Textile Recycling in the United States: 2026 Report

What is current in this 2026 report?

The evidence has three different clocks: the period measured, the source publication date and our review date. The distinction matters because a reader searching for the latest textile recycling statistics may encounter an old waste estimate on a recently updated page.

Enlarge ↗PNGSVGSource data

There is also a current policy context, with a specific reporting limit. GAO's recommendation tracker, checked for this edition, describes February 2026 follow-up on federal coordination. That follow-up does not supply a new national recycling rate or prove that a collection service has delivered a recovery outcome. GAO report and status updates 22.

The term textile recycling can refer to a collection offer, a sorting activity, a processing technology or a claimed end use. These meanings are related, but they answer different questions. A collection service may establish a route away from the original owner without establishing whether the material is subsequently reused, converted into another product, processed into new textile fibers or discarded.

For researchers and policymakers, the distinction affects how aggregate statistics are interpreted. For a business withdrawing uniforms, it affects which recipient is appropriate and what the business can substantiate after collection. A recycled-fiber claim on a new product answers another question: what input went into production. It does not, by itself, describe the destination of the buyer's discarded clothing.

This report addresses three research questions:

1. How did the quantities and shares reported in EPA's historical textile MSW series change?
2. What does the public documentation establish for six selected collection and recovery routes when the same material cases are applied to each?
3. Which records are needed to distinguish eligibility, collection, processing and final output?

The contribution is deliberately bounded. We combine a reproducible historical analysis with an inspectable intake-documentation audit and a practical reporting framework. The study does not estimate a new national recycling rate or infer actual recovery performance from provider marketing.

Prior work provides a wider foundation. GAO's federal review identifies limited data and decentralized collection and sorting as issues in U.S. textile-waste management. NIST investigates the measurement and material-identification requirements for textile circularity. Fashion for Good's Sorting for Circularity USA project addresses sorting opportunities. These studies establish that the subject is already researched; the contribution here is the explicit connection between national measures, particular intake cases and the evidence needed for a defensible business record. GAO textile-waste review 3, NIST textile research 4, Sorting for Circularity USA 5.

The collection point is the beginning of a route. It does not tell you the final use of the material.

The record fields are our recommended reporting framework. They are intended to keep different results visible rather than turn them into one promotional number. EPA itself reports recycling, combustion with energy recovery and landfilling separately in its textile waste tables. EPA textile material data 1.

A business can make progress through more than one route. Reusing a serviceable garment, making wiping cloths from another and recovering fiber from a third are different activities. Each should be described accurately. A load sent to a sorting partner should remain recorded as sent for sorting until there is evidence supporting the next stage.

Enlarge ↗PNGSVGSource data

Historical textile waste and recycling quantities

Selected observations from EPA's table. Quantities are million U.S. short tons, not metric tonnes. The downloadable file preserves all ten reported years and unavailable cells.

Enlarge ↗PNGSVGSource data

From 2000 to 2018, generated textile MSW increased by 7.55 million short tons, or 79.6%. Recycled quantities increased by 1.19 million short tons, or 90.2%. Landfilled quantities increased by 5.02 million short tons, or 79.9%. These calculations show simultaneous growth in recycling activity and landfilled material. They do not identify the causes of either change.

The recycling share rose from 13.92% to 14.74%, a change of 0.81 percentage points. A large percentage increase in recycled tonnage can coexist with a small change in the recycling share when generation is also growing. Both the quantity and its denominator are therefore needed to interpret progress.

The 2018 pathway distribution

Enlarge ↗PNGSVGSource data

EPA excludes textiles entering the reuse market from its generation estimate, and its recycling category covers more than fiber-to-fiber processing. Consequently, the 14.7% figure cannot answer the question “What percentage of discarded clothing becomes new clothing?” It also cannot measure recycling outcomes for branded business apparel in 2026. EPA scope and definitions 1.

Publicly documented intake across six routes

We selected six contrasting examples before completing the detailed review: local government guidance, a mail-in service, branded-merchandise recovery, a general clothing collector, a production-scrap service and managed brand recovery. They are examples of different routes, not a ranking of the best recyclers or a census of U.S. providers.

The table summarizes public information observed on September 13, 2026. Eligibility can change, and a business contract may differ from a public bag or bin program.

