Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Some US lawmakers seem to have a particular fondness for items with "pure American lineage." After mandating last year that the federal government purchase only American flags completely manufactured in the US, their attention has now shifted to what American soldiers wear on their feet. 

According to US media reports, a new bill introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers would require all service members to wear combat boots manufactured entirely in the US using US-sourced materials. The justification sounds "lofty": Since "up to 50 percent of our service members currently wear foreign-made 'optional' boots, primarily from China and Vietnam," the lawmakers argue that "this not only undercuts American jobs, it poses real risks to troop readiness and our national security."

Since when does a pair of humble combat boots pose a threat to the combat readiness of the US military and even to national security? Such alarmist logic doesn't reflect genuine concern; rather, it is rather a theatrical display of political posturing - an attempt by certain American politicians to forcibly bend economic principles to serve their agenda. The Better Outfitting Our Troops (BOOTS) Act, much like the All-American Flag Act before it, is another misuse of the "national security" label to justify building protectionist walls. At its core, the goal is simple: to forcibly keep industries and jobs within US borders. However, can the US achieve 100 percent domestically produced combat boots for the entire military?

Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that "within the framework of globalized production, it is virtually impossible for any country - especially one like the US - to completely detach its military supplies, whether advanced weapons systems or everyday items for service members, from global supply chains, no matter how hard they try." Some American politicians have turned "100 percent made in the US" into a political slogan, frequently invoking terms like "supply chain security" and "reshoring manufacturing" to justify restrictions on normal imports and exports - revealing a fundamental ignorance of the basic principles of economic specialization and the global division of labor.

In fact, the clamor among American politicians to ban "Made in China" products from the US military is nothing new. Reports show that back in 2001, then chief of staff of the US Army declared that US troops shall not wear berets made in China or berets made with Chinese content. Ironically, the move came at a time when the Army contracted with a number of garment manufacturing firms overseas to fill some of the order because of concerns that US firms would be unable to implement the order of over 2 million berets on time.

Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, noted that today's BOOTs Act is no different from previous political gimmicks. "Back then, 'Made in China' product was on soldiers' heads, and Americans claimed it hurt morale. Now it's on their feet, and suddenly they insist it must say 'America.' This stance of refusing Chinese products is not only about confronting China, but also about confronting the market principles outlined by Friedrich Hayek," Shen said. 

The US used to proudly see itself as a champion of global free trade, but today, it wields the stick of "reciprocal tariffs" to pressure other countries. The US is no longer a leader in free trade, but one of the greatest disruptors of the current international system. From mandating "100 percent American-made" flags to claiming that foreign-made boots threaten troop readiness, these political farces have become some of the most biting ironies of the country's professed commitment to free trade.

As some American politicians grow increasingly obsessed with the "pure American lineage" of products on the market, what the world sees is not a renewed national pride in "Made in the US," nor a so-called rebirth of American manufacturing. What else can this isolationist move bring except making US consumers foot the bill?