You've been working in sustainability policy for 25 years, and the textile recycling conversation feels like it's at an inflection point. What's different now compared to where we were even five years ago? 

What’s different now is that textile waste has moved from being a relatively niche issue discussed mainly within the recycling industry to a much broader public and policy conversation. The biggest driver is the sheer volume of clothing entering the system. Over the past decade, the acceleration of ultra-fast fashion has dramatically increased production, while garments are often worn fewer times and discarded sooner. That puts pressure on the reuse and recycling system in ways we were not seeing even five years ago. 

At the same time, policymakers are paying much closer attention. We are seeing proposals for textile extended producer responsibility programs, new interest in recycling technologies, and growing consumer awareness about the environmental footprint of clothing. The key challenge now is making sure policies strengthen what already works, especially the global reuse system that keeps billions of garments in use each year, while also building the infrastructure needed to recycle materials that truly reach the end of their useful life. 

SMART represents the recycled textiles industry at the policy level. What's your biggest challenge right now in advocating for your members? 

One of the biggest challenges right now is helping policymakers and the public better understand an industry that has quietly been doing this work for more than a hundred years. The recycled textiles industry is made up largely of small and medium sized businesses that are deeply committed to their employees, their customers, and the environmental benefits their work provides. These companies built a global system for collecting, sorting, and reusing textiles long before sustainability became a mainstream conversation. In many ways, their business model has always reflected the principles policymakers are now trying to promote through extended producer responsibility, because they recover value from used clothing and keep it in circulation rather than sending it to disposal. 

At the same time, we are working to correct some of the misconceptions that have emerged in the public discussion. Certain reports have circulated widely claiming very high waste rates for exported clothing, but many of those figures are not based on rigorous or verifiable data. More comprehensive studies by institutions such as the United Nations and European governments consistently find much lower waste rates. It is also important to recognize that exports are a critical part of textile circularity. Global reuse markets extend the life of garments, reduce the need for new production, and provide affordable clothing and local employment in many receiving countries. A big part of our role is making sure policymakers understand how this system actually works so that new policies strengthen reuse and recycling rather than unintentionally disrupting the circular economy that already exists. 

We're seeing a lot of textile-related legislation happening at the state level. How do you see federal policy evolving, and is there a risk of a fragmented patchwork? 

We are definitely seeing a surge of activity at the state level, particularly around textile extended producer responsibility and broader waste reduction policies. That reflects a growing recognition that textiles are part of the waste conversation and that governments want to address the environmental impacts associated with clothing production and disposal. State innovation can be valuable because it helps test different policy approaches and brings attention to the issue. 

At the same time, there is a real risk of a fragmented patchwork if many states adopt different systems with different rules, definitions, and compliance requirements. For an industry that operates through national and global supply chains, that kind of inconsistency can create unnecessary complexity and cost. Over time, there may be increasing pressure for greater federal engagement or some level of harmonization so policies support circularity while still allowing the reuse and recycling system to function efficiently across state lines. That said, I do not expect major federal policy activity on textiles during the current administration, and even if Democrats were to take back control of Congress, this is still an issue that is more likely to continue moving first at the state level. 

EPR is becoming a bigger conversation in textiles. What's SMART's position on it, and what would it actually mean for the industry to implement? 

SMART supports the concept of extended producer responsibility for textiles, particularly when it includes provisions that encourage producers to make clothing that is higher quality, more durable, and has a lower environmental impact over its lifecycle. Policies that incentivize better product design can play an important role in reducing waste and improving the overall sustainability of the textile system. 

For the industry, implementing EPR would likely mean creating systems where producers contribute financially to the collection, reuse, and recycling of textiles at the end of their useful life. One important point we often make is that the reuse and recycling sector has effectively been doing this work for decades. Our members have built businesses around collecting, sorting, and recovering value from used textiles, which is very much aligned with the goals of EPR. As these policies develop, it will be important to design them in a way that strengthens the existing reuse infrastructure while also helping to build new recycling capacity for materials that truly reach the end of their useful life. 

How are tariffs and trade agreements shaping the economics of textile recycling, and is that a barrier we're not talking about enough? 

Tariffs and trade policy play a bigger role in textile recycling economics than many people realize. The global textile recovery system relies on international value chains: materials are collected, sorted, reused, downcycled, or processed into new products across multiple markets. When tariffs increase the cost of machinery, recycled inputs, or downstream products, they raise costs across a sector that already operates on very thin margins. 

Trade rules also haven’t fully caught up with circular business models. Trade agreements were largely designed for linear manufacturing supply chains, not systems built around reuse, repair, and recycled materials. That creates friction around rules of origin, customs classifications, and the treatment of secondary materials. 

Another major issue is regulatory interpretation. Under the Basel Convention, and in the ongoing UNEP work on used textile trade, there is increasing scrutiny around whether exported textiles are considered reusable goods or waste. Misinterpretations of what is truly reusable or recoverable versus what is waste, often driven by misinformation about export markets and waste rates, could unintentionally disrupt the existing reuse and recycling system. 

