
US textile makers, feeling forgotten by Trump, hope boom days are ahead
GAFFNEY, S.C. -- As the pandemic raged in 2020, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro called Andy Warlick, the CEO of Parkdale Mills, a textile manufacturer with a large factory in South Carolina, with an urgent request. The United States needed millions of masks, and he wanted Parkdale to find a way to make them.
'I figure if you can make a bra, half a bra is a face mask,' Navarro told Warlick, according to Warlick's recounting.
The company quickly made a plan to produce 600 million surgical masks for medical workers around the country. The feat was hailed as an example of why a robust domestic textile supply chain is a matter of national security. But these days, the industry sees itself as an afterthought in President Donald Trump's second term, with a trade agenda that prioritizes protecting sectors like steel, aluminum, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
Trump has raised trade barriers to the highest levels in a century, enacting universal levies, imposing reciprocal tariffs and picking economic fights with China and Europe. The approach is designed to bolster domestic production, but manufacturers are learning that not all industries are created equal. The frustration of those who feel left behind reflects an intensifying debate over what kinds of jobs America needs as Republicans and Democrats commit to their respective visions of industrial policy.
As a flurry of memes of American sweatshops mocking Trump's desire to onshore production began circulating on social media this spring, the president's top advisers sought to clarify the administration's intentions.
'We don't need to necessarily have a booming textile industry like where I grew up again, but we do want to have precision manufacturing and bring that back,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in late April.
Those comments drew sharp backlash from the American textile industry, which has withered in the face of rapid globalization and has sought greater trade protection from cheap Chinese fabric imports.
'It is concerning to hear that our industry, that pivoted to making lifesaving personal protective equipment during COVID, are not considered a strategic priority,' said Kim Glas, president of the National Council of Textile Organizations.
Fraying from globalization
America's textile industry has experienced a drastic decline in the past 30 years in the face of the offshoring of garment production to Asia, Mexico and South America, and the rapid pace of automation. The sector, which employed about 1.5 million workers in the 1990s, now employs about 470,000.
The industry points to China's state-sponsored subsidies and intellectual property theft as a key reason the U.S. textile industry fell behind.
Textile manufacturers also blame trade liberalization policies such as the admission of China to the World Trade Organization and the normalization of trade relations with Vietnam in 2001 as factors that hampered the domestic industry.
The United States is the world's second-largest exporter of textiles. But China -- the world's largest textiles exporter -- sells six times the amount of fibers, yarns and fabrics to customers globally. Over the past two years, 28 American textile plants have shuttered across the country, with several of them in the Carolinas. The United States trade representative attributes this to China's nonmarket practices that allow Chinese textile manufacturers to charge artificially low prices.
Most of the textiles made in the United States are shipped to countries such as Mexico, Honduras and the Dominican Republic, where the fabric is cut and sewn into apparel and then sent back to the United States to retailers.
Textile manufacturers have been generally supportive of the Trump administration's trade agenda. But they have asked the administration to exempt textiles from the 10% universal tariff that has been applied to products coming from Central America. They also want even higher tariffs on Chinese fabric imports.
Booming backlash
Much of the U.S. textile industry is concentrated in the South, and the most vocal response to Bessent's comments came from the treasury secretary's home state, South Carolina.
In May, a group of more than 30 textile manufacturers from the state sent Bessent a letter expressing dismay that he appeared to view the industry as 'outdated and diminished.' They invited him to tour their high-tech facilities that used advanced robotics and artificial intelligence to mill cotton and perform quality control.
At a congressional hearing last month, Bessent was pressed on his comments by Rep. William R. Timmons IV, R-S.C.
The treasury secretary then clarified his comments, saying: 'Through good tariff policy, we can make sure these existing businesses can grow and thrive, especially in the high end. And again, anyone who has survived has done it through innovation, hard work.'
The Treasury Department declined to make Bessent available for an interview. The Treasury secretary has yet to respond to the letters or invitations to visit the textile plants in South Carolina.
A spokesperson for Bessent said he intended to travel to the state at some point. He is expected to meet with representatives from the textile industry in Washington next month.
A modernized South Carolina sector
Parkdale's factory in Gaffney produces 1.7 million miles of yarn every day. Parts of the operation are run by fully automated robotic carts that are adorned with blue lights and zip across the factory floor moving bundles of cotton. The bundles are delivered to machines that spin them into the materials that eventually go into products such as Hanes underwear and cotton swabs.
'This is where I think he got misaligned a little bit,' Warlick said of Bessent, who grew up near Myrtle Beach and recently sold his home in Charleston for $18.25 million. 'This is not the textile industry of your father or your grandfather.'
The company, which has its headquarters in North Carolina, is one of the world's largest producers of spun yarn and the largest consumer of cotton in the United States. It is working hard to develop innovations, including a way to make polyester fiber biodegradable, but has had to close several U.S. plants in recent years because of rising energy costs and competition from foreign companies.
At Greenwood Mills, in central South Carolina, cotton from across the Southeast is spun into yarn that is turned into rugged fabrics used in U.S. military uniforms, workwear and automotive upholstery.
Jay Self, the president of the company, which was founded in 1889, said the pandemic experience was a reminder that the American textile industry should not be ceded to China and allowed to go extinct.
'My company, as well as others, pivoted and retooled to meet the needs of this country,' said Self, whose fabrics end up in clothing sold by Dickies and Carhartt. 'We're not just a textile company. We're a U.S. manufacturing company. Manufacturing jobs build this town that I live in.'
Self said that the Trump administration's tariffs had generally been beneficial so far but that more needed to be done to ensure that the Western Hemisphere textile supply chain could compete with Asia.
Survival of the fittest T-Shirts
Despite the technological advancements of the U.S. textile industry, the low cost of labor in Asia means that the apparel supply chain is likely to remain global -- at least until cutting and sewing can be automated.
It appears unlikely, however, that the Trump administration will be investing in such technology. Speaking to reporters in New Jersey last month, Trump said his focus was on domestic production of computers, tanks and microchips.
'The textiles, you know I'm not looking to make T-shirts, to be honest. I'm not looking to make socks,' Trump said. 'We can do that very well in other locations.'
The apparel industry tends to agree. Stephen Lamar, president of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, argues that many of Trump's blanket tariffs on imports should be scaled back because it is unrealistic to expect American manufacturers to make shirts and shoes at a competitive price domestically.
'We're not going to be able to bring the apparel and footwear industries back to the United States at scale,' Lamar said. 'A lot of people talk about how they want more 'Made in U.S.A.' apparel, but they're not willing to pay the prices for apparel that is made in U.S.A.'
A protectionism puzzle
Policymakers face difficult political choices as they prop up sectors like steel and aluminum while industries such as textiles languish.
South Carolina's governor, Henry McMaster, said in a statement that while he believed that the Trump administration was not overlooking the textile industry, many sectors were driving the future of the state's economy.
'Thanks to the administration's tireless efforts, we are creating more high-paying jobs than ever before and building South Carolina's economy of the future -- which ranges from airplanes to automobiles to high-tech textile manufacturing,' McMaster said.
And Navarro suggested that American textile manufacturers could boom again. In an interview, he argued that new technology could help reduce labor costs and help the industry evolve and modernize.
'Thinking about textiles in the rearview mirror as a high labor content kind of sweatshop endeavor really ignores the advances we've had in manufacturing,' Navarro said. 'A lot of textiles can benefit from high technology, just like automobiles and rockets.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.