Collaboration, not tariffs key to equitable trade: IAF President
US President Donald Trump has consistently championed the use of import tariffs as a key instrument of economic policy, aiming to rewrite the global trade narrative in favour of the United States. His approach presents a compelling argument: that tariffs can be effectively used to negotiate more favourable trade terms, secure concessions from trading partners, increase government revenues, reduce trade deficits, and ultimately bring manufacturing jobs back to American soil.
This message has resonated with certain section of the domestic audiences in US, particularly among those working in industries that have been significantly affected by globalization. These groups often feel the economic and social pressures of outsourcing, foreign competition, and shifting trade dynamics more acutely. As a result, the messaging has found strong support among those who perceive globalization as having contributed to job losses, wage stagnation, or reduced economic security.
However, reports suggest that this wave of US protectionism is beginning to yield unintended consequences. Far from simply rebalancing trade relationships, the imposition of tariffs appears to be slowing down investment flows and disrupting established global supply chains. One of the most visibly affected sectors is apparel manufacturing and fashion sourcing, where global interdependence and complex logistics play a critical role.
In light of these developments, Fibre2Fashion had the opportunity to speak with Cem Altan, President of the International Apparel Federation (IAF) recently. Despite a packed schedule as the IAF prepares to co-host the 40th IAF World Fashion Convention in Yogyakarta (October 24–25), held alongside the ITMF Annual Conference—Cem Altan shared his perspective on how US tariff policies may reshape the future of global apparel manufacturing and sourcing.
Following are the excerpts from the interaction with the IAF President:
How do you see Trump’s tariffs and broader protectionist trade policies impacting the global apparel trade ecosystem—particularly in terms of sourcing strategies and export dynamics?
The return or intensification of protectionist trade policies—such as the tariffs introduced under the Trump administration—continues to disrupt the global apparel trade ecosystem. These measures have accelerated a structural shift in sourcing strategies, pushing brands to diversify away from China and seek alternative suppliers in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central America.
While some countries benefit from this redistribution, it creates significant volatility for apparel-producing nations that depend heavily on exports to the US.
What, in your view would be the most immediate disruptions that apparel manufacturers and exporters across various regions might face due to tariffs?
The apparel industry operates on thin margins and long, interconnected supply chains. Abrupt tariff changes increase costs, distort market signals, and weaken the trust that global trade is built on.
For manufacturers, particularly the SMEs, this unpredictability makes it difficult to invest in sustainability, innovation, and compliance.
We believe that the long-term health of the apparel industry depends on stable, rules-based international trade. Rather than resorting to unilateral tariffs, global stakeholders must work together to create fair, open, and future-proof trade environments that reward competitiveness, not geopolitics.
How would the unpredictability surrounding tariff affect long-term planning, capital investment and production strategies within the apparel industry?
The unpredictability in trade policy—particularly around tariffs—acts as a major deterrent to long-term planning and capital investment in the apparel industry. Manufacturers, especially in emerging economies, are already operating on thin margins and complex logistics. When tariffs can shift dramatically based on election cycles or geopolitical tensions, it undermines confidence and discourages strategic investment in automation, sustainability, and workforce development.
Given the likely implications of the US tariffs, to what extent do you expect brands and retailers to diversify their sourcing bases, and what challenges might they encounter in doing so?
Faced with persistent tariff threats, global apparel brands are accelerating diversification efforts. While ‘China+1’ and regional nearshoring are becoming the new norm, the transition is neither quick nor smooth.
Brands must navigate infrastructure gaps, compliance inconsistencies, limited capacity, and rising labour costs in alternative markets. The challenge is not only moving production but doing so without compromising on speed, quality, or ethical standards.
We at the IAF urge policymakers to recognize that apparel supply chains rely on predictability, openness, and collaboration. A stable trade environment fosters innovation, while uncertainty hampers progress across the entire value chain—from farm to fashion.
Which apparel-manufacturing nations do you think have edge in view of the US tariff regime and why?
In light of the US tariff regime—particularly under the protectionist policies implemented during the Trump administration—several apparel-producing nations have appeared to gain a relative advantage. This advantage stems from a combination of factors, including preferential trade agreements that reduce or eliminate tariffs, geographic proximity to the United States which lowers transportation costs and shortens lead times, competitive production costs that enhance affordability, and political alignment with US interests which fosters more favourable trade relations.
These elements collectively position such countries more favourably in the eyes of US importers, especially when compared to others facing higher tariffs or less advantageous trade terms. As a result, these nations might witness increased demand for their apparel exports, as US companies seek to mitigate the impact of tariffs while maintaining supply chain efficiency and cost control.
This shift highlights how geopolitical and economic strategies can influence global sourcing decisions in the apparel industry.
In the current scenario, how crucial have regional and bilateral trade agreements become in enabling apparel-exporting countries to navigate tariff-related volatility?
Regional and bilateral trade agreements have become absolutely vital for apparel-exporting countries. In today’s fragmented and politically charged trade landscape, these agreements are more than just duty-free mechanisms—they are tools for resilience.
Agreements like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). FTAs allow manufacturers to remain competitive and maintain market access under shifting tariff regimes.
Brands are increasingly prioritising sourcing from countries within such frameworks because they offer predictability, speed-to-market, and regulatory clarity. These agreements essentially serve as buffers against the volatility of unilateral trade actions.
Do you believe the geographic rebalancing of apparel production that began during the Trump tariff era will become a lasting trend?
The geographic rebalancing that began during the Trump tariff era is not a passing phase—it is a fundamental restructuring of global sourcing. Even if tariffs are eased in the future, the combination of geopolitical risk, ESG demands, and rising labour costs in traditional hubs like China will continue to push brands toward diversified sourcing.
The global sourcing landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, evolving into a more multi-polar model. This new structure emphasises the development of regional hubs designed to provide quicker response times, the adoption of nearshoring strategies aimed at enhancing supply chain resilience, and the exploration of niche markets that offer increased flexibility.
While China is expected to continue playing a major role in global sourcing, the overall approach has fundamentally changed. Companies are no longer solely focused on cost-efficiency; instead, there is a growing emphasis on agility, ensuring regulatory and ethical compliance, and proactively mitigating various forms of risk.
These shifts reflect a broader strategic reassessment, as businesses adapt to a more complex and unpredictable global environment. The focus is now on building more diversified, responsive, and resilient supply chains that can better withstand disruptions while still meeting the demands of speed, quality, and sustainability in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
