The Make American Flags in America Act of 2025 adds a new §11 to chapter 1 of title 4, U.S. Code, that bars federal agencies from displaying or using federal funds to procure United States flags unless the flags are "made in the United States." The bill spells out a strict definition: flags must be 100 percent manufactured in the United States from articles, materials, or supplies that themselves were 100 percent produced or manufactured in the United States. The statute includes a carve‑out to preserve compliance with international agreements and explicitly does not apply to private actors.
Operational timing is staggered: agencies must source domestically for procurement within 90 days of enactment, while the display prohibition on federal property takes effect two years after enactment. The bill also directs the Federal Trade Commission to study and report within one year on the enforcement of country-of-origin labeling for flags, including fines, repeat violators, and recommendations to strengthen deterrence.
The combination of a strict content definition and short procurement lead time will force rapid changes in federal buying practices and likely concentrate demand on domestic flag producers that can meet the 100-percent threshold.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new §11 into title 4, prohibiting federal agencies from displaying flags on federal property or using federal funds to procure flags unless those flags meet a statutory "made in the United States" standard of 100 percent U.S. manufacture. It preserves consistency with international agreements and excludes private actors from the requirement.
Who It Affects
Executive, legislative and judicial branch entities, the military departments, the Government of the District of Columbia, and government-controlled corporations fall inside the new rule; GSA and agency contracting officers will implement sourcing changes. Domestic flag and textile manufacturers stand to gain, while foreign suppliers that currently serve federal customers stand to lose business.
Why It Matters
This is a narrow procurement mandate with an unusually strict country-of-origin test that bypasses typical multi‑country content tolerances used in Buy American rules. The 90‑day procurement compliance window and the FTC study indicate the drafters expect quick enforcement and possible follow‑on regulatory action on labeling and verification.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a standalone statutory requirement in the U.S. Code focused solely on flags of the United States. It does two operational things: first, it forbids agencies from displaying a U.S. flag on federal property unless that flag was manufactured entirely in the United States; second, it bars agencies from using federal funds to buy flags that fail that same test.
The text defines which entities count as "Federal agency" and what counts as "Federal property," so the rule applies across branches and to government‑owned or -occupied real estate and government‑controlled corporations.
The definition of "made in the United States" is unusually strict: every article, material, and supply used in the flag must itself have been 100 percent produced or manufactured in the United States, and the finished flag must be 100 percent manufactured in the United States. The statute also says it must be applied consistently with the United States' international obligations and explicitly states that private actors are not covered — so businesses and individuals may continue to buy and display non‑U.S. flags absent other law.To ease the operational transition, the bill staggers compliance: agencies must stop using federal funds to procure non‑U.S. flags 90 days after enactment, while the blanket display prohibition on federal properties does not kick in until two years after enactment.
The enforcement mechanism in the text is the procurement bar itself — there are no new civil penalties or criminal sanctions in the bill; compliance will be handled through contracting rules and internal agency controls.Finally, the bill tasks the Federal Trade Commission with a one‑year study and report on country‑of‑origin labeling enforcement for flags, asking the FTC to catalog existing enforcement activity, fines or penalties imposed, and the share of repeat violations. The FTC must offer recommendations to strengthen labeling enforcement and deterrence, potentially setting the stage for future regulatory or legislative changes tied to verification or penalties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds §11 to chapter 1 of title 4, U.S. Code, establishing the new domestic‑manufacture requirement for flags.
It defines "made in the United States" as 100 percent manufactured in the U.S. from articles, materials, or supplies 100 percent produced or manufactured in the U.S.
Agencies must comply with the procurement ban (no federal funds for non‑U.S. flags) 90 days after enactment; the display prohibition on federal property becomes effective two years after enactment.
The statute includes a savings clause to ensure the requirement is applied consistently with U.S. international agreements and explicitly excludes private actors.
The Federal Trade Commission must complete and deliver a study and report within one year on country‑of‑origin labeling enforcement for U.S. flags, including fines and repeat violators, plus recommendations to improve enforcement and deterrence.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the "Make American Flags in America Act of 2025." This is purely titular and has no operational effect, but it signals the bill's policy intent and frames subsequent provisions for implementation and oversight.
