The Better Outfitting Our Troops or BOOTS Act has a noble-sounding name, but it is the exact opposite in practice.
Introduced earlier this year, the proposed legislation would prohibit U.S. servicemembers in uniform from wearing any “optional boot” — that is, boots not formally issued but still permitted — unless the footwear is manufactured entirely in the U.S. Supporters claim the measure promotes quality and readiness, but it’s really just a protectionist giveaway to domestic bootmakers that will limit soldiers’ choices, increase their costs, and put their well-being at risk.
At the BOOTS Act’s core is an age-old protectionist formula: It would restrict the market under the guise of patriotism and funnel profits to politically connected industries.
In this case, the primary beneficiaries are U.S. boot manufacturers who, unsurprisingly, are lobbying hard for the bill’s passage. They stand to gain handsomely by locking out foreign competitors and forcing tens of thousands of American troops to buy from a narrow set of approved vendors.
Although protectionism as a general proposition is contemptible, this is far worse. You can’t get much lower than trying to make a buck off servicemembers at the expense of their health and performance, which is exactly what restrictions on their footwear options will do.
Claims by the bill’s supporters that the measure ensures “high-quality footwear” or that it’s “good for the troops” are laughable when confronted with basic facts.
Reducing the range of available boots makes it less likely that soldiers will find the best fit for their unique needs — no small matter when spending long hours in rugged terrain or combat environments.
Indeed, the Marine Corps’ own combat support systems office recently disclosed that a review of U.S.-made boots yielded a startling 25 percent failure rate. That’s not just embarrassing — it’s a red flag. The bill’s congressional sponsors surely wouldn’t spend their own money on footwear of such questionable quality, so why would they force U.S. servicemembers to do so?
And this bizarre insistence that fewer choices will ensure more reliable and durable footwear isn’t even the most absurd claim they make. One lobbying group behind the BOOTS Act, the U.S. Footwear Manufacturers Association, even argues that eliminating foreign-made options will “reduce confusion among servicemembers.” Apparently, American troops who operate advanced weapons systems and execute complex battlefield maneuvers are baffled by an excess of footwear choices.
The notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous.
The bill’s backers do, however, raise one superficially plausible argument: A reliance on foreign-made boots “erodes the supply chain” needed to meet wartime demands. But skepticism is warranted here, too.
Marine Corps Colonel Paul Gillikin, the current program manager for Marine combat support systems, argues that having multiple supply sources is vital — particularly in a future conflict where contested environments could make traditional supply lines untenable. The veteran infantry and special operations officer says he wants to see “all options” kept on the table.
Consider a hypothetical conflict in East Asia. In such a scenario, boots manufactured in Southeast Asia might be easier to procure and deliver to frontline forces than those shipped from the continental U.S. A rigid U.S.-only policy could leave troops struggling with insufficient gear.
Capacity constraints add to concerns about boot protectionism. In a 2023 wargame exploring vulnerabilities in the defense clothing supply chain, industry representatives revealed they could produce no more than 525,000 pairs of boots per year. Asked whether they could add another 456,000 pairs annually — hardly a far-fetched scenario in a major conflict — they admitted it would only be feasible with advance investment. That’s a polite way of saying: “We’re not ready.”
So what happens if we close off foreign sources and a surge in demand occurs unexpectedly? We either send troops into the field with inadequate footwear or scramble to rebuild a diversified supply chain we will have intentionally dismantled by passing this bill.
Relying solely on domestic suppliers puts all our eggs in one basket — a risky and short-sighted move when it comes to national defense.
After surveying the evidence, the more cynically minded might suspect the BOOTS Act is more about bolstering profits than readiness. Each of the six members of Congress who introduced the bill represents a district or state home to (or in close proximity of) members of the American Combat Boot Alliance, an industry coalition that supports the legislation and stands to reap the rewards. The appearance of self-interest is hard to ignore, and the incentives are clear: limit competition, boost profits and wrap it all in the flag.
Import restrictions are a well-documented economic loser that force Americans to pay more and get less. But as the BOOTS Act shows, their harm can extend to national security as well. In this case, they endanger troop readiness, reduce operational flexibility, and weaken our ability to respond to future threats. Supporting American industry is a worthy goal, but doing so by shackling our servicemembers to potentially subpar products and higher costs — all while hollowing out our strategic options — is not the way to do it.
Our troops deserve the best boots available — wherever they’re made. The BOOTS Act ensures they won’t get them.
Colin Grabow is an associate director at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.
