New Executive Order Adds to Growing Uncertainty Surrounding “Made in the USA” Claims

On March 13, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America,” directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Agency) to prioritize enforcement of fraudulent “Made in U.S.A.” (MUSA) claims “wherever appropriate.” The EO’s express targets are “foreign manufacturers and sellers,” who “target patriotic consumers” with false American-origin advertising, as well as “digital marketplaces” where such products are sold. Conversely, “American businesses building, growing, and manufacturing all, or virtually all, aspects of their products onshore” appear to be the intended beneficiaries as they are, according to the EO, “entitled to the undiluted branding benefits that come with supporting the American economy, and American citizens attempting to buy American products should have certainty as to what American-origin claims mean.”

Its apparent objectives notwithstanding, the EO may in fact add to already mounting uncertainty around MUSA advertising, including for well-meaning U.S. companies who seek to make impactful, as well as truthful, claims about their products. That uncertainty stems from, in large part, the existence of several inconsistent federal and state standards that apply to American-origin claims, with the EO now instructing the FTC to consider issuing further regulations covering online marketplaces where products with MUSA claims are sold.

Take, for example, the “Buy America Act” (BAA), applicable to federal agency purchases, and the “Build America, Buy America Act” (BABA), which extends the BAA requirements to federally funded infrastructure projects. BAA implements a preference for domestic end products, as determined by a fairly permissive two-part standard: The product must be manufactured in the U.S., and it must satisfy a minimum domestic content test based on a specific percentage of the cost of domestically sourced components. For most manufactured products, the BAA current “domestic content” threshold is 65% of the total component cost. This percentage is scheduled to increase to 75% for items delivered starting in 2029. (Products that consist predominantly of iron or steel are subject to a stricter standard, where the cost of foreign iron and steel must be less than 5% of the total cost of all components.) (See FAR 25.003, Domestic End Product Definition.) Multiple exceptions may apply to waive BAA requirements.

In sharp contrast to the BAA “domestic content” threshold, the Made in USA Labeling Rule (the Labeling Rule), administered by the FTC, imposes a much higher threshold for any and all goods advertised as American-made. Under the Labeling Rule, companies are barred from making unqualified MUSA claims unless they can establish that:

• Final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States;
• All significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and
• All or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. 

Where products do not meet all three requirements, a MUSA claim must be qualified, so as not to overstate the amount or type of U.S. content or processing. Violations of the Labeling Rule are treated by the FTC as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, and are subject to civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation. Indeed, MUSA claims have remained a priority for the FTC even before the latest EO. Last summer, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson designated July 2025 as “‘Made in the USA’ Month.” The Agency quickly followed that announcement with warning letters to four companies, reminding them to comply with the Labeling Rule. As we discussed at the time, the FTC also sent letters to Amazon and Walmart regarding allegedly deceptive MUSA claims made by third-party sellers on the two companies’ e-commerce websites.

What does this rather confusing federal landscape mean for manufacturers? They may satisfy the BAA threshold for domestic content (currently measured as 65% of total component cost, up to 75% starting in 2029), and thus qualify to sell to federal agencies under the BAA preference for “domestic end products,” but they cannot advertise those same products as “Made in the USA” unless the products meet the FTC’s more demanding “all or virtually all” standard. Making matters even more confusing for businesses, while the FTC has said that products marketed as “Made in USA” must contain only “negligible” foreign content (processing or parts), the Agency has not set any numerical percentage thresholds. Moreover, and in further contrast to the BAA standard, the FTC has taken the position that “costs don’t tell the whole story” and even if “only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs,” or of the total cost of components, are attributable to foreign processing or foreign parts, the product may not meet the “all or virtually all” standard for MUSA claims.

Compounding the uncertainty and operational challenges facing companies seeking to make MUSA claims is the California “Made in USA” labeling law, which creates yet another standard for such claims. Specifically, a product may not be marketed as “Made in USA” in the state unless foreign parts do not exceed 5% of “the wholesale value of the manufactured product,” or 10% if the manufacturer demonstrates that the foreign components are unavailable domestically and cannot be manufactured in the United States. The unavailability determination “shall not be based on the cost of” the foreign component or part. The California 5% and 10% foreign-content thresholds are often viewed as less stringent than the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard, where factors other than costs may be relevant. Thus, just as satisfying the BAA’s “domestic end product” standard does not mean that a product can be marketed as “Made in USA,” compliance with the California labeling law does not guarantee compliance with the federal Labeling Rule.

In addition to inconsistent federal and state labeling requirements and mounting regulatory scrutiny, MUSA claims have been targeted in consumer class actions, which have been on the rise. As we wrote previously, there were at least 13 such class actions filed in the first half of 2025, nearly 2 times as many as in all of 2024, with no sign of the trend changing in the second half of 2025. Claims other than “Made in USA” are also being challenged, including, for example, “America’s coffee,” “American craftsmanship,” as well as images of the American flag.

Against this already crowded and uncertain landscape, the latest EO provides that the “FTC shall consider issuing proposed regulations providing that the failure of an online marketplace to establish procedures for verifying country-of-origin claims may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the [FTC] Act.” Further, “all agencies with oversight of country-of-origin labeling shall consider promulgating regulations that promote voluntary country-of-origin labeling for products made or manufactured in the United States.” And last, but definitely not least, given the federal government’s purchasing power and differences between the BAA standard and the federal Labeling Rule, the EO instructs that “[a]ll agencies overseeing Government-wide acquisition contracts, any Multiple Award Schedule, or any other Government-wide indefinite delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts shall periodically review and verify any “Buy American Act,” “Country of Origin USA,” or similar American-origin claims for products acquired through these contracts.”

The EO clearly seeks to target foreign companies making MUSA claims, in addition to “digital marketplaces” where their products are sold. The FTC’s traditional focus – consistent with its jurisdiction – involves U.S. companies, and how the FTC and other federal agencies will respond to the EO’s admonition to consider potential additional regulations and/or increased enforcement of unsubstantiated MUSA claims by foreign businesses remains to be seen. The FTC’s 2025 letters to major online retailers warning about false claims by third parties suggest possible new legal liability theories that, if pursued, are likely to be tested in court if those retailers are targeted.

Scrutiny of MUSA claims is likely to continue, and companies making American-origin claims should take note. On the product development side, best practices to minimize exposure include robust supply chain monitoring, maintaining detailed sourcing and manufacturing records, and conducting periodic audits. On the marketing side, companies must be mindful of the different laws that may apply and make sure MUSA claims meet the FTC standards. Like all advertising claims, MUSA claims should be truthful and not misleading in the context in which they appear, with appropriate qualifiers playing a critical role in the marketing of any product that is not wholly made in the U.S. of U.S.-only materials/components. On the business side, monitoring enforcement and litigation trends can help gauge risk, while also planning for compliance with multiple standards, which may (or may not) apply to a product line, depending on manufacturing processes, component sourcing, and distribution.