The same six material cases, applied to every route

The matrix makes the comparison explicit. D means published intake is documented within the named program's rules and geography. C means a relevant service is documented but confirmation is needed for this case. N means the case was not established from the reviewed pages. X means an explicit rule excludes it. N is not a rejection, and D is not shipment approval or proof of recycling.

Original documentation audit, September 13, 2026. The household cases are clean, dry and unbranded: wearable cotton shirts, or worn-out clothing that may contain mixed fibers. The branded case is clean, used polyester/cotton work shirts with a no-resale-with-logo restriction. Scraps are clean, sorted unused fabric or production/craft cuttings, without a specified industrial load size. Contaminated cases concern used garments. These distinctions are part of the result.

FABSCRAP's exclusions in the last two columns follow its broader exclusion of used garments. They should not be read as a separate chemical-handling assessment. Retold's used-clothing and scrap results refer to different bag channels. King County's broad reference to clean fabric does not settle our exact scrap case. The full audit data and reasons link through the source ledger to the program documents.

Do not total D cells to rank providers. A household collection program and a managed business service solve different problems, and a detailed public FAQ can establish more cases than a short service page without proving better processing. Read across the column matching your material, then verify the channel and conditions directly.

Three findings from this review are especially useful when choosing a route.

Used clothing and unused scraps need different searches

FABSCRAP's documentation explicitly excludes used clothing, bedding and linens while accepting pre-consumer fabric material. Retold separately describes Classic and Fabric Scraps bags. This means a search for “fabric recycling” can return a relevant organization without returning the right program for your load. FABSCRAP FAQ 11, Retold bag rules 8.

Our interpretation is straightforward: identify prior use before comparing services. A worn-out uniform and a cutting-room offcut can have the same fiber composition but different eligibility. Keeping them separate also prevents a useful scrap route from being rejected because it was evaluated against the wrong kind of material.

A brand restriction changes the decision

SwagCycle's service starts with an assessment of goods and brand guidelines. Its 2025 report describes client projects involving de-branding, recycling or destruction. Helpsy's retail page also describes client-selected resale restrictions. These are relevant service statements for businesses, but they are not a signed commitment for a specific uniform load. SwagCycle process 9, 2025 report, pages 2 and 3 14, Helpsy retail and brand service 15.

We therefore classified an exact scenario involving used polyester/cotton work shirts and a no-resale-with-logo requirement as requiring confirmation, even for providers with relevant business services. A website can establish that the conversation is worth having. The specification and agreement establish whether the route meets the requirement.

“Recycling” can include several downstream channels

Retold's process page describes domestic and international resale as well as rag vendors and downcycling. Debrand's public transparency-report announcement distinguishes broad recycling channels from textile-to-textile pilots and disposal routes. The public announcement is self-reported, and its gated full report was not obtained for this review. Retold's process 16, Debrand's April 2026 announcement 17.

The implication is not that these routes are interchangeable or that one always has the lowest environmental impact. It is that the destination needs to be named. We did not track loads, inspect facilities, calculate emissions or independently audit provider impact claims.

Global production: volume and share can diverge

Textile Exchange estimates global fiber production at approximately 132 million metric tonnes in 2024. Recycled fibers represented 7.6% of this total, while less than 1% came from pre- and post-consumer recycled textiles. It reports that 98% of recycled polyester was derived from plastic bottles. These figures distinguish recycled content from textile-to-textile recovery; none is a U.S. clothing-waste recycling rate. Textile Exchange, Materials Market Report 2025 2.

Enlarge ↗PNGSVGSource data

For a purchasing specification, the implication is to identify both the recycled feedstock and the intended recovery route. A product made with bottle-derived recycled polyester may satisfy a recycled-content requirement, but that statement does not establish that used garments can enter the same process. This is an interpretation of the distinction between input and output records, not a judgment about the comparative environmental impact of two products.

Collection, sorting and recycling are separate steps. Sorting establishes which items or materials can enter a process. The process changes the material; its output determines what can be made next.

This is a simplified comparison, based on GAO's July 2024 technology assessment 18. A process name is not an acceptance specification. Blends, dyes, finishes and components can complicate processing. GAO's 2024 discussion of technology maturity should not be treated as a current inventory of commercially available services.

