Why the US Combat of Fraudulent Origin Claims and Upcoming Section 301 Investigations Matter for Brands and Supply Chains

Recent regulatory action in the United States is intensifying scrutiny of how ‘Made in America’ claims are substantiated, alongside the broader trade enforcement environment in which they operate, spanning fraudulent origin labeling, excess manufacturing capacity, and forced labor risks across global supply chains.

In March 2026, the White House announced a new Executive Order ensuring the truthful advertising of products claiming to be made in America, directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to step up enforcement against misleading or unsubstantiated US origin claims, particularly where products are marketed as US‑made but contain significant foreign inputs.

In the same month, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) launched a sweeping set of Section 301 investigations into trading partners across the globe. These moves reflect growing scrutiny of origin claims in a globalized, digitally enabled marketplace, and highlights a broader shift toward verification‑led compliance.

For companies selling into the US market, the message is clear: country‑of‑origin claims must be accurate, defensible and demonstrable.

What has changed?

Under the Executive Order, the FTC has been instructed to prioritize enforcement actions against sellers and manufacturers that falsely claim products are “Made in America” or use similar American‑origin language in violation of existing law.

The Order also calls for:

• Greater coordination across federal agencies responsible for country‑of‑origin labeling
• Consideration of new, consistent guidance on voluntary origin labeling
• Periodic review and verification of American‑origin claims for products sold into US federal procurement channels, with misrepresented products removed and referred for further action where appropriate
• As reported by Reuters, the enforcement focus is intended to address fraudulent labeling practices that can mislead consumers and distort competition, particularly where complex international supply chains are involved.

Section 301 investigations raise the stakes further

On March 11, USTR Ambassador Greer initiated Section 301 investigations into 16 economies (China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India) to assess potential structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors.

The notice highlighted the apparel and footwear manufacturing activities of China and Vietnam as specifically problematic, along with excess textile production capacity of Indonesia, Bangladesh and India.

On March 12, he initiated 60 Section 301 investigations to assess whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prevent the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

For both sets of investigations, written comments are due by 15 April 2026. The excess capacity hearings are scheduled for 5-8 May 2026, and the forced labor hearings for 28 April 2026. Remedies potentially including significant new tariffs could follow as early as July 2026.

Why ‘Made in America’ claims and section 301 investigations double the pressure on brands

Raw materials, intermediate processing stages and manufacturing steps often span multiple countries. As US regulations require that products marketed as “Made in America” be “all or virtually all” made domestically, brands must be able to demonstrate where critical inputs originate and how products are produced, not just where they are finished.

The Section 301 investigations add another layer of risk: sourcing from jurisdictions now under formal investigation for excess capacity or forced labor creates additional tariff, reputational and compliance exposure, regardless of whether origin claims are accurate.

At the same time, regulators have highlighted the growing role of online marketplaces, where origin claims can be made at scale and across borders, increasing the risk of misrepresentation if verification processes are weak or absent.

What this means for global brands and cotton supply chains

While the current action is specific to the US market, it reflects a wider global trend: regulators, consumers and commercial partners are demanding greater transparency and proof behind origin claims.

For brands operating across multiple jurisdictions, this reinforces the importance of building verification into ongoing supply chain governance, not as a reactive measure, but as a proactive capability that supports compliance, credibility and resilience.

While the Executive Order applies across product categories, for cotton and cotton-based goods, the implications are likely to be largely associated with the context of origin claims.

Cotton supply chains are inherently multistage and international. Raw cotton may be grown in one country and then spun, woven and assembled into finished garments elsewhere. In this environment, enforcement risk is most acute where products are labelled or marketed as containing US origin cotton, but the underlying raw material does not, in fact, originate from the United States.

Misrepresenting the origin of key inputs can expose brands to enforcement action under existing “Made in America” and truthful advertising rules. As regulators move to protect consumers from misleading origin claims, accuracy around US origin components, not just final manufacturing location, is becoming an increasingly important focus.

The Section 301 investigations compound this exposure. Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and China which are among the most significant sourcing countries for cotton and apparel are named in both sets of investigations. Brands sourcing from these regions now face scrutiny not only of whether their origin claims are accurate, but of whether inputs were produced under conditions that US regulators have placed under formal legal investigation.

The White House has explicitly noted that consumers rely heavily on “Made in America” claims when making purchasing decisions, yet many products advertised as such do not meet that standard. Apparel and textiles, including cotton products, are frequently cited by regulators and industry observers as categories where foreign inputs are common, increasing the risk of unintentional misrepresentation.

The role of forensic origin verification

Against this backdrop, independent forensic verification of cotton origin is becoming an essential compliance and risk‑management tool.

Verification enables brands to:

• Substantiate US origin claims or country of origin claims with objective evidence
• Reduce regulatory and legal exposure as enforcement activity increases
• Demonstrate supply chain integrity in the context of forced labor and excess capacity investigations
• Protect brand credibility and consumer trust in highly scrutinized markets
• Create consistency between marketing claims, procurement requirements and regulatory expectations

Rather than relying solely on documentation or supplier declarations, forensic origin verification analyzes the product itself, providing defensible evidence of where it truly comes from.

As enforcement expectations evolve, being able to forensically verify origin is no longer just about meeting today’s rules. It is about being prepared for tomorrow’s.

When will this be enforced?

Enforcement began immediately upon signing.

The Executive Order titled “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America” was signed on 13 March 2026, and it does not include a delayed effective date or grace period.

The Order explicitly directs that:

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “shall, wherever appropriate, prioritize enforcement actions” against false or misleading “Made in America” claims.
• Federal agencies responsible for country‑of‑origin labeling are instructed to begin coordination and review activities, including verification of American‑origin claims in government procurement.
• Because no future enforcement date is specified, the direction to prioritize enforcement takes effect immediately under existing law.
• The Section 301 investigations are moving on an equally urgent timeline. Brands that have not yet reviewed their supply chain documentation in light of these developments should treat this as a matter of urgency. 

FAQ

What’s actually changed with “Made in America” claims - and why does it matter now?

The US has moved from signaling intent to active enforcement. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been directed to prioritize action against misleading or unsubstantiated “Made in America” claims, reinforcing existing requirements that such claims must be accurate, defensible and demonstrable. As a result, origin claims that can withstand regulatory scrutiny are becoming essential to compliance and consumer trust.

What’s changed with Section 301 - and why does it matter now?

Section 301 investigations have been reopened at scale, reintroducing the possibility of new tariffs and trade restrictions linked to excess manufacturing capacity and forced labor risks. These investigations increase exposure for brands sourcing globally, particularly from jurisdictions under formal review. In this environment, understanding supply chain origin and risk is critical to effective compliance and broader risk management.

We already have supplier documentation and traceability systems - isn’t that enough?

Documentation and digital traceability are important, but regulators are increasingly recognizing their limitations in complex, multi-country supply chains. Paper records and platform data can be incomplete, inconsistent or manipulated, particularly where multiple processing stages are involved. What’s changing is the expectation that brands can demonstrate origin with objective, independent evidence, especially where claims like “Made in America” or forced labor compliance are involved.

What are leading brands doing differently in response to this environment?

Leading brands are shifting from reactive compliance to ongoing, programmatic approaches to verification. That means building independent origin verification into their supply chain controls so claims can be substantiated with defensible evidence, not just supplier assurances. This approach reduces regulatory and legal risk, supports confidence in procurement decisions, and prepares organizations for continued tightening of enforcement, in the US and globally.