On March 13, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14392, titled Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to Be Made in America, which broadly targets false or misleading country-of-origin claims across industries. Its implications for the dietary supplement sector are particularly acute. “Made in USA” and similar American-origin claims are among the most prevalent marketing representations in the supplement industry, yet also among the most legally vulnerable given the global nature of ingredient sourcing.
Core features of Executive Order 14392
EO 14392 does not create new substantive legal standards, but meaningfully raises the stakes for companies making American-origin claims. The EO’s key directives are:
Prioritized FTC enforcement. The executive order directs the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates advertising and marketing claims, to prioritize enforcement actions whenever a “Made in America,” “Made in the U.S.A.” or similar American-origin claim constitutes a violation of law, including an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act.
Potential rulemaking for online marketplaces. The executive order instructs the FTC to consider issuing proposed regulations that would provide that an online marketplace’s failure to establish procedures for verifying country-of-origin claims may itself constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice.
Voluntary labeling guidance. All agencies with oversight of country-of-origin labeling are directed to consider promulgating regulations that promote voluntary country-of-origin labeling, with a mandate for inter-agency consistency.
Government procurement verification. Agencies overseeing government contracts are required to periodically review American-origin claims. Contractors found to have misrepresented origin status face removal from procurement eligibility and referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability.
Taken together, the executive order’s directives signal a shift from complaint-driven enforcement to proactive, targeted scrutiny — particularly of e-commerce channels and mass-market consumer goods. For dietary supplement companies that rely on patriotic branding, these directives pose a materially elevated compliance risk.
Existing FTC framework: The ‘all or virtually all’ standard
The FTC has long held that an unqualified “Made in USA” claim requires that a product be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. In August 2021, the FTC formalized this standard by finalizing the Made in USA Labeling Rule, codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 323. Under that rule, an unqualified “Made in USA” label, including on online marketing materials and catalogs, is an unfair or deceptive act or practice unless: (i) the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; (ii) all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and (iii) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.
The term “Made in the United States” is broadly defined to capture any unqualified representation – express or implied – that a product is of U.S. origin, including the words “made,” “manufactured,” “built,” “produced,” “created” or “crafted” in the United States or in America. Even the use of United States flags, maps or patriotic imagery in advertising can constitute an implied origin claim under FTC guidance. Violations of the Made in USA Labeling Rule are treated as violations of Section 18 of the FTC Act, authorizing substantial civil penalties.
Challenges for dietary supplement companies
The dietary supplement industry faces a distinctive and difficult compliance challenge under the “all or virtually all” standard, as a large proportion of the raw ingredients used in dietary supplements are not sourced in the United States in commercially significant quantities.
Consider common examples:
Vitamins and minerals: Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), a foundational ingredient in countless supplement products, is predominantly manufactured in China. The same is true for many B vitamins and other micronutrients.
Botanical ingredients: Widely used ingredients such as turmeric, ashwagandha, and Boswellia are largely sourced from India and other Asian markets.
Amino acids and specialty ingredients: The global supply chain for amino acids, omega-3 fatty acids, and other functional ingredients similarly runs through foreign manufacturing hubs.
This operational reality creates a practical tension: a supplement brand may legitimately manufacture its finished products (e.g., filling capsules, bottling powders, packaging tablets) entirely within the United States, while still relying on foreign-sourced raw ingredients that may represent a significant share of manufacturing costs. An unqualified “Made in USA” claim on such a product would likely not survive FTC scrutiny, especially with the directives of EO 14392.
Adding to the complexity, the FTC’s analysis of the “all or virtually all” standard looks not just at the origin of ingredients a company directly acquires, but also at the origin of the subcomponents of those ingredients. For supplement companies, this means tracing the supply chain back further than the raw material supplier. Such tracing can be a difficult undertaking when foreign-origin active ingredients form a product’s core.
The online marketplace
Executive Order 14392’s directive to consider rulemaking targeting online marketplaces deserves particular attention from supplement companies. Sales of dietary supplements through e-commerce platforms — such as Amazon, brand-owned direct-to-consumer websites and third-party marketplace platforms — have been increasing year over year. As Epstein Becker Green previously discussed, Amazon’s new dietary supplement testing requirements — mandating third-party verification of product quality and safety — are reshaping the industry by helping detect fraudulent products. The executive order contemplates that a marketplace’s failure to verify country-of-origin claims could itself constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice.
If such a rule materializes, it could likely compel platforms like Amazon to implement meaningful verification of “Made in USA” product listings. That, in turn, would create downstream pressure on supplement brands to substantiate their claims at the time of online listing to affirmatively demonstrate compliance to platform operators. Brands that cannot substantiate their claims could face delisting, commercial disruption and reputational harm independent of any direct FTC enforcement action.
Implied claims and patriotic branding
Many dietary supplement companies rely on American-origin themes in their overall brand identity without making explicit “Made in USA” statements on labels. Imagery such as American flags, eagles, red-white-and blue color schemes or taglines like “Proudly American” may create implied origin claims that trigger the same standard as an explicit “Made in USA” label.
The FTC focuses on the overall impression conveyed to consumers, not just literal label language. Brands whose marketing conveys a message of domestic origin should evaluate whether their ingredient sourcing and manufacturing practices can support that impression under the “all or virtually all” standard.