Why sorting is part of the recycling problem

Knowing that a garment contains cotton is not the same as knowing that a recycler can use the whole garment. Composition data helps a processor decide which feedstock it has. In January 2025, NIST described its NIR-SORT reference database, containing near-infrared measurements for 64 fabric types, including pure fibers, blends and real-world fabrics. Equipment manufacturers can use those reference measurements to train and test sorting algorithms. NIST's NIR-SORT account 19.

That research supports better material identification. It does not establish that a particular collection service has the equipment, accepts your load or can turn it into new clothing. Identification and recovery still need separate evidence.

For a practical example, imagine a business with unused cotton cutting scraps and used cotton/polyester work shirts. Ask for separate intake decisions. For the scraps, establish composition, preparation and the intended output. For the shirts, add prior use, trim, print and branding restrictions. If the recipient answers only “we recycle textiles,” the decision is still unresolved. Request the specification that applies to each batch.

Material identity is necessary but not sufficient for an intake decision. The condition, prior use, mixture of components, quantity and receiving channel can change the answer. The audit's used-garment and unused-scrap cases illustrate this point without testing the chemical or mechanical suitability of individual items. The practical classification tables in Appendix A supply the information to request; the recipient's written specification remains the relevant acceptance record.

The combined evidence supports three distinctions that are easy to lose in a general recycling claim.

First, national context and local eligibility operate at different scales. The EPA table describes a historical U.S. waste stream; a service's acceptance page describes a particular channel and set of rules. A national total cannot establish a suitable route for a particular uniform, and a documented route cannot establish national recycling performance. Retaining these scales prevents a local example from becoming an unsupported national conclusion.

Second, collection and conversion require different records. An acceptance email establishes the receiving conditions. A weighing or receipt record can establish a quantity received. A downstream processing record may establish which process handled that quantity. A final-output statement requires evidence of the resulting material, product or destination. A report should make unresolved stages visible rather than infer the entire chain from its first step.

Third, growth should be evaluated using quantities and shares together. The historical EPA comparison shows that recycling tonnage rose while landfilled tonnage also rose. The global polyester comparison shows rising recycled volume alongside declining recycled share. These examples use different datasets and are not combined. They demonstrate a common reporting issue: a favorable numerator does not settle the meaning of a ratio.

For a business apparel program, the resulting recommendation is to maintain a batch-level inventory and separate fields for acceptance, collection, processing and output. Material or weight should not be counted again simply because it moves through another stage. Where the recipient provides only a collection receipt, final output remains unresolved. Where a quantity combines reuse and multiple recycling outputs, its components should remain visible wherever the evidence permits disaggregation.

The original contribution is useful as an evidence framework and a reproducible documentation comparison. It is narrower than a national material-flow study or an independently audited processor impact report. Its value lies in making eligibility criteria and unsupported transitions inspectable, while retaining source records that another reader can challenge or update.

Start with the material you actually have

Before looking for a recycler, make four separate piles or inventory categories. The distinction between them determines which questions to ask.

Wearable clothing still performs its intended job. Decide whether repair, continued use, resale or donation is appropriate before arranging material recovery. For business clothing, include the condition of the branding in that assessment. A serviceable shirt with an obsolete company identity may need a different route from an otherwise identical unbranded shirt.

Worn-out clothing has already been used and may be unsuitable for another wearer. Do not assume that a donation point accepts it. Look for a current acceptance statement covering damaged or non-wearable items, and follow its preparation rules.

Unused fabric and production scraps are a different stream. Keep fabric composition, supplier labels and any information about finishes with the material. Separate usable lengths from small cuttings if the recipient requests it. The distinction matters because a program designed around unused fabric may exclude household clothing altogether.

Wet, moldy or chemically contaminated items need separate handling. Do not put them into an ordinary clothing collection merely because the underlying fabric is cotton or polyester. Describe the condition to the relevant waste service and obtain appropriate handling instructions before moving the material. The public programs reviewed here are not evidence of a route for hazardous workwear.

These categories are a practical intake system, not a claim that every collector uses the same terminology. GAO distinguishes waste arising during manufacture, goods discarded before consumer use, and textiles discarded after use. Those streams differ in consistency, composition information and preparation needs. GAO's textile waste report 3.

What can be recycled, and what needs confirmation?

The useful question is whether a particular service accepts your particular material through an available channel. Fiber content is one part of that decision.

