Regional spotlight: Fashion and textiles in US — what's different and why it matters

The United States generated 17 million tons of textile waste in 2024, yet the national textile recycling rate remained below 15%, with the vast majority routed to landfills or incineration (EPA, 2025). Americans purchase an average of 68 garments per person per year, roughly five times the global average, making the US the world's largest apparel consumption market by volume after China. For engineers and sustainability practitioners working in fashion and textiles, the US market presents a structurally unique operating environment where consumer behavior, regulatory fragmentation, and supply chain geography diverge sharply from European and Asian markets.

Why It Matters

The US fashion and textiles landscape differs from the EU and other leading markets in ways that fundamentally reshape sustainability strategy, compliance obligations, and technology adoption. Unlike the EU, which has enacted the Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), and mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for textiles across member states, the US has no federal legislation requiring textile producers to manage end-of-life impacts. Regulation is emerging at the state level, creating a patchwork of obligations that adds complexity for brands operating nationally.

The US supply chain structure also diverges from global patterns. Domestic textile manufacturing has shrunk dramatically since the 1990s, with over 97% of apparel sold in the US now imported (OTEXA, 2025). This import dependency means that Scope 3 emissions from overseas manufacturing, dyeing, and finishing dominate the carbon footprint of US-market fashion, but sit largely outside the direct operational control of American brands. By contrast, countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and China, where the manufacturing actually occurs, face the direct environmental burden of production.

Consumer dynamics further distinguish the market. The US resale market reached $43 billion in 2025, growing at 15% annually (ThredUp, 2025), driven by platforms like ThredUp, Poshmark, and The RealReal. Yet fast fashion consumption also continues to grow, with ultra-fast-fashion platforms like Shein and Temu capturing significant market share through $5 to $10 garment price points that undercut sustainability-oriented competitors. This bifurcation creates a market where sustainable and disposable fashion segments are both expanding simultaneously.

Key Concepts

State-Level Regulatory Fragmentation

The most significant US textile sustainability regulation operates at the state level, creating compliance complexity that has no equivalent in the EU's harmonized framework. California's SB 707, effective January 2025, requires fashion brands with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to map and disclose their supply chains, identify environmental and human rights risks, and report remediation actions. New York's Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act (the Fashion Act), reintroduced in 2025 after initial legislative stalls, would require brands selling in New York to map at least 50% of their supply chain, disclose environmental impacts including greenhouse gas emissions and water use, and set binding reduction targets.

California also enacted SB 343, which restricts the use of the chasing arrows recycling symbol on products and packaging unless the material is actually accepted by curbside recycling programs in the state. This effectively prevents fashion brands from labeling polyester-blend garments as "recyclable" unless fiber-to-fiber recycling infrastructure exists at scale, which it currently does not for most blended textiles.

EPR for textiles is gaining traction at the state level. California's proposed EPR framework for textiles, modeled on France's Refashion system, would require producers to fund collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure through per-unit fees. Oregon and Washington have advanced similar EPR proposals. If enacted, these state-level programs would create the first mandatory producer responsibility systems for textiles in the US, fundamentally altering the economics of garment production and end-of-life management.

Domestic Manufacturing and Nearshoring Dynamics

While the US textile manufacturing base is small relative to imports, a meaningful reshoring and nearshoring trend is underway. The CHIPS and Science Act (2022) and Inflation Reduction Act (2022) did not directly address textiles, but the broader industrial policy environment has spurred investment in domestic advanced manufacturing. Several textile companies have invested in US-based facilities for technical textiles, nonwovens, and performance fabrics where automation reduces labor cost disadvantages.

Nearshoring to Mexico and Central America under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade framework is accelerating. USMCA's yarn-forward rule of origin requires that textiles and apparel qualify for duty-free treatment only if the yarn is produced in a USMCA country, the fabric is cut or knit to shape in a USMCA country, and the garment is assembled in a USMCA country. This creates a significant tariff incentive (duties on non-qualifying apparel range from 12% to 32%) for brands to source from Western Hemisphere supply chains, shortening lead times and reducing transport emissions compared to Asian sourcing.

Textile Waste Infrastructure Gaps

The US lacks the collection and sorting infrastructure necessary for textile circularity at scale. Municipal curbside programs in the US generally do not accept textiles, unlike several EU countries where textile collection will become mandatory by January 2025 under the EU Waste Framework Directive. Textile collection in the US relies on a fragmented network of donation bins (operated by organizations such as Goodwill, Salvation Army, and for-profit collectors), retailer take-back programs (H&M, Patagonia, The North Face), and mail-in services.

