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.
Related Stories
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.
What’s next?
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.
Who stands to come out on top?
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.
Who’s losing out?
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.”
