liveable planet for our children and other wild things,” he posted on the outdoor-wear brand’s Instagram page on Monday, the day before the election.
More from Sourcing Journal
If Chouinard was shocked by Donald Trump’s stunning victory on Tuesday night, he hasn’t said. But the question that is likely looming largest in his mind is one that many other environmentalists share: Could the planet survive a second Trump term?
While speculation abounds over how much of the president-elect’s anti-environment rhetoric is empty campaign-trail bluster, the climate change-skeptic-in-chief has made good on this threats during his previous tenure, hauling the United States out of the Paris climate treaty to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, in one memorable example, and appointing a global warming denier to weaken, if not outright dismantle, Environmental Protection Agency policies meant to safeguard the nation’s land, air and water.
Trump, who has dubbed scientific consensus of rising temperatures a “scam,” has promised a reprise of his previous rollbacks and to double down on oil production barely a year after the United States signed a global accord to transition away from the fossil fuels that are stoking that climate breakdown that has resulted in higher-than-usual incidences of deadly flooding, heatwaves, landslides and wildfires. He has pledged to rescind the “unspent funds” under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a federal law that earmarked more than $390 billion for combating the crisis through clean energy production but he previously called “misnamed” and a “waste of money.” Project 2025, a “presidential transition” blueprint published by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, that could shape Trump’s reform agenda, also proposes gutting efforts regarding clean energy research, air quality monitoring and environmental justice for marginalized communities.
“A Trump presidency will slash regulations, ramp up resource and labor exploitation while spiking pollution,” said Liv Simpliciano, policy and research manager at the international advocacy group Fashion Revolution. “Project 2025 will dismantle critical safeguards like the Environmental Protection Agency and wipe climate change off the agenda entirely, putting clean energy programs and already menial climate progress at serious risk.”
2024 is already shaping up to be the warmest year on record, and scientists say the world needs to rally to reduce carbon emissions from 2019 levels by at least 48 percent by 2030 to avoid even greater devastation that will impact food security, water scarcity and human lives. Trump will be the leader of the free world until 2029. The thinking also goes that if the world’s biggest economy won’t commit to United Nations-facilitated efforts such as increasing funding for vulnerable countries to adapt to the effects of climate change, or achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, then why should others? To say that the fate of the world rests on what happens during Trump’s second act, in other words, may not be an exaggeration.
“A Trump presidency poses an unprecedented threat to human rights, both nationally and globally,” Simpliciano said. “While this fills me with deep concern, repressive governments are nothing new, and collective action has always endured. What’s different now is the accelerating pace of climate change. In the face of this urgency, our response must be stronger and more united than ever.”
Still, there’s a chance that Trump’s rhetoric could filter into the broader zeitgeist, said Divya Demato, CEO of GoodOps, a climate supply-chain consultancy based in San Francisco. Considering that he trounced Vice President Kamala Harris to secure the popular vote by a margin of 4 million, at least at last count, perhaps it already has.
“Consumers’ sustainable shopping intentions were already lagging, and this may decline further under an administration that deprioritizes sustainability,” she said. “As immediate societal issues take precedence, consumer focus is shifting toward personal well-being over collective or global concerns, mirroring the election’s emphasis on individual prosperity over broader societal impact.”
Even so, “atmospheric science doesn’t care whether Trump or any politician thinks climate change is ‘real,’” said Michael Sadowski, a climate and sustainability consultant and former Nike director of sustainable business and innovation. And the effects of warming temperatures are already striking perilously close to home.
“We are seeing the impacts today, from November hurricanes near the U.S.—insane—to deadly flooding in Spain to severe heat and drought in countries that are critical to the apparel sector, e.g., Pakistan and Bangladesh,” he said. These impacts will only get worse as we continue to increase emissions, as will the effects on apparel and footwear companies.”
