When the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order on March 13, 2026, directing federal agencies and the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on false “Made in America” claims, it highlighted a persistent problem: many products labeled as American-made actually contain significant foreign components. For example, a consumer buying what they believe is an American-manufactured appliance might unknowingly be purchasing a product that is only 40% domestically sourced, with the remainder imported from overseas. The executive order specifically directs the FTC to prioritize enforcement against sellers and manufacturers making false origin claims and to consider rules that would hold online marketplaces liable for misrepresentations by their vendors. However, the Trump Administration’s push for stricter “Made in America” requirements operates within a complex federal legal landscape that already includes multiple, overlapping standards for domestic content.
The Buy American Act, enacted in 1933, sets one threshold for government procurement. The FTC enforces a separate and stricter standard for consumer advertising. And the Build America, Buy America Act, passed in 2021, applies to infrastructure projects. Understanding how these rules actually work reveals both the intent behind such policies and the practical challenges in implementing them.
Table of Contents
- What Is Trump’s Made in America Executive Order and How Does It Change Current Rules?
- The Buy American Act: How the 65% Domestic Content Standard Works
- The FTC’s “Made in USA” Standard: Why It’s Stricter Than Buy American
- Build America, Buy America (BABA) and Infrastructure Projects
- The Problem of Two Standards: Why a Product Can Be “Domestic” Under One Rule and Foreign Under Another
- Online Marketplace Liability and Third-Party Vendor Enforcement
- What This Means for Consumers, Manufacturers, and the Marketplace
- Conclusion
What Is Trump’s Made in America Executive Order and How Does It Change Current Rules?
The March 13, 2026 Executive Order represents a significant enforcement push rather than a wholesale change to existing law. The administration directed the FTC Chairman to prioritize enforcement actions against vendors who falsely advertise American origin, while also instructing federal agencies to remove products with misrepresented origin claims from government procurement systems. For government contracts, agencies are also directed to refer violators to the Department of Justice for potential action under the False Claims Act—a statute that allows the government to recover damages when contractors defraud federal spending. One of the order’s most aggressive provisions targets online marketplaces.
The FTC is instructed to consider rules that would create liability for platforms like Amazon or eBay based on misrepresentations made by third-party sellers. This represents a departure from how these platforms have historically operated, as they typically claim limited responsibility for vendor claims. Under such a rule, a marketplace would potentially face FTC action if a seller on its platform falsely claims a product is made in the USA, even if the marketplace itself did not author the claim. The order also establishes a coordinated approach: agencies must identify products with false origin claims during the procurement process and remove them from eligible vendor lists, creating a private-sector consequence beyond just FTC fines.
The Buy American Act: How the 65% Domestic Content Standard Works
The Buy American Act, signed by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1933, established the federal government’s preference for domestically sourced products and materials in government procurement. For nearly a century, this law has required federal agencies to purchase products and materials that meet domestic content thresholds when those products are available and not cost-prohibitive. The current standard requires that a product contain at least 65% domestic content—measured by cost—to qualify as a “domestic end product” under the Buy American Act. This 65% threshold is not a permanent fixture.
Congress increased the domestic content requirement, and beginning in 2029, the threshold will rise to 75%. This incremental increase reflects a legislative intent to gradually push more procurement toward American sources. However, the Buy American Act includes an important safety valve: agencies may waive the domestic content requirement if an identical foreign-sourced product costs 25% or more less than the domestic alternative. This means that even with the domestic preference, a cheaper foreign product can legally be purchased if the cost difference is substantial enough. A federal agency procuring steel, for example, could purchase foreign steel if the price advantage exceeds 25%, even though domestic steel producers might meet the 65% content requirement. This provision has been criticized by domestic manufacturers as a loophole that undermines the act’s protective intent, since 25% is a significant price differential that foreign competitors with lower labor costs can often achieve.
The FTC’s “Made in USA” Standard: Why It’s Stricter Than Buy American
The Federal Trade Commission enforces a separate standard for consumer-facing “Made in USA” claims that is substantially stricter than the Buy American Act. The FTC requires that products advertised as “Made in the USA” meet an “all or virtually all” standard—meaning essentially the entire product, including materials and components, must be sourced and produced domestically. This is a crucial distinction: a product that easily qualifies as a “domestic end product” under the Buy American Act’s 65% threshold would almost certainly fail to meet the FTC’s “all or virtually all” requirement.
This divergence creates a compliance trap for manufacturers and sellers. A company manufacturing a product with 65% American content could legally sell it to the federal government under the Buy American Act, but it would violate FTC regulations if it advertised the same product to consumers as “Made in the USA.” Many American manufacturers of consumer goods rely on imported components—semiconductor chips, specialty fasteners, or chemical compounds—that make it difficult or impossible to reach the “all or virtually all” standard. The FTC has historically taken enforcement action against companies making these exaggerated claims, and the Trump Administration’s March 2026 order signals an intensification of these efforts.