NIST identifies several barriers to textile recovery: inconsistent collection, difficult sorting, uncertain fiber information and processing requirements that vary by material. It also identifies blends, dyes, additives and finishes as complications for recycling. These are reasons to obtain an intake specification, not grounds for declaring every blended garment unrecyclable. NIST's textile resource-efficiency research 4.

Use the following checklist when a website's wording is broad:

Do not remove every button, zipper or logo before asking. Preparation is part of the agreed process, and the recipient may have its own method. For example, Debrand describes disassembly according to downstream partner requirements. That statement establishes an offered preparation service; it does not establish that every garment will pass a partner's specification. Debrand services 12.

For a one-time household clear-out, a simple item list may be enough. For a business load, use a spreadsheet with photographs and separate lines for materially different products. Avoid describing a mixed pallet as “cotton uniforms” if it also contains lined jackets, stretch polos and accessories. An accurate inventory gives the recipient something specific to accept or reject.

Questions readers ask about textile recycling

How do you dispose of unusable textiles?

Separate clean, dry, worn-out clothing from wet, moldy or chemically contaminated material. Then use a program that explicitly accepts the condition and item type. A service accepting wearable donations does not automatically accept damaged textiles. Our audit records worn-out clothing as documented for the specified Retold and Helpsy channels, while FABSCRAP excludes used clothing. Read the case definitions before choosing a route; public acceptance is not shipment approval. Sources 8, 10, 11.

What is the best way to recycle textiles?

Start with the outcome and the material. Check whether usable items can remain in service or be reused, then ask a recipient about the precise blend, condition, trims and branding. Compare the documented destination and reporting terms as well as the collection offer. This report cannot name one best provider for every load: household bags, unused production scraps and controlled branded uniforms are different cases. The six-route matrix and the collection record template make those differences explicit.

Where can I find textile recycling near me, including NYC?

Start with your municipality's current textile-reuse page, then confirm the exact collection site's eligibility, accepted condition and business-volume rules. For New York City, use the Department of Sanitation's clothing and household-fabric guidance 23; for the King County example, follow its own location and eligibility rules 7. A national report cannot verify the nearest available site for an individual address. Check the local page before travelling or shipping.

Does Goodwill recycle every type of textile?

This audit did not evaluate a Goodwill program. Ask the specific receiving organization whether it accepts your item and condition, and what happens to material that cannot be sold. Do not treat a donation receipt as proof of fiber-to-fiber recycling. Use the same evidence questions in Appendix B for any organization outside the six-route sample.

Can polyester and cotton-polyester clothing be recycled?

Polyester recycling technologies exist, but technical recyclability does not establish access to a service for a particular garment. Blends, dyes, finishes, elastane, trims and contamination can affect sorting and processing requirements. Ask the processor which composition and preparation it accepts and what output it produces. The global recycled-polyester share in the results describes production inputs, not the percentage of discarded polyester garments recovered. Technology context 18, material identification 19.

What percentage of U.S. textiles is recycled in 2026?

The EPA source reviewed for this 2026 edition does not provide a 2026 rate. Its 2018 textile MSW quantities yield 14.74%, conventionally rounded to 14.7%. That category includes more than clothing-to-clothing recycling, and its denominator excludes textiles entering the reuse market. Cite it as a 2018 U.S. textile MSW statistic, not a current clothing-recycling rate. EPA 1.

How to find textile recycling near you

Start with your city or county waste authority and search for the exact item and condition. A municipal directory may identify local channels, but follow through to the operator's current acceptance page. Check whether the location takes non-wearable clothing, whether the service is for residents or businesses, and whether appointments or special packaging are required.

King County illustrates why the local details matter. Its current guide identifies particular transfer stations, limits eligibility for that service and lists accepted items. It also links to other collection organizations, each of which has its own rules. Those links should not be read as one uniform acceptance policy. King County textile guidance 7.

If a local route does not fit, investigate mail-in programs. Retold states that it serves all 50 U.S. states, while excluding certain other addresses, and distinguishes clothing bags from scrap bags. Before paying, verify the product, capacity, return postage and exclusions against your actual load. Retold FAQ 8.

For a business, start with the inventory and ask about collection or freight arrangements. A consumer bag may be appropriate for a small eligible quantity, but its rules are not a substitute for a contract covering a large clearance. Retold, for example, publishes a distinct business service for bulk goods, branded items and returns. Retold business services 20.