A ‘deafening void of inaction’
The priorities of the $1 trillion fashion industry, as a microcosm of larger, more existential issues, may seem to pale in comparison, but they’re far from inconsequential. Depending on whose numbers you believe, apparel and footwear production accounts for 2-8 percent of the world’s carbon budget. Many of the world’s biggest brands and retailers—Gap Inc., Levi Strauss & Co., Nike, Calvin Klein owner PVH Corp. and The North Face parent VF Corp., to name a few—call the United States home, yet fashion remains one of the least regulated manufacturing sectors in the nation, falling behind efforts that have already percolated in Europe. Federal climate legislation, in particular, has been near-impossible to push past congressional Republican blockades. A Trump presidency, coupled with a red electoral sweep, renders proposals such as the Securities Exchange Commission’s climate-related financial risk disclosure rules, which are currently suspended in a legal holding pattern, effectively dead in the water.
“The conversation around emissions, like the pandemic before it, has been hijacked by politics, even as emissions themselves continue to present an existential threat to humanity,” Demato said. “The reality is that there is no clear agreement on what companies are emitting, who is responsible or what realistic alternatives can replace the current system.”
She expects corporate action on emissions to grind to a halt over the next few years, leaving a “deafening void of inaction.”
It’s down to the states then, said Maxine Bédat, director of the “think and do tank” the New Standard Institute and one of the architects of New York State’s Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act. Better known as the New York Fashion Act, the bill seeks to hold apparel purveyors of a certain size and stature selling into the Empire State accountable for their outsized social and environmental footprints, requiring not only reporting but also action on greenhouse gas emissions reductions, say, or codifying responsible purchasing practices. It could form a template for other states that are looking for a version of their own.
Pockets of pro-science resistance also emerged on election night. In California, voters overwhelmingly threw their support behind a ballot measure for a $10 billion “climate bond” to fund climate and environmental initiatives such as offshore wind. Over in Washington State, voters soundly rejected a measure to repeal a carbon cap-and-trade law. And, failing everything else, there’s always Europe, whose upcoming due diligence and eco-design rules are settling into pole positions, albeit to the possible detriment of American leadership in the global sphere.
“The election of Trump is a significant setback for climate, but it’s not the end of the road,” Bédat said. “In fact, there is no end of the road, no binary. EU policy is important and will continue to be. State governments are more important than ever in upholding and advancing policy that can usher in the future of the industry.”
State legislation can also result in federal pushes, such as the Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change, or FABRIC, Act, which stemmed from California’s Garment Worker Protection Act and seeks to hold brands liable for labor practices in their supply chain.
“It remains important to make use of all levers of change that are available to both governments and civil society to achieve progress in pursuit of our urgent climate and human rights goals,” said Emily Stochl, vice president of advocacy and community engagement at Remake, a fashion advocacy organization that champions the FABRIC Act. “This is also a time for changemakers to adopt a strong ‘think globally, act locally’ mindset and to remember that strong state-level, and even municipal-level, policy remains a viable tool.”
That’s not to say there won’t be headwinds, said Michelle Gabriel, program director of IE New York College’s master’s program in sustainable fashion. Like overall climate action, she said, fashion sustainability efforts require a “coalition effort” from different regions and countries that is unlikely to happen under a Trump administration, not to mention the increasingly right-wing tilts being observed in South America, Europe and Asia.
“I think we are unfortunately looking at a likely very tough road,” she said.
At the same time, Trump’s trade protectionism, the risk of sparking destabilizing tariff wars aside, could provide a boost for the creation of a more circular textile ecosystem in the name of “Made in the U.S.A.” It should be no surprise that the so-called Americas Act, which includes $14 billion in incentives to accelerate domestic innovation, is a bipartisan effort. Appearing tough on China, which is also a reason for de minimis reform, is one of the rare issues that both sides of the aisle agree on.
“While the federal headwinds pose a challenge for policies rooted in pure climate-related objectives, Trump’s agenda also presents real opportunities for U.S. manufacturing through domestic circular textile policy,” said Rachel Kibbe, CEO of the American Circular Textiles, a.k.a. ACT, coalition of reuse and recycling stakeholders, which contributed to the Americas Act. “To balance the inevitable rise in the cost of imported goods to American consumers, there is also an opportunity to support domestic jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign supply chains while improving national security, and enhance our global competitiveness.”
