Is the U.S. Government Slowing Down Fashion? America’s Legislative and Executive Efforts to Regulate the Runaway Fast-Fashion Industry

1. The Issue

Fashion is a form of self-expression that tells the world who we are through the garments we choose to wear. But what exactly are we expressing when our $5 T-shirts are sewn by underpaid immigrant workers in Los Angeles, come from an industry that creates millions of tons of textile waste each year, and are designed to suck you into consumption cycles? In 1929, the average middle-class American woman owned a total of 9 outfits; today, that number has risen to 103. Within a century, industrialization, rising disposable income, and the invention of synthetic fabrics created a new market for fashion, evolving it from a slow, two-season craft into a global enterprise producing 52 micro-seasons in a year. How did a once-glamorous industry transform into a cycle of disposability? The answer lies in fast fashion—a relatively new $150 billion industry is projected to double by 2032 despite widespread awareness of its destructive impacts.

Fast fashion is rapid, mass-produced, and inexpensive clothing designed to keep pace with the media’s microtrends. The online marketplace driven by social media cycles pressures consumers to continuously refresh their wardrobes. Furthermore,overbuying is exacerbated when low-quality products wear out after only seven to ten uses. In the United States, this contributed to declining recycling rates (from 30% in the late 20th century to 15.8% today) and helped brands such as SHEIN secure 50% of the U.S. fast fashion market. Yet while 94% of Gen Z consumers report supporting sustainability, 62% continue to buy fast fashion monthly. This demand fuels a global “race to the bottom,” in which corporations compete to maximize profit margins by using the cheapest fabrics and paying workers as little as possible (85% of such sweatshops in L.A. had pay violations). It is an industry that accounts for 10% of global carbon emissions, 20% of global wastewater, and produces 92 million tons of textile waste annually, much of which is sent to landfills and disproportionately affects BIPOC communities.

It has become a growing problem in the United States due to its destructive environmental impact, unethical labor practices, consumer deception, and global supply chain risks. The United States plays a central role in this system as one of the world’s largest importers and consumers of fast fashion. Domestically, regulators struggle to enforce fair labor standards, prevent greenwashing, or address growing environmental waste; abroad, American consumption contributes to labor exploitation and massive textile dumping in the Global South. Only 4 of the world’s 250 largest fashion companies meet UN-aligned emission-reduction targets, and just 24% of major brands disclose no information about their decarbonization efforts (over half show no measurable progress). Given these consequences, there was an apparent need for coordinated government action to regulate the industry by enforcing supply-chain transparency, reducing waste, preventing consumer deception, and improving working conditions for workers. Fast fashion’s rise is a story about environmental injustice, exploitative domestic manufacturing, and deceptive business practices, as much as it is about the clothes we wear. It prompts a larger question: how can the government work to regulate this fast-moving industry?

2. Analysis

   1. Trade and Business Regulation

In the United States, efforts to regulate “trade” and labour practices in fast fashion have been undertaken by both the Legislative and Executive branches at the federal and state levels. Trade issues include the exchange of goods, the regulation of corporations, and business-customer relations (when they become deceptive). However, because the issue is relatively recent, these efforts are often uncoordinated, and some are still in the proposal stage. 

Trade legislation enacted by Congress plays a central role in setting standards for how brands source materials and market their products in the United States. Enforcement is then overseen by the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency in the Executive branch. Congress empowered the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) through the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58) to prohibit deceptive marketing practices. The FTC Act was prompted by the broader 19th-century antitrust movement to address industrial monopolistic power in the Gilded Age; in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed the act to prevent unfair methods of competition and to protect consumers. This legislation continues to protect fashion consumers in the modern era. In 2022, the FTC Act was used against the fast fashion company “Fashion Nova” because it illegally blocked negative customer reviews, misrepresenting the quality of their products. Additionally, the FTC Act has been cited in multiple court cases against fashion companies accused of “greenwashing.” It has been used against Kohl’s and Walmart in 2022 for misleadingly marketing rayon textiles as “eco-friendly bamboo.” Such trade protections help curb deceptive business practices that fuel the destructive cycles of overconsumption, thereby promoting environmental degradation and labor exploitation.

With the influx of cheap apparel from Asia in the 21st century, the government plays an active role in regulating the textile import quotas and tariffs to establish a level of transparency within the global supply chain; trade agreements require the collaboration of the President and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to negotiate agreements with foreign countries. Then the USTR consults with Congress for approval (so Congress retains ultimate constitutional authority over trade). Past trade agreements such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) reduced tariffs on apparel made in Mexico using U.S. fabrics, which were essential for companies to maintain low production costs. On the other hand, though controversial, Trump’s recent tariffs, especially on China where a majority of labor and raw materials are sourced, have raised clothing prices; this has forced many consumers to buy less and hold onto garments longer. Some argue that as a result, brands may choose to manufacture in the United States using higher-quality materials and increase prices, thereby curbing fast-fashion consumption.

