Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do other major US political campaigns disclose or report manufacturing origins of campaign merchandise?
Executive Summary
Major U.S. campaigns vary in how they disclose the manufacturing origins of merchandise: some publicly emphasize union-made or American-manufactured supply chains, while widespread mislabeling and foreign sellers on online marketplaces have undermined transparency and market fairness. Federal guidance from the FTC establishes a high bar — products must be “all or virtually all” U.S.-made to claim “Made in USA,” and enforcement attention has increased amid disputes between domestic factories and cheaper overseas sellers.
1. Why the question matters: marketplaces, mislabeling, and the squeeze on U.S. shops
Campaign merchandise drives small but symbolic revenue streams and brand identity, and the presence of foreign-based sellers listing campaign goods as U.S.-made has real economic consequences for domestic suppliers. Reporting shows over 90% of bestselling Trump and Harris flags and hats on a major online marketplace had seller addresses in China, with many items mislabelled as “Made in the USA,” producing lost sales and heightened competition pressure for U.S. factories [1]. At the same time, long-established domestic manufacturers like Unionwear report surges in demand and an ability to fulfill union-made, U.S.-manufactured orders for multiple major candidates, highlighting a two-tier market in which verified domestic supply coexists with cheaper, opaque imports [2] [3].
2. How campaigns publicly describe origin: prominence of “Made in USA” and union claims
Several campaigns and suppliers make explicit claims about sourcing: some campaigns prioritize union-made and American-manufactured goods, and trusted domestic factories advertise long-standing relationships producing hats and apparel for major presidential candidates [4] [3]. Those claims matter politically and commercially because consumers often want to support domestic labor or align with a campaign’s stated values. The domestic manufacturers’ accounts of producing thousands of hats per day demonstrate capacity to meet campaign demand, while simultaneously showing why campaigns highlight provenance when they can: it signals economic patriotism and avoids reputational risk tied to mislabeled imports [2] [3].
3. The regulatory yardstick: FTC standards and enforcement exposure
The Federal Trade Commission’s standard for “Made in USA” claims requires a product be “all or virtually all” U.S.-made; that guidance frames what would count as an accurate disclosure and what would risk enforcement [5] [6]. FTC materials explain the complexity of determining U.S. origin — the share of U.S. content, whether foreign inputs are remote, and how the final assembly occurs all factor into compliance decisions [7] [5]. Campaigns and vendors that advertise U.S. origin but rely on foreign components or foreign-based sellers risk running afoul of this enforcement policy; that risk partly motivates campaigns to state provenance preferences or to source from unionized domestic firms when practicable [5].
4. Conflicting realities: public claims, platform listings, and enforcement gaps
The landscape shows conflict between public commitments and marketplace realities: campaigns may assert they sell only U.S.-made merchandise while online platforms host high shares of listings controlled by foreign sellers that mislabel origin [1]. This divergence underscores enforcement and monitoring gaps — platforms and labels can mislead consumers even where regulatory standards exist. Domestic manufacturers complain that mislabeling undermines fair competition and drains sales, while campaign statements emphasizing U.S. origin can be sincere yet incomplete if third-party sellers or supply chain complexities aren’t fully controlled [1] [2] [5].
5. What the evidence means for transparency and campaign disclosure practices
The combined evidence points to two practical conclusions: first, campaigns that want credible provenance claims must adopt documented procurement practices and public reporting that tie products to verifiable domestic suppliers; second, marketplaces and enforcement bodies must close gaps allowing mislabeling and foreign sellers to present goods as U.S.-made [1] [5]. Public-facing assurances (e.g., “union-made” or “Made in USA”) have real value but require auditing against FTC criteria and oversight of third-party listings. Domestic firms like Unionwear show that verified U.S. supply is viable at scale, but that viability coexists with an active market for cheaper, ambiguously labeled imports [2] [3].
6. Dates, sources, and competing viewpoints to weigh
Reporting and regulatory guidance span from 2022 FTC policy statements to 2025 coverage documenting marketplace mislabeling and manufacturers’ claims. The FTC enforcement policy date provides the legal benchmark [5], reporting from late 2024 and early 2025 documents marketplace problems and domestic manufacturer responses [1] [2], and 2025 industry coverage reiterates campaign and supplier priorities around U.S. sourcing [3] [4]. Readers should weigh the domestic manufacturers’ accounts about capacity and integrity against marketplace studies showing high shares of foreign seller listings; both perspectives are supported by contemporaneous sources and point to transparency and enforcement as the key unresolved issues [1] [2] [5].