_0.png)
Opinion from the center
I’ve read and written a lot about the different perspectives on Trump’s tariff policy—arguments for and against protectionism, free trade, national security risks, consumer cost, relationships with allies. In general, the right focuses on security risks and bringing back American jobs. The left focuses on crumbling relationships with our allies. Both focus on the increased costs to consumers.
But there’s a perspective I’ve noticed missing from commentary: human rights.
I was reading an Associated Press (Left bias) article about increased prices of sneakers, jeans, and other clothing from tariffs, when it struck me that why these items are so cheap wasn’t addressed beyond, “Working with foreign factories has kept labor costs down for U.S. companies in the fashion trade.” That is a sanitized way of saying much of the textile supply chain takes place in countries with lax labor laws and often employs child labor.
It’s a common misconception that only inexpensive fast fashion brands like Shein and Temu use sweatshops. While it’s difficult to prove which brands do and do not use them, it’s widely believed that most brands do, including Gap, H&M, Nike, Adidas, Lululemon, Disney, Sketchers, Urban Outfitters, Victoria’s Secret, ASOS, Zara—the list goes on.
I gave a TedX Talk on sweatshops in 2019, encouraging listeners to vote for the world they want to see by thrifting or buying American-made or fair trade. For over a year, I exclusively bought American-made clothing. But it soon became impractical.
In the US, our clothes can come at little cost to us, but not just because of “free trade.” The sweatshops they’re made in violate safety codes and pay less than minimum wage, forcing most workers to live off under $1 a day. This is yet another example of America demonstrating a “human rights for me, but not for thee” attitude (see the history of the CIA).
In the 1960s, the US manufactured 95% of clothes worn by Americans. Now the number is roughly 3%.
For months before and after I gave the TedX Talk, I went into stores and checked every tag to find out where it was made and assembled and then, of course, the clothes had to fit and be relatively affordable. Today, I buy nearly all of my “new” clothes secondhand, and the other half of my closet consists of hand-me-downs (thanks for the band t-shirts, dad!).
When spreading awareness about the conditions of sweatshops, the most common objection I heard was that third-world economies run off of sweatshop labor and eliminating them would upend the US and other countries’ economies. There are 40 million garment factory workers in the world. Nearly 1 in 6 people worldwide will work in the fashion industry at some point, making it the most labor-dependent industry in modern history.
It’s true that eliminating sweatshops could cripple economies. It’s also true that we should not be okay with millions of people risking their lives and health, often breathing in toxic chemicals and enduring verbal and physical abuse, so that we can have a cheaper pair of jeans. The solution I proposed was advocating for better conditions. Boycotts can slowly drive change, which would give economies time to adjust to the new consumer demands.
There is no perfect policy solution to eliminate the abuse of workers, but it will take checks and balances from consumers, governments and corporations. Not only should consumers encourage businesses to make ethical choices by threatening to take their business elsewhere but they should encourage governments to legally or economically crack down on corporations that use sweatshops. From there corporations will have a few options: they can increase US manufacturing, they can work with governments abroad to increase compliance with labor laws or own and reform their own supply chain. One possible way for the government to encourage this shift is through tariffs.
To return to our current tariff situation. Is Trump moving more erratically than I’d like? Yes. He’s also putting tariffs on islands inhabited only by penguins, and it’s unclear where he’s getting the numbers he says constitute trade barriers. There are potential upsides, though.
I’m not trying to convince anyone that tariffs are good policy or that we can return to 1960s America, and I don’t think the self-proclaimed “America First” president cares about the 40 million garment workers across the world. But I also don’t think it would be so bad if we brought some manufacturing jobs back with stricter labor laws (soon to be automated anyways), and if clothes from other countries were a bit more expensive, causing people to consume less.
US consumers buy 80 billion pieces of new clothing every year. That’s 400 times more than what we bought two decades ago. The leather industry alone is the second-highest polluting industry in the world. Ideally, merely listing these facts would inspire people to cut back their consumption, but we all know it won’t. If people can’t afford to overconsume due to tariffs, they will have to learn to mend their clothes, repair their shoes, and rewear the same outfit to special occasions (gasp). Not only is this how many low-income people already live, but it can help cultivate a much-needed sense of community in middle-class suburbs when people create relationships with local tailors and shoe repairmen.
I do have concerns that tariffs will raise costs on necessities like food. I’m aware many can’t cut back on their spending and that the cost of living is high. As I said, I’m not making the case that tariffs are good, I’m merely pointing out a (potentially) positive effect that has been largely overlooked in the media—that disrupting our reliance on sweatshops could be an opportunity to improve global human rights.
Clare Ashcraft is the Bridging Coordinator & Media Analyst (Center bias) This piece was reviewed and edited by News Analyst & Social Media Manager Malayna Bizier (Right bias) and News Editor & Product Manager Evan Wagner (Lean Left bias).