ACT’s priorities, she said, overlap with many of these objectives. “Trade and tax reform will be front and center in the Trump Administration and de minimis reform and improved Western Hemisphere trade relations will benefit the domestic textile industry,” Kibbe said. “Furthermore, President Trump’s focus on reversing the country’s reliance on foreign supply chains can incent circularity.”
For Lewis Perkins, president of the Apparel Impact Institute (Aii), a California nonprofit that’s been trying to cobble together $250 million in so-called “catalytic capital” to identify, fund and scale the most promising climate solutions, what gives him hope is the fashion industry’s commitment to decarbonizing production despite being buffeted by political changes. Aii has previously compared fashion’s decarbonization efforts to the tip of an iceberg, requiring far deeper investment to avoid the nearly 40 percent upswell in greenhouse gas emissions that a business-as-usual scenario all but guarantees from now to 2030. Perkins, however, is an optimist at heart.
“What’s keeping this momentum alive? For one, investors, consumers, and even employees are calling for real action on sustainability,” he said. “Major brands are seeing that being ‘eco-friendly’ isn’t just about compliance—it also helps lower operational costs, strengthen supply chains, and attract loyal customers who care about the planet. Innovations like textile recycling, renewable energy in manufacturing, and water-saving processes are proving valuable, both financially and environmentally.”
While there are emerging signs that sustainability is tumbling lower on the corporate agenda as CEOs fend off a multitude of challenges on different fronts, including inflationary pressures and geopolitical turmoil, Aii partners such as H&M Group, Levi’s, Puma, Target, PVH Corp., Under Armour and VF Corp. are “fully committed to moving this work forward,” including by voluntarily taking steps to align with international regulations like those in the EU, Perkins said.
H&M and Inditex were among 100 companies that signed an open letter to world leaders ahead of the 2024 UN Climate Change Conference, better known as COP29, on Monday. In it, they urged governments and the private sector to “enhance collaboration” to tackle obstacles like byzantine and inefficient policy and reporting frameworks and “move from pledges to impact” to make good on Paris Agreement goals.
“Businesses are seeing that investing in sustainability not only benefits the environment but also strengthens their long-term stability and market appeal,” Perkins said. “So, while we may face new challenges on the U.S. regulatory front, the momentum for advancing sustainability and reducing climate impacts remains strong and continues to grow.”
It’s a sentiment that Sally Qiu, co-director of the Fashion, Energy, and Climate Network at Columbia Climate School agrees with. She said that despite what will likely be less support at the federal level for sustainability policies, many fashion initiatives are already locked in.
But the industry cannot afford to be complacent. In March, more than 40 fashion purveyors in the Science Based Targets initiative’s Business Ambition for 1.5°C campaign had their net-zero commitments removed because their Scope 3 ambitions proved out of reach. They included brands such as American Eagle Outfitters, Gap, Marks & Spencer and Prada and suppliers like Artistic Milliners, Arvind, Nishat Mills and PT Kahatex. So far, only H&M, Levi’s and Puma are “on track” to reduce manufacturing emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030 vis-à-vis a 2018 baseline, according to environmental group Stand.earth’s most recent prognostications.
Nevertheless, Qiu said, “we may lose momentum, but we should not lose hope.”
Holly Syrett, vice president of impact programs and sustainability at the Denmark-headquartered nonprofit Global Fashion Agenda, which released the latest iteration of its GFA Monitor this week, is a fan of the South African idea of “deep democracy” to deal with conflict.
“It’s like, even though you have a majority that thinks one thing, how do you work with the others who have a different opinion to actually align on roles?” she said. “And I feel that’s an approach that we especially need to apply in times like these.”
Despite some measure of progress—a “notable” ramp up in responsible purchasing practices, for instance, and increasing circularity targets —fashion’s scale of change isn’t happening at the speed of its growth. Virgin synthetic fiber production, to name one example, has increased and the share of recycled fibers has dropped. Wage gaps also persist, especially in countries plagued by soaring inflation and pay disparities between men and women.
“The nuance that’s needed is that [the improvements come from] groups that are already committed to doing the work not the vast majority of the industry,” Syrett said. “So what about the rest? How do we get the rest on board with that?”