The United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) has released a sourcing report that highlights unexpected standouts among supplier countries and points to a possible rebound in China's share of US apparel sourcing.

The report, covered by WWD, surfaces sourcing destinations that have gained traction outside the usual headline performers, while simultaneously signalling that China — long the largest supplier of apparel to the US market — may be regaining ground after several years of share erosion to lower-cost Asian alternatives.

For sourcing directors, the dual finding matters. Diversification away from China has been the dominant strategy since the tariff rounds of 2018-2019, with orders shifting to Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and Cambodia. A China rebound would complicate that playbook and reopen decisions on capacity allocation, cost engineering and tariff exposure.

What does the report actually flag?

According to WWD's coverage of the USFIA findings:

• Several supplier countries emerge as unexpected standouts in US fashion sourcing, beyond the destinations most commonly cited in diversification strategies.
• The data indicates a possible rebound in China's position as a sourcing origin, reversing or slowing the multi-year decline in its share of US apparel imports.
• The findings come from USFIA, the Washington-based trade association whose annual sourcing reports track where US fashion brands and retailers are placing production.

WWD reported the findings; the underlying sourcing data comes from the USFIA report itself. The precise order volumes, country rankings and percentage shifts are set out in the full USFIA publication.

Why a China rebound matters for sourcing desks

China's share of US apparel imports has declined steadily since the Section 301 tariff escalation, pushing brands to build dual and multi-country supply chains. Any reversal of that trend forces a re-examination of the assumptions behind those decisions — particularly whether cost, capacity and speed advantages in China are outweighing tariff and geopolitical risk in current order books.

For compliance teams, a China rebound also reactivates scrutiny queues that had been wound down: UFLPR force-labour traceability for cotton-containing goods, customs documentation and tariff classification exposure on China-origin production.

What should sourcing teams do with this?

The decision the report forces is a portfolio one. Sourcing directors should reassess whether their China exposure — reduced or hedged over the past five years — still matches the risk appetite set at board level, and whether the unexpected standouts identified by USFIA warrant qualification work as secondary or tertiary origins.

Compliance leads, in turn, should confirm that any rebound in China-origin volume carries current audit coverage, cotton-origin documentation and tariff modelling before orders scale.