Never leave bags beside a full collection bin or outside a closed location. Confirm an available handoff point. Keep textiles out of a standard mixed-recycling cart unless the operator explicitly tells you that they belong there. A collection program's name alone is not sufficient instruction.

A practical process for uniforms and branded merchandise

A uniform clearance should begin before anyone books a pickup. The following is our recommended workflow for an organization, not a description of work carried out for this report.

Establish what can remain in use

Count what is obsolete, what is damaged and what is still suitable for its intended job. A changed logo, a size mismatch and a failed seam are different reasons for withdrawal. Record them separately. If a product can remain in service or be repaired without violating a real brand or operational requirement, consider that option before treating it as waste.

Avoid a blanket “all items must be destroyed” instruction unless it reflects an actual requirement. Equally, do not assume that donation is permitted because a garment is wearable. The person responsible for brand or access controls should specify what is allowed before the inventory leaves the business.

Write the brand requirement in operational terms

“Protect our brand” leaves too much room for interpretation. A useful instruction specifies whether logos must be removed, whether the garment may be resold after alteration, whether particular channels or territories are prohibited, and what evidence is needed when the work is complete.

For example, a constructed requirement could read: “These used work shirts may be reused only after the embroidered identity is removed to the agreed standard. Items that cannot meet that standard must follow an agreed alternative route. Report quantities by route.” This is a starting point for a discussion, not a legal clause or a statement that removal will be technically practical.

Obtain approval against the inventory

Send composition information, quantities, condition photographs and the brand restriction together. Ask the recipient to identify exclusions and preparation requirements in writing. Where the load includes several product types, request a separate response for each one rather than one answer for the entire pallet.

Ask what happens if sorting reveals a different composition, an unexpected coating or items unsuitable for the proposed output. Agree on who authorizes the alternative and who pays for rejected material or additional handling. Doing this before collection gives the business a chance to choose another route while it still controls the goods.

Close the record after processing

Retain the inventory, collection confirmation, receiving weight, processing report and any supporting certificates. Record the period covered and whether quantities refer to items, pounds or another unit. Keep the units consistent when comparing results.

A destruction certificate may answer a brand-control question without answering a material-recovery question. FABSCRAP, for example, describes certificates for accepted proprietary material alongside its stated downcycling process. The certificate and the downstream output serve different reporting purposes. FABSCRAP's service description 21.

If the recipient can only confirm collection, report collection. If later evidence confirms a particular output, update the record. Do not fill the gap with an assumed conversion rate.

What credible recycling evidence looks like

Separate the strength of a statement from the appeal of the story around it.

An acceptance page tells you the program's stated rules. A service description tells you what the organization offers. A case study or impact report may describe work the organization says it has completed. A load-specific record connects your goods with an actual receiving or processing event. Evidence of the resulting material or product addresses the outcome itself.

Our recommended questions for any report are:

1. What material and reporting period does the number cover?
2. Is the quantity collected, accepted, processed or converted into an output?
3. Are reuse, material recycling, energy recovery and disposal shown separately?
4. Does the report identify the processor or destination sufficiently for the claim being made?
5. Are rejected material, processing losses and unresolved destinations visible?
6. Is the result reported by the service itself, checked by a third party, or supported by a narrower certificate?

These questions also help a reader evaluate national statistics. EPA's textile table reports approximately 17.03 million U.S. tons generated in municipal solid waste in 2018, including 2.51 million recycled, 3.22 million combusted with energy recovery and 11.30 million landfilled. The scope is textile material in municipal solid waste, not business uniforms or fiber-to-fiber recycling. A recently updated webpage does not make those underlying observations current-year data. EPA's 1960 to 2018 textile table 1.

For that reason, this report does not present a 2026 U.S. clothing recycling rate. Nor does it convert a technical assessment of recyclable material into a claim that the material was actually recycled.

What to ask about costs and service terms

Ask for a quote against the same inventory and desired outcome when comparing business options. Otherwise, one price may cover only collection while another covers sorting, disassembly, processing and reporting.

Use a comparison sheet with separate lines for collection or shipping, containers, sorting, preparation, processing, restricted-brand handling, rejected material and documentation. Include the minimum load and the unit used to calculate the fee. Ask whether the recipient will provide a revised price if the actual weight or composition differs from the inventory.