Build America, Buy America (BABA) and Infrastructure Projects
Separate from the Buy American Act, the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act was enacted on November 15, 2021, as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This law applies domestic content requirements specifically to infrastructure projects funded with federal financial assistance. The domestic content procurement preferences under BABA apply to all Federal financial assistance obligated for infrastructure projects after May 14, 2022, which means that trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending over the next decade will be subject to BABA requirements.
BABA creates yet another layer of domestic content standards, with different thresholds applying to different material categories and products. Unlike the Buy American Act, which applies across all government procurement, BABA specifically targets infrastructure—roads, bridges, water systems, broadband networks—and requires higher domestic content for steel, iron, and manufactured products used in these projects. A construction company bidding on a federal highway project, for example, must comply with BABA requirements for the materials it uses, separate from any Buy American Act obligations. This creates complexity for suppliers, as they must track which domestic content standard applies to each contract or project, and BABA’s thresholds may differ from Buy American Act thresholds for the same material category.
The Problem of Two Standards: Why a Product Can Be “Domestic” Under One Rule and Foreign Under Another
The existence of two separate standards—Buy American for government procurement and the FTC’s “all or virtually all” for consumer advertising—creates a fundamental compliance problem. A manufacturer producing electronics with 65% U.S. content could truthfully bid on a federal contract, but the same company would face FTC enforcement if it advertised that product as “Made in the USA” to consumers. This asymmetry exists because the two laws serve different purposes: Buy American protects domestic suppliers in government purchasing, while the FTC standard protects consumer expectations in the marketplace.
However, this gap also creates opportunities for abuse. A vendor could source a product that qualifies under Buy American standards, sell it to the government at a higher price point, and then advertise identical or nearly identical products to consumers with exaggerated origin claims. The Trump Administration’s 2026 Executive Order attempts to address this by directing the FTC to focus enforcement on false claims and by instructing agencies to cross-reference origin misrepresentations with government procurement systems. Still, enforcement remains resource-constrained, and many false claims likely go undetected. A manufacturer in a smaller market segment, for instance, might make exaggerated origin claims for years without attracting FTC scrutiny if the product’s total sales volume does not warrant investigation.
Online Marketplace Liability and Third-Party Vendor Enforcement
One of the most consequential aspects of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order is the direction that the FTC consider rules holding online marketplaces liable for vendor misrepresentations. Currently, marketplaces like Amazon and eBay host thousands of third-party sellers, many of whom list products with “Made in USA” claims that may or may not be accurate. If the FTC implements marketplace liability rules, a platform could face enforcement action for hosting a seller who falsely claims a product is American-made, even if the marketplace itself did not write the claim and may not have actively reviewed it.
This shift would fundamentally change how online marketplaces operate. A major retailer would face strong incentives to implement automated screening for origin claims, require vendor certifications of domestic content, or remove risky product categories altogether. A small marketplace seller offering craft items, for example, might suddenly find themselves required to provide proof of domestic sourcing or face removal from a major platform. While this approach could reduce consumer fraud, it also raises compliance costs for small businesses and may push some legitimate American manufacturers off platforms if the burden of proving domestic content becomes prohibitive.
What This Means for Consumers, Manufacturers, and the Marketplace
The convergence of stricter FTC enforcement, the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, and marketplace accountability rules suggests a significant shift toward more rigorous enforcement of origin claims over the next few years. For consumers, this could mean greater confidence that products labeled “Made in USA” actually meet that standard, though enforcement will always be imperfect. For American manufacturers with genuinely high domestic content, this shift could create competitive advantages, as false claims by competitors face increased legal risk.
For manufacturers relying on global supply chains, the new enforcement environment creates incentives to increase domestic sourcing or to accurately label products with their true origin. Some industries—electronics, apparel, automotive components—may find this transition difficult, given the global nature of modern supply chains. Others, particularly in niche manufacturing or consumer goods, may be able to capitalize on renewed consumer demand for authentic American-made products. The long-term impact will depend on how vigorously the FTC pursues enforcement and whether online marketplace liability rules are actually implemented.
Conclusion
Trump’s push for stricter “Made in America” requirements operates through existing legal frameworks—the Buy American Act for government procurement, the FTC’s standards for consumer advertising, and the new marketplace accountability approach. While the underlying laws are not new, the March 2026 Executive Order signals a shift toward more aggressive enforcement and an expansion of liability to online platforms that host vendors making false claims.
The distinction between the Buy American Act’s 65% domestic content threshold and the FTC’s stricter “all or virtually all” standard remains a critical point of confusion for manufacturers and sellers navigating compliance. For consumers and policy observers, understanding these different standards and their enforcement mechanisms is essential to evaluating whether the promised crack-down on false origin claims will actually change marketplace behavior or merely add regulatory theater. The next few years will reveal whether the FTC has the resources to enforce new rules, whether online marketplaces will face real liability for vendor claims, and whether American manufacturers will genuinely increase domestic sourcing or simply become more careful about how they market their products.