Courtesy Calvin Klein
From Calvin Klein’s autumn–winter 2025–6 ready-to-wear collection: there was nothing particularly “American” about the design approach.
Simon Anholt, who coined the term nation brand in the 1990s, argued that a country that has a powerful, positive image—he gives the example of Switzerland in his 2020 book The Good Country Equation: How We Can Repair the World in One Generation—finds it easier to attract tourists, foreign investment, and consumers for its products and services, among other things. On the other end of the scale, few know about Suriname. And in 2021, Syria held largely negative associations, putting firms from that country at a disadvantage should they need to rely on their country of origin for their marketing.
The danger, however, is that the standing of a nation rests on stereotypes. However, in 2025, there have been such major geopolitical shifts being played out in real time on the news that the country-of-origin effect has had a much bigger impact than in previous years.
US president Donald Trump’s tariffs, just one of the many policies emanating from the White House on a daily basis to wear down any observer, has seen its biggest trading partner, Canada, react by boycotting US products, and products where the ultimate parent is in the US. The Republican administration has decided to scuttle its country’s standing in the world, which in turn has directly harmed its companies. China, sometimes seen in the occident as having been too dominant in manufacturing, suddenly gained new fans, which would have helped its own brands, some of which had been in crisis (especially in the automotive sector). For once, we believe, ‘made in China’ has a more positive aura around it.
After decades of supercharged globalization, where something is from, or where a parent company is based, might begin to matter for more people thanks to Trump and his administration. And if these impressions are coloured by stereotypes, companies may have to work to either distance themselves from them, or embrace them, depending on what their publics think.
As the world began mistrusting the US, French president Emmanuel Macron stepped in, promising weaponry for Ukraine in its defence against Russia, even playing international statesman at Pope Francis’s funeral by having Trump meet Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Macron, who had expressed his scepticism about the US years before, began looking prescient. French brands have been embattled, too, and Macron hasn’t inserted himself into the global news cycle quite as regularly, but it definitely would have helped—a far cry from when French products faced bans for nuclear testing.
We haven’t seen any major shifts away from how brands market themselves during the autumn–winter 2025–6 collections, but of the brands we looked at, Ralph Lauren certainly did not lean on the US’s image. If anything, it was Edwardian. Haider Ackermann’s collection for Tom Ford stayed true to the brand, which has always been internationalist. The same might be said for Marc Jacobs, Khaite, Altuzarra, and Calvin Klein. They all understand that their domestic market is limited and know that the centre of the global economy shifts gradually eastward each year.
We know of one casualty from the sudden shift in the US’s trade policies: Malaika New York, which Lucire profiled in 2020, closed its doors in April, directly blaming the tariffs, making their business ‘financially impossible’ to continue.
Malaika Boysen Haaning, who called time on her eponymous label, may have been one of the smart ones to close when she did, and explore different sources of income, as companies like J. P. Morgan put the US’s chances of a recession at 60 per cent. US consumer confidence is at its lowest since records began in 1952. Longer-term, the Republicans’ dislike of established international institutions and their norms are bound to affect their bond markets, which in turn make it far more difficult for the country to service its huge national debt. It is also likely that the US dollar will cease being a reserve currency, with a more multipolar market emerging.
If the US government can no longer be trusted to back itself, then where does that leave its companies? Will they default on payments? Will a US dollar crisis make it impossible to trade with US companies?
A poor national image may colour American brands in the minds of consumers, but in the minds of the trade, some very practical financial decisions will be driving their thinking.
Similar considerations will have been at play as Russia invaded Ukraine as companies ceased trading with Russian firms, or divested their holdings; richer Russians headed to Thailand and the UAE to buy property out of fear their government might seize their funds. Today, few Russian brands’ releases cross our desk—in fact, we don’t think we’ve seen any since the war began—and those skilled at international PR could be concerned that they might not get paid. No one wants to get caught up in sanctions, either. Russian brands might have traction among its communist neighbours, and India made some conciliatory overtures, but precious few other places. A few Ukrainian firms, meanwhile, have managed to get word out, and ridden the positive image of their country and how highly regarded their president is in the west.
The genocide in Gaza has seen organizations compile Israeli boycott lists. Some of the Palestinians who were lucky enough to flee and set up again elsewhere—such as typeface designer Hasan Abu Afash, whose family made it to Cairo—should enjoy custom as people try to find direct ways of helping victims of the genocide. The GCC’s own very visible role in peacemaking and diplomacy over the crisis in the occupied territories will have benefited member nations.
You may also like
