Screenshots from videos shared by workers
China’s garment and textile industry, long dubbed the world's factory, has been severely disrupted by the fresh wave of US tariffs imposed in April 2025. Orders from Guangdong to Zhejiang have stalled and factory floors have fallen silent, laying bare how the renewed trade tensions are directly harming millions of vulnerable workers.
Garments: A Cornerstone Industry at Risk
China dominates global apparel production, accounting for 31.6% of global apparel exports and 43% of textiles, a $300 billion industry popped up by 15 million, mostly female migrant workers. For many, the industry is both lifeline and trap: wages are low, hours long, and social protections scant. Now, as Western brands retreat and orders dry up, that lifeline is rapidly fraying.
Yet, even before April's tariffs, signs of strain were evident. In early 2025, China's textile exports already dipped by 4.5% year-on-year. Now, tariffs are sharply escalating this decline, putting the livelihoods of countless workers at risk.
The garment industry embodies many of globalisation's stark contradictions. It is highly labour-intensive and notorious for poor working conditions, including low wages, excessive overtime, and weak labour protections. Moreover, garment production is particularly susceptible to relocation, as international brands chase lower costs, moving easily from country to country. This flexibility magnifies the impact of trade disputes, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities among garment workers, many of whom are rural migrants with limited alternatives.
Analysis shared by garment factory owners on social media and collected by CLB reveals that compared to the domestic market—characterised by fierce competition, lack of trust, frequent payment delays, and unstable orders—companies involved in export trade historically maintained more stable orders and incomes. This stability has provided essential financial security for millions of garment workers and their families. However, the recent trade war has affected various types of companies differently, deepening uncertainty across the industry.
Big Manufacturers: Offshoring Fails to Shield from Tariffs
Offshoring, once the industry’s favourite escape route, has become a cul-de-sac. Washington’s latest tariffs ensnare not just Chinese factories but their proxies in other countries. Major Chinese manufacturers such as Shenzhou International and Huali Industrial Group previously relocated much of their production to countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia to avoid earlier US tariffs. However, Trump's new tariffs have directly targeted these nations as well, imposing duties of up to 49% on apparel exports from these countries. Analysts now observe that these manufacturers have "nowhere to hide."
Shenzhou International, a key supplier for Nike and Adidas, saw its Hong Kong-listed shares drop by 14%, the steepest fall since 2008. Huali Group, a leading global OEM manufacturer of athletic shoes for brands such as Nike and Skechers, plans to shift production capacity to Vietnam. Online sources claim that one of its factories in Zhongshan has laid off 80% of its workforce as a result.
While large manufacturers can shift production and clientele to other markets, smaller suppliers lack this flexibility and have faced immediate, severe impacts.
Smaller Suppliers: Immediate Crisis and Layoffs
For thousands of smaller factories, the new tariffs have proved existential. Unlike industry giants with overseas operations and diversified client bases, these subcontractors are acutely vulnerable to abrupt order cancellations and production freezes. The result is a wave of sudden closures rippling through China’s garment industry.
CLB’s Strike Map recorded five collective worker incidents in the apparel sector in April alone - a number that barely hints at the extent of distress. The organisation anticipates a surge in factory shutdowns and layoff cases in May. On social media, stories of shuttered factories and unpaid wages proliferate. In just three weeks, CLB tracked 29 cases of garment workers publicly complaining about sudden layoffs. Online videos show locked factory gates and deserted shop floors. “This year it’s too hard – a 200-worker factory shut down overnight; the boss isn’t doing it anymore, sold off all the equipment,” says one man, disbelief etched in his voice as he films the closed plant. In another clip, a woman walks through a silent workshop: “This factory ran for over 20 years. Now the production lines have stopped completely… we’re just sitting here waiting to lose money.”
Empty workshop shared by a worker
Perhaps the most haunting was the post of a young migrant worker from Guizhou, who had traveled to coastal Zhejiang for a job only to find herself broke and adrift after her factory closed in April. Filming her meager meal, she laments: “I spent 3 yuan on a meal, soon I won’t even afford that. I don’t want to stay in Zhejiang, but I can’t go back to Guizhou… Where can I go now?” Her post sparked over 3,000 similar comments from workers experiencing comparable hardships.
The video by an unemployed garment worker sparked 3,000+ similar comments
Silent Suffering Instead of Mass Protest
Despite the scale of hardship, China’s garment workers have responded not with protest but with resignation. Workers facing unpaid wages and sudden unemployment have mostly resorted to quiet despair, voicing frustrations individually online rather than engaging in collective action.
Several factors explain this subdued response. First, the broader economic downturn has left workers cautious, prioritising job retention over confrontation. As one worker remarked on social media, “It’s off-season everywhere... we need work more than work needs us.” Second, many employers have managed layoffs quietly by offering partial payments or furlough arrangements, thereby preventing outright protests. Third, local governments often intervene through informal mediation to maintain social stability and avoid large-scale unrest, preventing disputes from escalating publicly. By implementing furlough rather than outright dismissal, companies keep workers technically employed, rendering them ineligible to claim unemployment benefits or stage protests as laid-off workers. Hope is used as a pacifier—hope that the factory will reopen next month, hope that a small wage payment will come through soon. That hope, even if slim, has kept many from taking the drastic step of collective action.
Some netizens noted that many workers won’t resign even after months without pay—partly due to a lack of better opportunities, and partly because they still cling to hope
Responsible Exit: Brands Must Take Responsibility
Behind factory closures and layoffs are international brands driving production decisions. Companies like Nike and Adidas have profited significantly from China’s supplier network. A recent joint research by CLB and SOMO found that eight major apparel brands, including Nike and Adidas, have disclosed policies for responsible exits. However, significant gaps remain in implementation. For instance, VF Corporation, owner of Vans, explicitly includes responsible exit clauses on its website. Yet, according to a CLB investigation, VF Corporation failed to fully honour these commitments with one supplier for Vans, resulting in unpaid social insurance contributions for workers. CLB is currently awaiting a response from VF Corporation regarding this matter.
The gap between disclosed policies and actual practices during the current crisis reveals a troubling ethical disconnect, raising urgent questions about brands’ genuine commitment to protecting workers during supply chain transitions.
Conclusion: Urgent Need for Accountability
The renewed trade war has undeniably devastated China's garment workers. Although large-scale collective actions have not yet materialised, the silent struggles of countless workers underscore the human toll behind trade policy decisions.
CLB will continue monitoring these developments closely, advocating for workers' rights, and holding multinational corporations accountable. This crisis serves as a critical test of companies’ commitments to ethical practices. Trade wars may be fought in boardrooms and on tariff sheets, but their casualties are counted in shuttered factories and emptied lunchboxes. For China’s garment workers, the cost of global rivalry is all too personal.