Of textiles collected in the US, approximately 45% are resold domestically or exported as secondhand clothing, 30% are downcycled into industrial rags and insulation, and 25% are landfilled because they cannot be sorted or processed economically (Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association, 2025). Fiber-to-fiber recycling, which would enable true circularity, processes less than 1% of post-consumer textiles in the US. The primary barrier is fiber blending: over 60% of garments sold in the US contain polyester-cotton blends that cannot be recycled through either mechanical cotton recycling or standard PET recycling processes without chemical separation technologies that remain pre-commercial at scale.

What's Working

Patagonia's Worn Wear program has become the benchmark for branded resale in the US market. The program processed over 130,000 garments in 2024 through repair, resale, and recycling channels, extending product lifespan by an average of 2.3 years. Patagonia's decision to integrate Worn Wear inventory into its primary e-commerce platform (rather than operating a separate resale site) increased secondhand conversion rates by 40% compared to the standalone model. The company reports that Worn Wear operations now generate positive gross margins, demonstrating commercial viability for premium outdoor brands.

Renewcell's Circulose technology, while Swedish in origin, has found significant commercial traction with US brands. Levi Strauss launched a Circulose-blend denim line in 2025, and PVH Corp (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger) committed to incorporating 20% recycled fibers by 2027. The US represents Renewcell's largest market by off-take volume, driven by brand sustainability commitments and consumer willingness to pay a 10 to 15% premium for recycled-content denim (Renewcell, 2025).

ForDays, a US-based circular fashion startup, operates a closed-loop system where customers return worn garments in exchange for store credit. The returned textiles are sorted and processed at the company's facility in Los Angeles, with 85% of returned items channeled to resale, fiber recycling, or upcycling rather than landfill. The model integrates collection, sorting, and resale into a single brand experience, avoiding the fragmentation that plagues third-party collection systems.

Eastman Chemical's Naia Renew fiber, produced at the company's Kingsport, Tennessee facility, uses molecular recycling technology to convert mixed textile waste and single-use plastics into cellulosic fiber. The facility processes approximately 50,000 tonnes of waste feedstock annually, producing fiber that meets the same performance specifications as virgin acetate. Gap Inc. and Target have both incorporated Naia Renew into product lines, providing demand signals that support continued scale-up.

What's Not Working

The voluntary nature of most US textile sustainability initiatives limits their impact. Without federal regulation, adoption of supply chain transparency, chemical management, and end-of-life programs remains concentrated among large publicly traded brands facing investor and consumer pressure. Mid-market and value brands, which collectively account for the majority of US apparel volume, have limited sustainability infrastructure and face minimal regulatory incentive to invest.

Chemical management in US textile supply chains lags behind EU standards. The EU's REACH regulation restricts over 200 chemical substances in textiles sold in Europe, while the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) imposes far fewer restrictions on textile chemicals. PFAS ("forever chemicals") used in water-repellent textile finishes face growing scrutiny, with several states enacting PFAS restrictions in consumer products, but no federal ban exists. This regulatory gap means that garments manufactured for the US market may contain chemical formulations that would be prohibited in the EU, creating compliance risk for brands operating in both markets.

Greenwashing enforcement remains inconsistent. The Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, last updated in 2012, provide guidance on environmental marketing claims but lack the specificity and enforcement teeth of the EU Green Claims Directive. Brands routinely use terms like "conscious," "eco-friendly," and "sustainable collection" without standardized definitions or third-party verification. The FTC issued warning letters to several fashion companies in 2024 regarding unsubstantiated sustainability claims, but formal enforcement actions remain rare.

The US secondhand clothing export market, which channels approximately 700,000 tonnes of used textiles abroad annually, faces growing pushback from receiving countries. Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda have imposed or threatened import restrictions on secondhand clothing, arguing that the influx undermines domestic textile industries and creates waste management burdens. If export channels contract, the US will face a significant increase in domestic textile waste that current infrastructure cannot process.

Key Players

Established companies: Patagonia (integrated repair, resale, and recycled materials programs), Levi Strauss (recycled fiber adoption and Water<Less finishing technology), PVH Corp (supply chain transparency and recycled content commitments across Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger), Gap Inc. (Naia Renew fiber integration and water stewardship programs), VF Corporation (circular design standards across The North Face, Timberland, and Dickies brands), Target (scaling recycled-content private label apparel)

Startups and technology providers: For Days (closed-loop collection and resale platform, Los Angeles), Circ (hydrothermal processing for polyester-cotton blend separation, Danville, Virginia), Evrnu (NuCycl fiber-to-fiber recycling technology, Seattle), Ambercycle (cycora regenerated polyester from textile waste, Los Angeles), SuperCircle (take-back logistics platform connecting brands with recycling infrastructure), Debrand (AI-powered textile sorting and grading technology)