2. Labor Legislation and Workers’ Rights

When clothes say “Made in USA,” the tag refers to a promise made by the Federal Trade Commission that all goods were made domestically through a standardized manufacturing process where employees were treated fairly and earned a fair wage regardless of their race, gender, or immigration status (as outlined by the Department of Labor). 

At the federal level, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes the national minimum wage, overtime pay, and rules for child labor. This law was enacted in 1938 during the New Deal and was largely successful in curbing industrial exploitation and helping stabilize the economy during the Great Depression; however, in the modern day, the FLSA struggles to fully protect modern fast fashion garment workers. Investigations have shown widespread noncompliance in U.S. garment factories: brands deliberately evade liability by outsourcing work to layers of subcontractors, making it difficult to determine who is legally accountable.

The FLSA has been the basis for numerous lawsuits against domestic garment manufacturers, particularly in Los Angeles in 2019, where New York Times investigators found that factories producing clothing for Fashion Nova paid workers as little as $2.77 an hour. Demands for reform by advocacy groups and the U.S. Department of Labor led to changes at the local level. California sought to close loopholes in the FLSA by enacting the Garment Worker Protection Act in 2022, which bans piece-rate pay (wages determined by the number of garments a worker produces rather than the time spent making them) and holds brands legally responsible for wage theft across their supply chains.

However, some argue that labor regulations have an unintended consequence of companies offshoring labor to foreign countries with looser rules, such as China, in order to continue employing cheap labor. Not only may this promote more exploitative labor conditions internationally, but it may also weaken the domestic garment production industry, as businesses instead hire fewer workers, reduce hours, cut benefits, or adopt automation. One may argue that this government intervention leads to fewer job opportunities for immigrants or low-skilled workers. To counteract this, Desai introduces a hybrid domestic manufacturing model, supported by reshoring incentives, federal subsidies for sustainable American factories, and the enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA,” enacted in 2021, which blocks imports made with forced Uyghur labor in Xinjiang, China). These measures could make domestic production more competitive while ensuring ethical labor conditions, which is something current legislation has yet to fully achieve.

3. Environmental Protections

Environmental regulation of fast fashion at the federal and state levels exhibits significant gaps in enforceable standards. At the federal level, executive agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitor textile waste and microplastic pollution, yet they currently lack the authority needed to mandate nationwide textile recycling or concretely require manufacturers to lessen environmental harms; only Congress can create those rules. Right now, there are a few bills being debated, but no fashion environmental protection legislation has been passed. The federal government relies on the FTC’s “Green Guides,” which were first issued in 1992 to prevent companies from making misleading environmental claims (like greenwashing). These guidelines have been cited in several high-profile enforcement actions, such as the 2022 Kohl’s and Walmart case. However, because the Green Guides are only guidelines rather than binding regulations, the FTC must rely on broader authority under the FTC Act, which significantly limits their reach.

In the absence of strong federal regulation, some states have begun proposing their own sustainability legislation. New York introduced the New York Fashion Act (Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act) to the New York State Legislature in October 2021 to enhance accountability for the fashion industry's environmental and labor practices. The bill was reintroduced in 2022 and 2023, with revisions to strengthen it, and seeks to mandate supply chain mapping, carbon and water reporting, and emissions-reduction targets for companies generating more than $100 million in revenue. If passed, the state attorney general could fine noncompliant companies up to 2% of their global revenue, with the funds directed to environmental justice programs. Meanwhile, California took it a step further by passing the Responsible Textile Recovery Act in 2024, which requires fashion companies to fund and manage systems of collecting and recycling textiles to reduce waste. By July 2026, producers must establish Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) and submit recycling and recovery plans to the state; penalties for non-compliance begin in 2030. These emerging state-level actions reflect the growing momentum toward regulating and holding the fast fashion industry accountable, but they also highlight the U.S. lack of federal involvement in legislating for and enforcing sustainable production. Without federal action to unify these efforts, environmental harms associated with fast fashion will continue to outpace current regulatory measures.

