Federal agencies must buy uniforms made in America—at whatever the cost.

What it does

This bill requires federal agencies to buy clothing, uniforms, and textile products from U.S. sources only, with narrow exceptions for emergencies, overseas operations, and when domestic items are unavailable at market prices. Agencies must document any waiver in writing and report annually to Congress on compliance. The rule applies whether items are purchased directly, leased, or provided by contractors.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a straightforward domestic-sourcing requirement for federal clothing and textile procurement. It is not deregulation, a tax provision, or a subsidy—it is a procurement restriction that channels federal spending toward domestic suppliers.

What the text implies

• Availability exception language ('satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity...at United States market prices') creates a loophole: agencies can waive the requirement if domestic prices exceed foreign prices, potentially undermining the mandate in practice.
• The bill does not define 'United States market prices' or establish a price-comparison methodology, leaving agencies discretion to determine when the exception applies—creating compliance uncertainty.
• Contractors furnishing uniforms under service contracts (laundry, maintenance) are subject to the requirement, shifting compliance burden to private service providers who may face higher input costs and pass them to agencies.
• The micro-purchase exception (below the threshold) exempts small uniform purchases from the requirement, creating a loophole for agencies to avoid compliance through fragmented purchasing.
• Annual reporting requirement may reveal that most federal clothing procurement already occurs domestically, suggesting the bill's practical impact is narrower than its language implies.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill protects domestic textile and apparel jobs and manufacturing capacity, a public-interest outcome. However, it may increase federal procurement costs (agencies pay higher U.S. market prices), which ultimately flows to taxpayers through higher agency budgets or reduced spending on other services. The net citizen benefit depends on whether job preservation and industrial capacity outweigh higher costs.

Who stands to gain

• U.S. textile manufacturers
• U.S. apparel and uniform suppliers
• Domestic cotton and natural-fiber producers
• U.S.-based contract manufacturers and service providers

Named in the bill

Federal agencies, General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Department of Defense, U.S. textile and apparel industry

Where it stands

• Sep 3, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 3, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.