Qualified claims: A practical path forward
Companies whose products cannot satisfy the “all or virtually all” standard could pivot to qualified claims or alternative certifications as a compliant alternative. Permissible qualified claims include:
“[Percent] U.S. content.”
“Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.”
“Assembled in USA, contains [ingredient] sourced from [country].”
The FTC Act declares unfair or deceptive practices affecting commerce to be unlawful. Qualified claims must be truthful, adequately substantiated and presented in a manner that is clear, conspicuous and understandable to consumers. They must accompany the primary origin claim, not merely be available somewhere in the product documentation. The disclosure must appear with equal prominence to the claim it qualifies. Qualified claims still require substantiation. For example, a company claiming “Made in USA of imported ingredients” must be able to verify which ingredients are imported and ensure the claim accurately reflects the product’s composition.
The False Claims Act: An underappreciated risk for supplement companies selling to the government
While the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., may not be the first statute that comes to mind for dietary supplement companies when enforcement risk is discussed, Executive Order 14392 puts it squarely in play for any brand that sells — directly or through a distributor — to federal agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD), or other government purchasers. The order explicitly directs agencies overseeing government procurement contracts to periodically review and verify American-origin claims and mandates referral to the DOJ for potential FCA liability where misrepresentation is found.
The FCA imposes liability of up to three times the government’s actual damages, plus civil penalties per false claim, and — critically — includes a qui tam provision that allows private whistleblowers to file suit on the government’s behalf and share in any recovery. For supplement companies, this creates a layered exposure: a sales representative, a supply chain employee or even a competitor aware of a gap between a company’s “Made in USA” marketing and its actual ingredient sourcing could trigger a whistleblower action and subsequent FCA investigation.
The VA and DoD are significant purchasers of dietary supplements and nutritional products, and government contracts or procurement schedules that include “Country of Origin USA” certifications demand the same level of rigorous substantiation as any FTC-regulated marketing claim. Companies that have relied on loosely documented origin representations in their government contracting paperwork — even where no fraudulent intent existed — should treat the executive orders as an urgent prompt to audit those certifications before federal agencies do it for them.
Dual regulatory risk: FTC and FDA
Dietary supplement companies operate under dual regulatory oversight. The FTC has primary jurisdiction over advertising claims, including “Made in USA” representations in marketing materials, websites, and e-commerce listings. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), by contrast, has primary responsibility for supplement labeling under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Both agencies coordinate their efforts through a Memorandum of Understanding — the “FDA-FTC Liaison Agreement” — but the FTC’s advertising jurisdiction is broad and is not limited by FDA’s categorization of supplements. A “Made in USA” claim that appears on a product website, in a social media post or in an Amazon listing is subject to FTC enforcement regardless of what appears on the product’s physical label.
Supplement companies must be aware that inconsistency between FTC-regulated marketing claims and FDA- regulated labeling statements (such as “Made in USA with imported ingredients,” “Packed in USA” or “Product of USA”) is indicative of potential compliance concerns and invites scrutiny from both agencies.
Practical recommendations for dietary supplement companies
Dietary supplements should treat “Made in USA” claims as a core compliance issue, not merely a marketing detail. Specifically, companies should:
Audit all existing origin claims across product labels, websites, e-commerce listings, advertising materials, social media and any influencer or affiliate marketing content.
Map the full supply chain for each finished product, including the origin of raw ingredients and the sub-components of those ingredients. Document the analysis and keep records current as sourcing changes.
Calculate manufacturing cost percentages attributable to U.S. versus foreign content using generally accepted accounting principles, as the FTC’s “all or virtually all” analysis is cost-based.
Evaluate whether unqualified claims can be substantiated. For many supplement companies, this analysis will reveal that qualified claims are the only legally defensible option for many products.
Implement qualified claims with proper disclosures where unqualified claims cannot be supported. Ensure disclosures are clear, conspicuous, and consistent across all sales channels — including online platforms.
Review brand imagery and overall marketing themes for implied origin claims, including the use of flags, patriotic colors, geographic references, and “American” brand language.
Monitor regulatory developments, including FTC rulemaking on online marketplace obligations. The executive order contemplates new rules that could create direct platform-level compliance obligations with downstream consequences for supplement brands.
Train marketing and product teams to treat origin claims with the same rigor applied to health claims and structure/function claims — requiring substantiation before deployment.
Made in America Conclusion
The EO does not change the law governing “Made in USA” claims. What it does — and what companies should take seriously — is signal a sustained, proactive federal enforcement environment targeting precisely the types of claims that are widespread in the dietary supplement industry. The FTC has been building its enforcement infrastructure for years, with escalating civil penalties and a growing body of case law. The executive order provides political direction and institutional momentum to intensify that trajectory.
For dietary supplement companies, the question is no longer whether “Made in USA” enforcement is coming — it is whether your company is ready for it. With a complex global ingredient supply chain, a heavy reliance on e-commerce channels, and consumer demand for domestic branding, the supplement industry sits at the intersection of every enforcement priority identified in the order. The time to assess, document and correct is now — before the FTC does it for you.