3. Conclusion

Looking ahead, the most effective path to fast fashion regulation will require coordinated federal action to unify labor laws, environmental protections, and trade regulations, as these areas are currently fragmented across agencies. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has emphasized that the EPA, FTC, CBP, and Department of Labor independently address aspects of textile waste and supply chains, resulting in duplication and inefficiency. State-level momentum in California and New York shows increasing political will to address these issues. But regulating businesses alone will not resolve the deeper problem. As Morgan’s research demonstrates, consumer behavior (such as rapid garment disposal, trend chasing, and expectations of low-cost novelty) drives the fast-fashion cycle as forcefully as corporate production strategies. For policy to be effective, it must target both supply and demand.

Federal policy should aim to shift consumer expectations and curb overconsumption through greater transparency, anti-greenwashing measures, and updates to the FTC’s Green Guides. As Denisova recommends, in addition to regulating corporate manufacturing, policy should be more cognizant of how influencers, advertisers, and media outlets drive consumer behavior. Future policies should require disclosures of sponsorships and advertising and promote restyling over continuous purchasing to reshape public expectations. Additionally, a practical long-term solution is to incentivize a hybrid domestic manufacturing model through reshoring subsidies, carbon-adjusted tariffs, and federal investment in sustainable textile infrastructure. These combined measures offer the most realistic path toward reversing the environmental and labor harms embedded in the fast-fashion industry. Fashion reform ensures that the narratives our clothing carries align with our values.

---

Works Cited

Abrams, Rachel. "Fashion Nova's Suppliers Were Paying Workers $2.77 an Hour." The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/fashion-nova-underpaid-workers.html. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"America Recycles Day." United States Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/america-recycles-day. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"An Overview of the Garment Worker Protection Act." DFeder Law, www.dfederlaw.com/articles/an-overview-of-the-garment-worker-protection-act/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

California Legislature. Senate Bill 707. California Legislative Information, 2023–2024 sess., leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB707. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Complying with the Made in USA Standard." Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-made-usa-standard. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Environmental Marketing." Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/environmental-marketing. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Exposing Sweatshop Conditions in LA's Fashion District." Huprich Law, www.huprichlaw.com/exposing-sweatshop-conditions-in-las-fashion-district/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Fashion Nova, LLC." Federal Trade Commission, Enforcement, Refunds, www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/fashion-nova-settlement. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Fashion Revolution: Big Brands and Decarbonisation." The Guardian, 1 Aug. 2024, www.theguardian.com/fashion/article/2024/aug/01/fashion-revolution-big-brands-decarbonisation-dkny-tom-ford-reebok. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Fast Fashion Policy." JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1kmj7g8.7. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Fast Fashion Statistics." Uniform Market, www.uniformmarket.com/statistics/fast-fashion-statistics. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Fast Fashion: Great for Your Wallet, Costly for the Planet." United States Government Accountability Office, Blog, www.gao.gov/blog/fast-fashion-great-your-wallet-costly-planet. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Fast Fashion." University of Pennsylvania Environmental Innovations Initiative, environment.upenn.edu/news-events/news/fast-fashion. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Green Guides." Federal Trade Commission, Legal Library, www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-guides. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

New York State Senate. Senate Bill S4746B. New York State Legislature, 2023 sess., www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S4746/amendment/B. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

Remy, Nathalie, et al. "Pulse of the Fashion Industry." Journal of Corporate Citizenship, no. 57, 2015, pp. 73–96. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.57.73. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Statistics About Fast Fashion Waste." Earth.org, earth.org/statistics-about-fast-fashion-waste/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Summary of the USMCA FTA: Textiles." International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce, www.trade.gov/summary-usmca-fta-textiles. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Textiles: Material-Specific Data." United States Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/textiles-material-specific-data. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

The Fashion Act. thefashionact.org/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"The State of Fashion 2026 Report: Tariffs, Trade, and the US Market." Business of Fashion, 1 Jan. 2026, www.businessoffashion.com/articles/global-markets/the-state-of-fashion-2026-report-tariffs-trade-us-market/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

The True Cost. Directed by Andrew Morgan, Untold Creative, 2015. YouTube, uploaded by [Channel Name], youtu.be/OXYMi2h7ITI. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

Tran, Lisa. "Fast Fashion and Sustainability." Journal of Corporate Citizenship, no. 45, 2012, pp. 53–73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.45.53. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. "Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." DOL, www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

United States v. Kohl's, Inc. Federal Trade Commission, Legal Library, Cases and Proceedings, Case No. 2023171, www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2023171-kohls-inc-us-v. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"What Is Fast Fashion?" The Good Trade, www.thegoodtrade.com/features/what-is-fast-fashion/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.

"Why Fashion Needs to Be More Sustainable." Columbia Climate School, State of the Planet, 10 June 2021, news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/06/10/why-fashion-needs-to-be-more-sustainable/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.