Footwear brands navigate uncertainty after latest tariffs flip-flop
Shoe brands, which are out billions of dollars from U.S.-imposed duties, are trying to find their footing after recent tariffs whiplash.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, ruling that his sweeping tariffs last year — issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 — were unconstitutional. But celebration was short-lived for retail companies, as a few hours later, Trump announced across-the-board tariffs of 10%, under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The next day, he said he would work to increase these to 15%. The new tariffs expire after 150 days, unless extended by Congress.
The about-face is a significant challenge for any industry, but particularly for footwear, which depends on manufacturing abroad in countries like Indonesia and China. Some 99% of footwear sold in the U.S. today is imported, according to the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, a trade and business association representing more than 500 U.S. companies. Stuck with mounting costs from tariffs, brands like Nike, Pashion and Crocs spent the last year raising prices, rerouting manufacturing or putting off product launches. For these footwear companies, the Supreme Court decision was a welcome relief — but the extra tariffs are now a new hurdle.
“It’s going to be an ongoing cycle that, unfortunately, we felt was a little bit behind us,” Logan Bird, the CEO of Mephisto USA, told Modern Retail. Mephisto owns its own factories in France and Portugal and raised prices to combat the price of U.S. tariffs. “Now, we’re going to have to monitor [the situation] and think about what this means for our business for the long term,” Bird said.
An ‘unprecedented’ time for footwear
As recently as several months ago, footwear and apparel brands said tariffs would negatively impact their businesses by millions, or even billions, of dollars. In September, Nike said it expected $1.5 billion in gross incremental costs, on an annualized basis, because of tariffs — up 50% from its previous estimate in June. In August, Under Armour said it expected tariffs to cut its annual profitability in half from a year ago. It also announced that it anticipated an additional $100 million in tariff-related costs in fiscal 2026.
In 2024, FDRA members paid some $3 billion in tariffs; in 2025, that shot up to $6.2 billion, largely because of the IEEPA duties, Matt Priest, president of the FDRA, told Modern Retail. “The president doubled our duties in one year, which was unprecedented in history,” he said.
Priest has consistently pushed for the Trump administration to scrap tariffs. On Friday, he issued a statement calling the Supreme Court decision “an important step toward creating a more predictable and competitive environment for American businesses and consumers.” By removing the tariffs, he continued, “The footwear industry can redirect billions of dollars toward innovation, job creation and affordability for families across the country.”
Speaking to Modern Retail a few days later, Priest said he was still relieved about the Supreme Court decision. “We’ll take the win on IEEPA, because if the alternative had become true, it would be pretty much game over, from a tariff perspective, because Trump would have been given carte blanche authority,” he said in a phone interview. But Priest also acknowledged that members “still have a lot of questions,” especially around refunds, as well as the Section 122 tariffs.
At the moment, Priest is waiting for guidance from the lower courts on how to solicit a refund. “Hopefully the administration won’t fight that process,” Priest said. In the meantime, the FDRA has encouraged members to work with their legal counsel to “ensure that they’re strategizing the best way.” “Some have already filed lawsuits, and others have decided not to,” Priest said. The FDRA is also keeping tabs on the government’s ongoing Section 301 investigations into market practices in China and Brazil, which could trigger more tariffs.
“We’re trying to figure this all out,” Priest said. “What we’ve consistently coached our members on is that you have to have a lot of patience for all of these things to come into focus. That’s hard to do when you’re sourcing billions of pairs of shoes per year for our consumers.”
Shoe brands weigh next steps
Mephisto’s Bird sent a note to his global president after the Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing there were still unknowns. Bird is grateful that “checks and balances came into play” with the IEEPA decision, he shared. “But part of the broader question is: Will this go to Congress, and will a lot of these tariffs be voted on?” he asked. “We’re still in that evaluation phase. … Our goal is not to have a knee-jerk reaction [or] to automatically think that we’re going to have to change something immediately.”
That said, a new 10% or 15% tariff would still impact the business, Bird said. “I’m bringing in an airship and a container, almost on a weekly basis, across the ocean,” he said. “An additional 10% tariff does add up very quickly. So, if there are additional tariffs coming in, … you have to look at that, because everything impacts the bottom line.”
NiK Kacy, who owns and operates an eponymous gender-free shoe brand, manufactures their footwear in Mexico. In March 2025, Trump slapped a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico, leaving Kacy to deal with mounting business expenses. The White House has said Canada and Mexico will be exempt from the new Section 122 tariffs, due to their North American trade pact with the U.S.
Even so, navigating tariffs has been a “huge learning curve,” said Kacy, who has tried everything from holding clearance sales to partnering with other footwear brands to raise cash. “Even if somebody ordered shoes today, we still don’t know where we’re going to be [with a tariff rate] when the shoes ship,” they said. “It leaves all of us in a constant scramble to figure it out. All of the business owners in this country are just getting screwed.”
“Almost on a weekly basis, I’m on the verge of [deciding] whether I should close my business,” Kacy said. “It gets to a point where you have to figure out: Is my mental health more important? But also, do I want to give up on my dream?”