Ban on display and procurement of non‑U.S. flags by federal agencies
Subsections (a) and (b) are the core operative provisions. Subsection (a) prohibits federal agencies from displaying the U.S. flag on federal property unless the flag is manufactured in the United States; subsection (b) bars agencies from using federal funds to procure flags unless they are manufactured in the United States. Practically, agency procurement officials will need to add strict country‑of‑origin confirmation to solicitations and contracts and may need to rework existing contracts or use administrative waivers where domestic supply does not exist.
International agreements, private actor exclusion, and definitions
Subsection (c) requires agencies to apply the requirement consistent with international obligations, which invites an interpretive role for counsel where conflicts with trade agreements arise. Subsection (d) clarifies that private actors are not regulated by this provision, preventing the law from restricting non‑governmental displays. Subsection (e) supplies broad definitions—"Federal agency" includes executive agencies, the military departments, legislative and judicial branch entities, the Government of D.C., and government‑controlled corporations; "Federal property" covers owned, leased, or occupied real property; and "United States" is defined geographically to include states, D.C., tribal lands, and territories—each of which matters for determining coverage and where production can be located.
Staggered compliance deadlines
The bill sets separate effective dates: procurement restrictions apply 90 days after enactment, pushing contracting officers to act quickly, while the display prohibition is delayed two years, giving agencies time to retrofit display inventories or source compliant flags. That timing creates distinct near‑term procurement work and a longer-term facilities and facilities‑management task for flag displays on federal land and buildings.
FTC study and report on country‑of‑origin labeling enforcement for flags
Requires the Federal Trade Commission Chair to assess how country‑of‑origin labeling for flags is enforced, tally any fines or penalties imposed, and measure repeat violations by the same entities. The FTC must deliver a report within one year to House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce with recommendations to strengthen enforcement and deterrence—a focused fact‑finding exercise that could lead to administrative or legislative follow‑up on labeling verification and sanctions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Domestic flag manufacturers able to certify 100% U.S. production—will gain priority access to federal procurement and display orders that were previously supplied by foreign firms.
- U.S. textile and related suppliers that already source domestically—may see increased orders for raw materials and components used in flag manufacturing.
- Veterans and patriotic organizations that prioritize American‑made goods—will have greater assurance that flags on federal property and procured with public funds meet a strict domestic standard.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and procurement offices—must implement verification processes, amend solicitations and contracts, and possibly pay higher prices for domestically produced flags within a 90‑day procurement window.
- Foreign and mixed‑content flag suppliers—will lose eligibility for federal contracts unless they shift production entirely to U.S. facilities, risking business loss and supply‑chain disruption.
- Government budgets and taxpayers—may face higher procurement costs for flags and administrative costs to monitor and enforce the 100% requirement, especially during the transition period.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits symbolic and political objectives—ensuring flags flown and purchased with public funds are plainly "Made in the USA"—against practical procurement and supply‑chain realities: enforcing an uncompromising 100% domestic content rule will raise costs, complicate verification, and may conflict with trade commitments, forcing a choice between patriotic sourcing and efficient, law‑compliant procurement.
The bill substitutes a bright‑line, symbolic policy for the usual pragmatic approaches to content and origin in procurement law. The 100 percent domestic manufacture threshold is administrable in theory but difficult in practice: many textile inputs, dyes, threads, and finishing processes are part of global supply chains, and verifiable U.S. origin for every component could be costly or impossible for some current suppliers.
The statute contains no new civil or criminal penalties; enforcement relies on contracting officers refusing to procure non‑compliant flags and agency internal controls, leaving open how violations will be detected and remediated. The FTC study focuses narrowly on labeling enforcement and repeat violators, not on whether domestic industry can scale to meet demand or on the economic impacts to agencies and taxpayers.
Another implementation friction is the bill's interplay with international trade obligations. The text instructs agencies to apply the rule consistent with international agreements, but it does not identify how agencies should resolve direct conflicts, or whether the United States would seek waivers or exemptions under trade accords.
The split effective dates (90 days for procurement, two years for display) reduce immediate disruption to existing displays but create two distinct compliance tracks that contracting, facilities, and property managers must coordinate. Finally, the geographic definition of the United States includes territories and tribal lands, which raises questions about where manufacturers may locate to supply compliant flags and whether production on tribal lands will receive preferential treatment or face unique regulatory issues.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.