So yes, trade policy is shaping the economics of textile recycling in a very real way. If Basel-related policies or other trade rules are driven by misinformation or misinterpretations about how the system actually works, they risk undermining the reuse and recycling infrastructure that has supported textile circularity for decades. It’s a bit like pulling a thread in a sweater--once you start tugging at one part of the system, the whole thing can unravel. 

Getting the fashion and apparel industry to support policies that affect their sourcing is complicated. How do you navigate that, and where's the resistance coming from? 

Getting the fashion and apparel industry aligned on policies that affect sourcing is complex because the supply chains are incredibly global and fragmented. Brands are sourcing materials, manufacturing, and distribution across dozens of countries, so policy changes in one market can ripple through an entire system. That naturally makes companies cautious about policies that could increase costs, disrupt sourcing flexibility, or create conflicting requirements across different jurisdictions. 

The resistance tends to come from a few places. First, there is concern about cost and operational complexity, especially if policies are rolled out differently state by state or country by country. Second, there is uncertainty about how some policies will actually work in practice. Many companies support circularity and sustainability goals, but they also want to make sure the policy frameworks are practical, data-driven, and aligned with how the supply chain actually functions. 

What we have found is that the most productive path forward is collaboration. The textile reuse and recycling industry has been operating for more than a hundred years and already represents a form of circularity in practice. Our role is often to help policymakers and brands understand how the existing recovery system works, where it can scale, and where well-intended policies could accidentally create barriers. 

When the conversation shifts from assigning blame to building workable systems, there is actually a lot of alignment. Most brands want solutions that reduce waste and improve sustainability outcomes, but they need policies that recognize the realities of global supply chains and the infrastructure that already exists. 

If you could sit down with a legislator who's never thought about textile recycling before, what's the one thing you'd want them to understand about why this matters? 

The first thing I would want them to understand is that textile reuse and recycling is not a new concept. This is an industry that has existed for more than a hundred years, made up largely of small and medium-sized businesses that have been quietly doing the work of circularity long before the term became popular. Every day, these companies collect, sort, and recover value from textiles that would otherwise end up in landfills, extending the life of clothing and other textiles and creating meaningful jobs and economic activity in the U.S. and abroad in the process. 

The second point is that this system already works, but it operates within a very complex global market. Different grades of material move through different pathways. Some are reused domestically, some are exported for reuse in other markets, and others are recycled into wiping cloths, insulation, or emerging fiber-to-fiber applications. Policies that fail to understand how this system actually functions can unintentionally disrupt it. 

So the key takeaway for policymakers is that the goal should be to strengthen and expand the infrastructure that already exists while supporting continued investment in textile recycling technologies, advanced sorting systems, and other innovations that can scale recovery. Many companies in this space are taking real financial and operational risks to develop new solutions and build the next generation of textile recovery. Smart policy should help create the conditions for those investments to grow, rather than making it harder for the companies already doing the work to move the industry forward.Top of Form 

What's the policy issue you see coming down the pipeline that's going to be contentious or game-changing for the industry? 

One of the biggest issues coming down the pipeline is how emerging policies intersect with each other. We are seeing a rapid rise in EPR policies for textiles at the state and national level, while at the same time there is increasing international scrutiny under the Basel Convention around the movement of used textiles and the distinction between reusable goods and waste. 

Both of these policy conversations are important, but they are often happening in parallel rather than in coordination. EPR is designed to create funding and accountability for textile collection and recovery systems. Basel, on the other hand, focuses on regulating the transboundary movement of materials considered waste. If those frameworks are not aligned, there is a real risk that they could unintentionally work against each other. 

For example, if EPR policies expand collection but international rules under Basel become more restrictive based on misinterpretations of reuse versus waste, the industry could end up collecting far more material without having viable downstream markets for all of it. That would put enormous pressure on the recovery system and could destabilize the economics that currently make reuse and recycling possible. 

So the contentious issue ahead is not necessarily any single policy, but whether these frameworks evolve in a coordinated way. If policymakers align trade, environmental policy, and EPR design with how the textile recovery system actually operates, it could be transformative for circularity. If they conflict, it could create significant unintended consequences for the industry and the global reuse system. 

SMART's at this expo bringing the policy perspective to practitioners and companies. What do you want people in the industry to know about what's happening at the policy level, and what do you hope to learn from them? 

SMART’s goal at events like this is really to connect the policy conversation with what companies in the industry are actually experiencing on the ground. There is a lot happening right now at the policy level, from extended producer responsibility proposals to international trade rules and discussions under the Basel Convention about how used textiles are defined and regulated. Those decisions will directly affect how textiles are collected, sorted, reused, and recycled. 

What we want companies to understand is that these policy conversations will shape the future of the recovery system, which is why it is so important for the industry to stay engaged and help policymakers understand how the system actually works. It is also important that companies are talking with each other. Too often, these conversations are still happening in silos. That is starting to change, but the pace of coordination needs to accelerate if we are going to meet the moment. 

At the same time, we are there to listen. The people running collection programs, sorting operations, and recycling facilities are seeing changes in the market in real time. Hearing directly from them helps make sure that when SMART is talking with policymakers, we are bringing forward the real-world perspective of the companies doing this work every day.