The Trump administration has made good on its threats to raise tariffs on Brazil, upping duties to a precipitous 25 percent this week over “unfair” trade practices. Experts now say the move could upset a steady flow of sourcing from the country, which has become a critical supplier of leather shoes to the United States market.
The tariffs, which will go into force next week, are the result of a year-long investigation by the Office of the United States Trade Representative which determined that the Brazilian government engaged in certain measures that burden or restrict American businesses.
“Whether it is punishing U.S. technology companies for refusing to censor political speech, backsliding on anti-corruption enforcement, or allowing Brazilian farmers to exploit illegally logged land to gain an advantage over American farmers, Brazil’s unfair trading practices have prevented U.S. workers and producers from accessing this important market with over 210 million consumers,” USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer wrote, announcing the decision.
Greer said the action was necessary to ensure fair competition, noting that “[e]xtensive negotiations with Brazil over the past year have not resolved these issues.” The USTR remains open to talks that could potentially soften the tariff actions, he added.
The move comes as many American apparel and footwear firms work to diversify away from China and the regional supply chain that both feeds upon the capabilities and supports the dominance of the sourcing superpower. China accounts for the largest share of U.S. footwear imports (48 percent), followed by Vietnam (28 percent) and Indonesia (10 percent).
Brazil, however, represents a critical source of leather footwear in the Western Hemisphere and a key ingredient in a nearshoring sourcing mix, second only to Mexico in exports to the U.S. market.
During the first six months of 2026, 5.6 million pairs of shoes were exported to the U.S. from Brazil—a value of $82.25 million, according to Abicalçados, the country’s footwear trade association. But exports were down 3.6 percent in volume and 23.6 percent in revenue compared to the same period in 2025, as the country was hit with hefty tariffs under President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act executive order and subsequent punitive duties were applied.
Last year, U.S. companies paid nearly $61 million in tariffs on 5.66 million pairs of Brazilian leather footwear imports, according to the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), as shoes from the country faced an average trade-weighted tariff rate of 23.5 percent.
This, compared to an average tariff rate of 7.8 percent across all imported products.
Abicalçados relationship and business manager Letícia Sperb Masselli participated in USTR hearings earlier this month in Washington, emphasizing Brazil’s role in helping the U.S. reduce its reliance on Asia-based sourcing. She said the trade flow between the U.S. and Brazil “benefits not only Brazilian exporters but also importers, brands, retailers, and consumers in the United States, given the productive and commercial interdependence between the two countries, which makes Brazil a strategic supplier in a market structurally dependent on imports.”
Upon the USTR announcement, Masselli expressed concerns that steep duties on Brazil could upset that deepening synergy. “[T]he widening tariff differential between footwear exported by Brazil and other exporting countries will reinforce the concentration of U.S. purchases in already dominant origins, especially Asian ones, contrary to the United States’ interests in diversification, resilience, and security of supply chains,” she said.
American trade associations, too, found fault with the duty hike, both because of its regressive impact on diversification efforts and its potential impact on inflation-weary American consumers.
“We are deeply disappointed by the Administration’s decision to impose a stacked 25 percent tariff on imports from Brazil, continuing to add disproportionate cost burdens on U.S. companies and American families,” AAFA president and CEO Steve Lamar told Sourcing Journal.
“Brazil has been a growing sourcing leader for our industry, particularly footwear, in the effort to diversify out of China. These tariffs will undermine Brazil as a critical sourcing alternative; disrupting long-term investments from U.S. that threatens to send companies right back to China,” he added.
Lamar said that Congress should exercise “robust oversight” over the process to ensure transparency. “Without that oversight, the American fashion industry, including U.S. workers and U.S. consumers, could become unintended casualties,” Lamar said.
According to the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA), Brazil is the 11th largest global supplier of footwear to the U.S. market, crafting nearly 11 million pairs of shoes each year that are sold to American consumers. It’s one of the few countries with the capacity and infrastructure—as well as the heritage in craftsmanship—to manufacture shoes at scale for U.S. brands.
FDRA president and CEO Matt Priest told Sourcing Journal that the move has the potential to thwart the momentum of Western Hemisphere footwear sourcing, and it sends mixed messages to companies that have been encouraged to turn away from China.
“The administration has sought a trade policy that encourages, if not onshoring back to the U.S., at least nearshoring with our trading partners—or as some have called it, friendshoring,” he said. “And our message has been, ‘Hey, if you want us to source more product out of the Western Hemisphere, then you’re going to have to make it more advantageous to do so from a from a tariff perspective in particular, because it’s not competitive on labor rates, it’s not competitive on quality, it’s not necessarily competitive on price.’”
There are, of course, benefits: speed to market, shared culture, analogous time zones. “All those are important,” Priest said, “but if you are attaching a 25 percent tariff on exports on one of our allies and trading partners”—one with which the U.S. has a considerable trade surplus—”that’s going to make it difficult for the industry to think about coming back countries such as Brazil.”
There’s also a very real scenario that could make footwear sourcing from the country nearly impossible for American brands.
As Priest was testifying in the USTR hearing on the Brazil-specific duties, another hearing was taking place simultaneously down the hall regarding the proposed Section 301 duties on nearly 60 U.S. trading partners as a result of forced labor investigations.
Brazil, among the targeted economies, could face tariffs of 12.5 percent if the USTR’s Section 301 proposal is adopted, and that rate would stack upon the 25 percent announced by the federal government’s trade arm this week. Including the existing 10 percent most favored nation tariff rate, a women’s leather shoe could see duties as high as 47.5 percent.
“If it’s a sneaker, you’re at 57.5 percent,” Priest said. “At that point, it is cost-prohibitive.”
These revelations came to light Thursday as the FDRA held its annual meeting in Washington. Conversations predictably touched on China’s continued prominence as a source of American footwear, despite the steep fall in imports that’s taken place in recent years—partially a result of the Trump administration’s hawkish tariff policies.
“China in 2025 was at a 35-year low for volume and value and market share” in footwear exports to the U.S., Priest said, but some speculate that could be “the floor,” or the nadir, with nowhere to go but up.
“Costs are going down in China. It’s hyper competitive again,” he added. If countries like Brazil, which have managed to capture a comparatively small but practically significant piece of the shoe sourcing pie, continue to face heightened tariffs as a result of the administration’s tariff agenda, “guess where people are going to go? They’re going to go back to China,” Priest said.
Dr. Sheng Lu, professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, agreed that this week’s tariffs on Brazilian imports add a fresh layer of concern to the pressures faced by the import community.
According to the academic, “the decision showcases the determination of the Trump administration to use tariffs to achieve its many trade and non-trade related goals.” In addition to the USTR’s forced labor probe, which could yield double-digit duties, another investigation into structural excess capacity will likely yield a promise of additional tariffs.
With those actions from the USTR forthcoming, “uncertainty will reach a new high level,” Lu surmised.
There are plenty of competing considerations for brands and retailers looking to navigate new sourcing waters, and a reactive approach could have considerable impacts throughout the supply chain.
“Many companies expect that the new tariffs will totally wipe out the IEEPA tariff refund they received. Meanwhile, with the new tariff announced, companies will likely to rush to get their imports for the holiday season into the U.S. earlier, resulting in new chaos from shipping to logistics,” he said. “It is of concern that because of the new round of tariff pressure, companies have to put aside other issues, which could be more strategically important to them.”
