The bill amends chapter 1 of title 4, U.S. Code, to require that flags of the United States displayed on federal property or purchased with federal funds be made in the United States — defined as 100 percent manufactured from materials 100 percent produced in the United States. It also directs the Federal Trade Commission to study and report on how country-of-origin labeling for flags is enforced and whether enforcement deters repeat violations.
This is a tight domestic-content requirement with a short procurement compliance window and a longer phase-in for displays. Practically, it forces federal acquisition offices and flag suppliers to reconcile existing sourcing and contracting practices with a strict “no foreign inputs” standard, while the FTC study could affect how labeling and enforcement are administered going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars federal agencies from displaying or buying U.S. flags for federal property unless the flags are 100 percent manufactured in the United States from materials 100 percent produced in the United States. It also requires an FTC study and report on country-of-origin labeling enforcement for flags.
Who It Affects
Federal acquisition officials (including GSA and military procurement), domestic flag and textile manufacturers, importers and distributors of flags, and the Federal Trade Commission, which must conduct the study. Private actors' displays are explicitly outside the bill’s reach.
Why It Matters
The statute sets a stricter domestic-content threshold than typical Buy American clauses and attaches short compliance windows for procurement and display, creating immediate sourcing and verification demands for agencies and suppliers and potential tension with trade commitments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new section to chapter 1 of title 4 that focuses on two operational controls: display and procurement. For display, it bars federal agencies from placing U.S. flags on federal property unless the flag meets the bill’s “made in the United States” definition.
For procurement, the bill prevents federal funds from being used to purchase flags that do not meet the same definition. The bill defines the universe of covered agencies broadly — executive, military, legislative, judicial, the District of Columbia, and government-controlled corporations — and defines the geographic United States to include states, DC, Tribal lands, and territories.
The definition of “made in the United States” is unusually strict: every article, material, and supply used in the flag must have been produced or manufactured entirely in the United States. That removes the common allowance for foreign components or inputs and therefore excludes items that have domestic assembly but foreign-produced raw materials.
The bill also includes a clause requiring that its operation be consistent with international agreements, and it clarifies that private actors’ display or procurement of flags is not covered.On timing, the statute phases in compliance: federal agencies cannot use funds to procure non‑U.S.-made flags beginning 90 days after enactment, while the prohibition on displaying non‑U.S.-made flags on federal property takes effect two years after enactment. Separately, the bill directs the FTC Chair to study the enforcement regime for country-of-origin labeling for flags, count fines or penalties imposed, measure repeat violations, and deliver a report with recommendations to two congressional committees within one year of enactment.
Agencies will therefore face immediate procurement changes and a longer, separate timeline to manage flag displays on property.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires flags displayed on federal property to be 100% manufactured in the United States from materials 100% produced in the United States.
Federal agencies may not use appropriated funds to procure a U.S. flag unless the flag meets the bill’s 100% domestic-manufacture standard.
The definition of ‘Federal agency’ explicitly includes executive, military, legislative, and judicial branch entities, the Government of the District of Columbia, and government-controlled corporations.
The procurement prohibition becomes effective 90 days after enactment; the display prohibition becomes effective 2 years after enactment.
The Federal Trade Commission must study enforcement of country-of-origin labeling for flags and report findings and recommendations to House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce within 1 year.
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 caption language but signals the bill’s policy focus and will be used in citations to the new statutory section.
Definitions and scope
Sets the operational terms that determine coverage: it gives an expansive definition of 'Federal agency' (covering all branches plus DC and government corporations) and defines 'Federal property' as property owned, leased, or occupied by a Federal agency. Crucially, it defines 'made in the United States' to require 100 percent U.S. manufacture from 100 percent U.S.-produced materials. That 100% threshold is the bill's controlling test for compliance and excludes items with any foreign-origin input.
Display and procurement prohibitions
Subsection (b) prohibits agencies from displaying flags on federal property unless the flags meet the 100% domestic-content test; subsection (c) bars agencies from using appropriated funds to procure flags that fail that test. Practically, procurement offices will need to add certification and verification steps into contracts and solicitations, and agencies that maintain large inventories (military installations, federal buildings, monuments) will face replacement or re-certification decisions when timetables require compliance.
International agreements and private-actor carveout
Subsection (d) requires agencies to apply the provision consistently with the United States' international obligations, which may limit the law’s practical reach in cases where trade agreements or treaty commitments conflict with a strict domestic-content rule. Subsection (e) clarifies the statute does not regulate private actors’ display or procurement of flags — meaning private businesses and individuals are not covered even if their flags are visible on federal property, though flags owned by contractors or leased-space tenants may raise interpretive questions in practice.
FTC study and report on labeling enforcement
Directs the FTC Chair to assess the enforcement scheme for country-of-origin labeling for flags, document fines or penalties imposed, and identify repeat violators. The FTC must submit a report with results and recommendations to improve enforcement and deterrence to House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce within one year. The study is narrowly focused on labeling enforcement rather than on supply-chain capacity or production economics.
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 and textile manufacturers — Clear priority for U.S.-made flags creates an addressable market for firms that can meet the 100% domestic-content test, favoring vertically integrated producers.
- U.S. textile and materials suppliers — Because the bill requires all raw materials to be U.S.-produced, fiber and thread producers in the U.S. will see increased demand if agencies and contractors comply.
- Proponents of domestic procurement policy — Groups that advocate for keeping symbolically important goods domestic gain a concrete statutory standard to hold agencies to and to measure compliance against.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal procurement offices and agencies (GSA, DoD, VA) — Agencies must revise solicitations, implement verifications or certifications, and potentially replace existing inventories within the statutory windows, imposing administrative and replacement costs.
- Suppliers that assemble flags in the U.S. using foreign inputs — Domestic assemblers that rely on imported materials will be excluded by the 100% rule unless they re-source materials, meaning loss of business or investment to change supply chains.
- Taxpayers — If domestically produced flags cost more than imported alternatives, agencies will pay a premium for replacement and new purchases, increasing program expenditures unless budget offsets are identified.
- Small importers and distributors of foreign-made flags — Companies that import and resell flags to government or civic buyers will lose government sales and may face market contraction.
- Federal Trade Commission — The FTC must allocate staff and resources to conduct the mandated study and produce recommendations within one year.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is symbolic domestic sourcing versus practical procurement and trade realities: ensuring that the nation's flag is entirely U.S.-made advances a clear patriotic objective, but the 100% domestic-input rule creates steep compliance, cost, and supply-chain challenges—and may collide with existing trade obligations—leaving agencies to choose between strict adherence, costly remediation, or navigating legal limits.
The bill’s 100 percent domestic-content definition is the defining implementation challenge. Most federal domestic-preference rules tolerate some level of foreign inputs or use a domestic content percentage; this statute admits no foreign-origin input, meaning agencies will need new verification methods and suppliers must provide incontrovertible chain-of-custody proof for raw materials and fabrication.
That raises questions about feasible certification practices, documentary standards, and whether the Federal Acquisition Regulation will require a new clause or waiver mechanism to implement the rule.
The international-agreements proviso is short and vague: it preserves compliance with trade obligations but gives no procedural guidance on how agencies should reconcile conflicts, who makes waiver determinations, or how to document trade-law constraints. The law also contains no enforcement mechanism or civil penalties tied to violations of the procurement or display prohibitions; enforcement therefore will fall to contracting officers, internal controls, and existing oversight mechanisms unless Congress or agencies create new sanctions.
Finally, the study mandated to the FTC is narrowly focused on labeling enforcement and penalties rather than on market capacity or cost impacts, leaving a gap between enforcement knowledge and practical procurement realities that agencies must address administratively.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.