Investors and development finance: Closed Loop Partners (circular economy infrastructure investments including textile recycling), HSBC Asset Management (textile circularity investment thesis), Collaborative Fund (early-stage investments in sustainable fashion technology), Fashion for Good (Amsterdam-based but with significant US portfolio including Circ, Evrnu, and Ambercycle), Walmart Foundation (grants for textile waste reduction and worker well-being in supply chains)

Action Checklist

• Audit your product portfolio for fiber composition, prioritizing design changes that reduce polyester-cotton blending to enable end-of-life recyclability
• Map state-level regulatory exposure across California, New York, Oregon, and Washington for upcoming EPR, supply chain disclosure, and chemical restriction requirements
• Evaluate USMCA-compliant nearshore manufacturing options in Mexico and Central America to reduce Scope 3 transport emissions and qualify for preferential tariff treatment
• Implement chemical management systems aligned with ZDHC (Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals) Manufacturing Restricted Substances List to future-proof against emerging US PFAS restrictions
• Establish or expand branded take-back and resale programs, integrating secondhand inventory into primary sales channels to maximize conversion
• Partner with fiber-to-fiber recycling technology providers (Circ, Evrnu, Ambercycle) to secure off-take agreements and accelerate commercial-scale recycled feedstock availability
• Review FTC Green Guides compliance for all consumer-facing environmental claims, removing unsubstantiated terms and adopting third-party verified certifications

FAQ

Q: How does the US regulatory environment for sustainable textiles compare to the EU? A: The US lacks any federal equivalent to the EU's Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, the ESPR, or mandatory textile EPR. Regulation is emerging at the state level, with California and New York leading on supply chain disclosure and EPR proposals. This creates a fragmented compliance landscape where brands must track obligations across multiple jurisdictions rather than meeting a single harmonized standard. The practical impact is that US brands selling only domestically face significantly lower regulatory pressure than those also operating in EU markets, but the trajectory of state legislation suggests convergence toward EU-like requirements over the next 5 to 7 years.

Q: What is the biggest technical barrier to textile circularity in the US? A: Fiber blending is the primary barrier. Over 60% of US-market garments contain polyester-cotton blends that cannot be processed through conventional mechanical recycling. Chemical recycling technologies from companies like Circ (hydrothermal separation) and Ambercycle (enzymatic depolymerization) can separate blended fibers, but these technologies operate at pilot to early commercial scale (5,000 to 20,000 tonnes per year) rather than the hundreds of thousands of tonnes needed to meaningfully address US textile waste volumes. Design-for-recyclability, which involves using mono-material constructions or easily separable fiber combinations, is the upstream solution but requires fundamental changes to product development processes.

Q: Is there a business case for branded resale programs in the US? A: Yes, and the data is increasingly compelling. The US resale market is projected to reach $73 billion by 2028, growing roughly three times faster than the overall apparel market (ThredUp, 2025). Brands like Patagonia, Levi's, and Eileen Fisher report positive gross margins on resale operations once programs reach scale. Branded resale also drives customer acquisition (40% of Patagonia Worn Wear buyers are new to the brand) and increases customer lifetime value through repeat engagement. The key success factor is integration: resale programs embedded in primary sales channels significantly outperform standalone platforms.

Q: How are tariffs and trade policy affecting US textile sustainability? A: USMCA's yarn-forward rule creates a strong incentive for Western Hemisphere sourcing, which typically involves shorter shipping distances and, in some cases, facilities powered by cleaner energy grids than Southeast Asian alternatives. However, Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (25% on most textile products) and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which creates a rebuttable presumption that goods from Xinjiang are made with forced labor, are reshaping supply chains for compliance rather than sustainability reasons. The net effect is accelerating diversification away from China toward Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, and nearshore locations, with environmental outcomes depending on the specific conditions at alternative production sites.

Sources

• US Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Facts and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling: Textiles. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
• Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). (2025). US Imports of Textiles and Apparel: 2024 Annual Report. Washington, DC: International Trade Administration.
• ThredUp. (2025). 2025 Resale Report: The State of Secondhand Fashion. Oakland, CA: ThredUp Inc.
• Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association. (2025). US Textile Recovery and Recycling Rates: 2024 Industry Survey. Cleveland, OH: SMART.
• Renewcell. (2025). Annual Report 2024: Scaling Circulose Production and Market Adoption. Stockholm: Renewcell AB.
• California State Legislature. (2025). SB 707: Garment Industry Supply Chain Transparency and Due Diligence Act. Sacramento, CA: California Legislative Information.
• Federal Trade Commission. (2024). Enforcement Actions and Guidance on Environmental Marketing Claims in the Fashion Industry. Washington, DC: FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection.