Federal Flags Must Be 100% U.S.-Made

Full Title:
Make American Flags in America Act of 2025

Summary#

This bill would require flags of the United States that are displayed on federal property or bought with federal funds to be made in the United States. It adds a new rule to federal law and orders a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) study on country-of-origin labeling for flags. The stated policy goal is to ensure flags used by the federal government are fully produced in U.S. territory.

  • Main change: Federal agencies may not display or use funds to buy a U.S. flag unless the flag is 100% manufactured in the United States from materials 100% produced in the United States.
  • Who is covered: Executive, military, legislative and judicial branch offices, the District of Columbia government, and government-controlled corporations.
  • Timing: The procurement ban starts 90 days after enactment; the display rule starts 2 years after enactment.
  • Study: The FTC must study enforcement of country-of-origin labeling for U.S. flags and report within 1 year with recommendations to improve enforcement and deterrence.
  • Exceptions: The rule must be applied consistently with U.S. international agreement obligations. Private actors are not covered.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies and public buildings

    • Must ensure any U.S. flag displayed on federal property is 100% made in the United States by the deadline (2 years).
    • Must not use federal funds to buy U.S. flags that are not 100% U.S.-made starting in 90 days.
    • Will need to add checks in procurement and replace noncompliant flags over the 2‑year period.

  • Flag manufacturers and suppliers

    • U.S. manufacturers that meet the 100% standard could see new federal sales opportunities.
    • Foreign manufacturers and U.S. importers of foreign-made flags would no longer be eligible to sell flags to federal agencies.
    • Businesses will need to prove country-of-origin compliance to win federal contracts.

  • Contractors and procurement officers

    • Must update contracting language and verification steps to show flags meet the bill’s strict “100% made in the United States” definition.
    • May face new paperwork or proof requirements when bidding or filling orders for government customers.

  • Private citizens and private organizations

    • The bill does not restrict private purchases or displays of U.S. flags.

  • Federal Trade Commission

    • Must perform and deliver a study on enforcement of country-of-origin labeling for flags within one year.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on estimated fiscal cost is provided in the bill text or summary.

Possible costs that could follow from the bill (inferred from the text):

  • Federal procurement costs could rise if U.S.-made flags are more expensive than foreign-made flags.
  • Agencies may have administrative costs to verify origin, update contracts, and replace noncompliant flags.
  • The FTC will incur costs to carry out the study and produce the report (not quantified in the bill).
  • Potential short-term supply or transition costs if U.S. production capacity must expand to meet federal demand.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to ensure that flags displayed by the U.S. government are manufactured entirely in U.S. territory.
  • Supporters may argue this would direct federal spending to domestic manufacturers and protect “Made in USA” authenticity for official flags.
  • The bill could be seen as tightening country-of-origin standards to avoid mistaken or misleading labeling for government-used flags.
  • The FTC study could identify weaknesses in current labeling enforcement and suggest ways to strengthen deterrence against false origin claims.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is higher cost: requiring 100% U.S.-made flags may raise buying costs for agencies if domestic prices exceed current suppliers’ prices.
  • The strict 100% rule could create supply problems if U.S. producers lack capacity to meet federal demand quickly.
  • The bill does not detail how agencies must verify compliance or what penalties apply for noncompliance, leaving implementation questions.
  • Although the bill calls for consistency with international agreements, it does not describe how conflicts with trade rules would be handled in practice.
  • The FTC study focuses on labeling enforcement but does not include an explicit plan for funding or enforcing the new procurement/display requirements.