How Trump’s Plastic Rollback Threatened
Sustainable Fashion Growth

.

Over the past decade, sustainable fashion has shifted from niche to mainstream. Today, 74 % of consumers say environmental concerns influence their purchases, and 79 % want an easy way to spot truly green brands [1]. At the same time, sustainable products now account for 17 % of total retail sales—yet they capture 32 % of the market’s growth—and between 2020 and 2025 they expanded 2.7 times faster than conventional goods [1,2]. This momentum has driven many ethical fashion labels to invest heavily in compostable mailers, recycled fabrics, and full circular‑economy models.

But in June 2018, the Trump administration’s Executive Order 13834, “Efficient Federal Operations”, reversed Obama‑era limits on single‑use plastics in federal agencies, citing cost and “operational efficiency,” and in doing so sent a chilling signal to the broader market: plastic was back in favor [3]. Today, the collision of federal deregulation, state‑level bans, trade‑war tariffs, and surging consumer demand poses both profound challenges and unique opportunities for fashion brands committed to real sustainability.

The Trump Administration’s Plastics Rollback

From its first pages, EO 13834 [3] prioritized waste reduction and cost savings across federal buildings, vehicles, and operations—but without mandating the use of biodegradable alternatives in place of conventional plastic utensils, cups, and packaging. Although the Order applied only to federal operations, its ripples reached every corner of the supply chain. Brands that had allocated extra budget for compostable shipping were suddenly faced with a stark question: why bear that premium when the U.S. government itself was reverting to petroleum‑based plastics?

Consumer Demand vs. Plastic Policy

This rollback clashed with what the data showed consumers wanted. Shorr’s 2025 Sustainable Packaging Consumer Report—based on a survey of 2,016 U.S. adults—found that over half (54 %) had deliberately chosen items with eco‑friendly packaging in the prior six months, and an overwhelming 90 % said they are more likely to buy from a brand if its packaging is green [4].

Millennials (59 %) and Gen Z (56 %) drove this trend most strongly, but Gen X (52 %) and even Boomers (49 %) joined the chorus. Meanwhile, 43 % of all consumers are willing to pay a premium for packaging that aligns with their values, and 39 % have switched brands because a competitor offered more sustainable options [5].

The cost pressures did not stop at packaging. Trade‑war tariffs on plant‑based materials further inflated expenses for brands reliant on imported biopolymers and recycled papers. With compostable shipping running up to 20 % more than conventional plastic, many labels faced a brutal calculus: absorb higher costs and cut margins, raise retail prices and risk consumer backlash, or retreat to cheaper plastics to stay competitive [2]. 

For fast‑moving fashion houses operating on razor‑thin margins, the path of least resistance often seemed to be conventional packaging—even as global competitors in the European Union and China moved aggressively toward plastic bans and taxes.

Percentage of consumers willing to pay a premium for sustainable packaging

Shorr's 2025 Sustainable Packaging Consumer Report: Sustainable Shopping Preference.Source: Shor Hanchett Paper Company.

Global Context: Is the United States Falling Behind?

While the U.S. federal government loosened regulations, dozens of cities and at least seven states—California, New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, and Vermont—enacted their own single‑use plastic restrictions and extended producer responsibility schemes [5,6,7,8]. California’s SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, signed into law on June 30, 2022, stands out: by 2032 it mandates a 25 % reduction in single‑use plastic packaging, 65 % recycling rates for covered items, and 100 % recyclability or compostability of all primary through tertiary packaging [8,9]. In New York, the statewide ban on plastic bags and foam containers is already yielding results, with plastic bag litter down by over 50 % in some municipalities [8,10].

The regulatory tug‑of‑war is mirrored in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting. Investors poured record capital into sustainable fashion in 2023, with 79 % of institutional investors ranking ESG metrics as a top priority—a figure that has grown steadily since 2020 [11]. Brands touting compostable packaging in their annual sustainability disclosures suddenly found their “green claims” scrutinized against a federal backdrop that still favored plastics. Internationally, these brands are lauded for circular design, yet at home they face accusations of inconsistency. How do you reconcile compliance with California’s SB 54 and Oregons’s bans while also following a federal Order that frames plastics as “operationally efficient”? The result is a complex, costly compliance matrix that can drain resources and distract from genuine innovation.

Despite these headwinds, consumer momentum remains undeniable. By January 2025, sustainable products made up 17 % of the total U.S. retail market—up from 12 % in 2020—and accounted for 32 % of all growth, outpacing conventional items by 2.7 times [2]. The same year, nearly half of American shoppers (49 %) reported buying an eco‑friendly product in the past month, with one‑third (36 %) wanting to buy sustainably but unable to find available options [12,13].

Brands that have survived—and even thrived—through this political seesaw share several traits:

• First, they built deep supply‑chain partnerships to secure reliable sources of plant‑based and recycled inputs, insulating them from tariff shocks [14].
• Second, they embraced transparency, using QR codes and digital passports so consumers can trace packaging back to certified composters or recyclers [15].
• Third, they invested in consumer education, turning packaging into a touchpoint for brand values rather than just a shipping necessity [16,17,18].
• Finally, they lobbied proactively, supporting state‑level EPR legislation that mandates producer responsibility [19]—efforts now paying dividends in the form of level playing fields and shared recycling infrastructures.

Can Sustainable Fashion Thrive in an Era of Plastic Resurgence?

Looking ahead, the industry faces a choice: chase the cheapest plastic each time a federal administration shifts, or commit to a multi‑stakeholder approach that balances cost, compliance, and long‑term brand equity.

At AYA, we fall squarely in the latter camp. We believe true sustainability means using 100 % Pima cotton, sourcing dyes from natural pigments, and shipping in compostable packaging—even if it costs us more in the short term. 

The era of excuses is over: we must either commit to genuine sustainability or become just another chapter in the story of fast fashion that forgot its footprint

Authors & Researchers

Jordy Munarriz

Environmental Engineer with a master's degree in renewable energy and a specialization in sustainability. Researcher and writer, he combines his technical knowledge with his passion for environmental communication, addressing topics of ecological impact and sustainable solutions in the textile industry and beyond.