US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of 300% on foreign countries and companies that decline to invest in the United States, according to a report by WWD.

The threat, if translated into policy, would dwarf the tariff levels apparel and footwear importers have absorbed since the current round of trade actions began. For softgoods brands sourcing from Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and China, a 300% ad valorem duty tied to manufacturing investment decisions would effectively close the US market to non-investing suppliers.

What does the threat actually commit to?

So far, this is a presidential threat, not a published tariff action. WWD's report carries no accompanying Federal Register notice, Harmonized Tariff Schedule line change, or effective date. Brands should treat it as a signal of negotiating posture rather than a dutiable event — while recognising that prior threats in this trade cycle have moved to implementation within weeks.

The distinction matters for sourcing desks. A threat requires scenario planning; a proclamation requires immediate customs exposure modelling and price renegotiation with vendors.

Who carries the exposure in the supply chain?

The measure as described targets countries and enterprises, not product categories. That framing puts the compliance burden at the tier of the manufacturer and its ownership structure, not the HS code. Three consequences follow for apparel supply chains:

• Contract manufacturers shipping to US brands could face the duty based on their own investment posture, not their customers'.
• Brands with vertically integrated Asian suppliers would need to audit whether any entity in the chain holds US production assets.
• Nearshore suppliers in Central America and Mexico, already favoured under regional trade programmes, would gain a structural advantage if the threat hardens into policy.

No country list, investment threshold or qualifying investment definition accompanied the statement, WWD reported.

How should sourcing teams respond now?

Until an implementing action appears, the practical steps are contractual and informational. Sourcing directors should review force majeure and tariff-pass-through clauses in current vendor agreements, since a 300% duty would fall outside most existing tariff-sharing formulas. Footwear and apparel importers should also map which of their core factories have any US footprint — owned cutting facilities, joint ventures, or licensing arrangements — as those relationships could become the difference between viable and unviable US programmes.

The threat also raises the stakes on the nearshoring decisions many US brands have already made. Suppliers that invested in Western Hemisphere capacity in anticipation of tariff pressure would be positioned to benefit from any investment-linked tariff regime.

The decision the news forces is this: sourcing and compliance teams must now track US investment criteria as a tariff variable alongside country of origin, and decide whether to require investment-posture disclosure in factory onboarding questionnaires before Washington defines the rules.