How brands and advocates are rethinking textile waste in the Trump era

The Government Accountability Office in December released a report based on an administrative request to look into the extent and effect of textile waste in the U.S. It also examined the nascent federal efforts to address the issue, with the Environmental Protection Agency having plans to develop a national textile recycling strategy within five to 10 years. But President Donald Trump and his administration are unlikely to pass any sweeping regulations or directives that would accelerate those efforts. In response, advocates are taking the conversation to the state level or looking for common ground with pro-business lawmakers around domestic production that could advance circularity.

Some states are taking proactive steps. California passed Senate Bill 707 last year, which requires brands to participate in collecting and recycling their products at the end of their useful lives. In New York, the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act is likely to receive another push after lawmakers ran out of time to move it forward last session. On the federal level, the American Circular Textiles lobbying group is continuing to push in Congress for grants and incentives that would encourage more domestic manufacturing and recycling.

Rachel Kibbe, CEO of the lobbying organization American Circular Textiles, which advocates for circular policies, compares the textile waste conversation to what unfolded a decade ago around e-commerce. Legacy companies may be hesitant to commit to something new and costly, but consumers are heading in that direction — and the discussion around it is growing. Consumer spending data provider Consumer Edge found in December that resale is growing faster than retail and made up about 6% of apparel, accessories and footwear spending in 2024.

“People are asking the right questions: ‘Do I give my stuff to a thrift store? Do I throw it out? Where does it go? Can it be recycled?’ However, there are no answers that anyone is completely happy with because the issue is complicated,” she said. “Policy is where everyone is leaning to solve these problems, but there has to be an incredible amount of lawmaker education to make that happen.”

With federal action unlikely and a long road ahead for more state policies, here’s how brands and sustainability advocates are looking to address textile recycling.

Physical challenges

At present, most unwanted apparel winds up in landfills. Even the portion that does get recycled isn’t necessarily made into anything new; the European Environment Agency says that only 1% of the world’s textiles get recycled into new products. Emily Mikhaiel, co-founder of the sustainable fashion brand Nazeerah, got into fashion after a career in environmental law. Her line is made from material that can biodegrade, as much of the problem with textile waste comes from the fact that clothes cannot be easily recycled.

Zippers and buttons require removal, and treatments meant to make fabric last longer or more durable can prevent the underlying fabric from being recycled. Denim, for example, often has viscose and polyester in it. This is partly why less than 1% of the world’s textiles get recycled. “It’s the brand’s responsibility to make sure that whatever happens to their product, it can go be recycled at these facilities,” Mikhaiel said.

Beyond the issues with the items themselves, Mikhaiel said the country lacks the infrastructure to handle textile recycling at scale. And beyond that, there’s little demand for expensive recycled product. “Recycling facilities need to exist, and they need to be bringing that good from the dump,” she said. “Then they need someone to sell it to at the end.” However, creating such efforts is expensive and slow-going.

While the European Union has a textile recycling mandate for member states that went into effect on Jan. 1, recycling lobbies there are calling for more support to build infrastructure.

James Reinhart, CEO of secondhand apparel marketplace ThredUp, also said that garments’ manufacturing methods prevent them from being recycled appropriately. However, he sees potential solutions that could mimic those in other industries, like the extender producer responsibility laws already used for electronics.

ThredUp supported SB707 in California, which will require companies that make $1 million or more a year in the state to start paying into a system for the collection and recycling of apparel. The company, which has spent over 10 years collecting and reselling used clothing, is looking at what it could do to help with these efforts. The bill calls for a producer responsibility organization, or a nonprofit that helps retailers and producers deal with the physical producers. Though it’s still early in the conversation, ThredUp has floated the idea of establishing a direct relationship with the PRO to be an official service provider that can help the brands collect used goods and resell them or develop other collection programs.

While ThredUp supports further federal efforts, it considers state programs like this an important first step.

“These things don’t move as quickly as anybody would like,” Reinhart said, “but I do think the role of government is meaningful.”

A pending New York solution

Brands like ThredUp, Patagonia, Eileen Fisher and Rothy’s have lent their support to a proposal in New York called the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act.

The Fashion Act aims to create that baseline. It would require companies with more than $100 million in annual revenue that do business in the state to share the environmental impacts of their operations and supply chains, such as greenhouse gas emissions and management of toxic chemicals. The act would also require brands to increase their use of recyclable materials and set targets to reduce environmental and social harm in their supply chains. Companies that fail to adhere to the proposal could be fined up to 2% of their annual revenue.

Isabel Friedman, an advocacy associate with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group pushing for the act, said it’s unlikely that recycling efforts can take place at scale without regulations to curb overproduction and clean up the textile supply chain. “It’s not just about looking at textile waste or the end of life of a garment,” she said. “We need policies that establish a baseline for environmental regulations across the whole lifecycle.”

Friedman said The Fashion Act cuts to the heart of one of the biggest issues preventing a more sustainable and circular fashion industry: there’s simply not enough data to know what brands are doing. “One of the big challenges is that the industry is so fragmented,” she said. “Most companies don’t know what’s going on in their supply chains, and when you don’t know, it’s much harder to regulate or address problems effectively.”

Friedman said that putting the proposal in New York is effective because of its connection to the global fashion ecosystem. Brands that sell in New York sell all over the world, and it’s unlikely they would bifurcate operations to serve just one state. “It’s looking at textile waste as a symptom and going to the root cause,” she said.

The Fashion Act has yet to be formally introduced in the 2025-2026 session. But it did get voted out of the state Assembly’s Ways and Means Committee last year, giving supporters hope there is enough support to bring it further this year.

Silver linings

Beyond the state focuses, some are willing to find the Venn diagram between pro-America policies and less wasteful fashion on a federal level. Kibbe at ACT is pushing for the Americas Act, which would provide grants and incentives for companies to spur more textile reuse and recycling.

The programs could help offset the costs of building circular textile manufacturing infrastructure, for example, and also create jobs that boost local economies. While hardly creating a national supply chain, Kibbe said the proposal works because it incentivizes, rather than penalizes, companies while encouraging domestic production.

“This ties into broader goals like reviving the U.S. economy—whether it’s growing cotton here in the U.S. or operating warehouses domestically,” she said.

But these efforts are still nascent, and Kibbe said they won’t go anywhere unless brands take a seat at the table. At present, industries like pharmaceuticals, electronics manufacturing, insurance and real estate dominate the lobbying conversation. Even a company as large and powerful as Nike spent just $930,000 on federal lobbying efforts in 2024.

Kibbe said if companies don’t take an active role in discussing regulations, they may not like the result.

“It’s up to boards and shareholders to demand that brands support common-sense policy measures,” she said. “Whether it’s sustainability or creating manufacturing jobs, we need businesses to stop waiting for someone else to take the lead.”