For household programs, compare the complete product rather than a headline bag price. Check capacity by both volume and weight, return postage, subscription terms if relevant, and whether the intended items qualify. A low-priced bag is not useful if its program excludes the material you need to send.

Geography should also be part of the comparison. FABSCRAP's published rules describe local pickup eligibility and prohibit unsolicited fabric shipments. That is a meaningful operating boundary, not an indication of the value of its process. FABSCRAP delivery and pickup rules 11.

Do not treat a longer journey as proof that a route has a worse environmental result, or a nearby collection point as proof that processing stays nearby. An environmental comparison would need a defined boundary, transport, processing, output and displacement assumptions. This desk audit did not calculate those impacts.

Design the next purchase with its eventual route in mind

Recycling questions are easier to discuss while product information is still available. For the next apparel purchase, retain the product specification, fiber label, care information and details of branding. Record the reason items leave service so future buying decisions can address it.

A useful purchasing question is: “Which receiving service has confirmed a route for this complete garment, with this decoration, under our expected conditions?” That is more informative than choosing solely on an abstract material label.

Do not replace a garment that performs well with another merely because the second has a simpler recycling story. Consider expected use, repair, replacement frequency and the actual recovery route together. These are decision criteria, not a claim that this report has measured a lifecycle advantage for one fiber or garment.

For a recurring uniform program, run a small, documented trial of the agreed recovery route before making a large public promise. Define the trial's acceptance and reporting requirements in advance. Check the resulting records and revise the process if they do not support the intended claim. This is a recommended next step for a business; no such trial was conducted for this report.

A record you can use for your next collection

The downloadable textile intake and outcome workbook is a blank CSV template. Give each materially different product a batch ID. Record the fiber label, prior use, condition, quantity, unit and branding requirement before requesting acceptance. Keep the receiving channel and dated written response alongside that inventory.

After collection, add outcome records only when evidence is available. If 100 pounds were collected but only a sorting receipt exists, the supported statement is that 100 pounds were collected or received for sorting. Leave final output unresolved. If a later record describes a downstream quantity, preserve its stage and denominator rather than adding it to the collection weight as though it were extra material.

This template is an editorial aid. It does not certify a service or replace the recipient's handling requirements. Its purpose is to stop a useful operational record from turning into an unsupported environmental claim.

The historical series ends in 2018. Later access or page-update dates do not make those observations contemporary. No national 2026 textile-waste estimate is calculated here. EPA's MSW category includes textile products beyond apparel, and its reused-material treatment limits comparisons with collection or donation volumes.

The six routes were selected purposively to represent different service models. They are not a statistically representative sample. The classification counts therefore cannot support a percentage of U.S. providers that accept a material. More detailed public documentation can generate more documented cases without demonstrating better operational performance.

Public pages also vary in specificity and change over time. An N classification means the case was not established in the reviewed material, not that the organization cannot serve it. A D classification is bounded by the stated program and geography; it is not shipment approval. Conditional cases require project-specific evidence. The audit did not test transport, customer service, contamination handling, brand security or downstream recovery.

The global production estimates concern different products, units and stages of the material system. The report does not construct a closed material balance between fiber production and U.S. waste. No carbon-saving, avoided-water or lifecycle comparison is inferred from the intake audit.

A useful next research stage would follow documented batches from acceptance through recorded outputs, with quantities and losses reconciled and access conditions agreed in advance. Such a study would require new operating evidence. It has not been conducted for this report, and no illustrative example is presented as a substitute for it.

This 2026 report, reviewed through September 13, distinguishes the latest source information located from the older periods measured. The 2026 contribution is the dated intake-documentation audit and its connection to an inspectable outcome record; it is not a new national recycling-rate estimate.

Textile recycling decisions require specific information about material, channel and outcome. The historical EPA analysis shows why rising recycled tonnage should be interpreted alongside the growth of the total waste stream. The six-route audit shows why fiber composition alone cannot resolve eligibility. The global fiber context shows why recycled-content statistics should not be presented as textile-to-textile recovery rates.

The resulting standard is straightforward: define the population and period, retain the denominator, distinguish each recovery stage and make the supporting records available. This supports more defensible reporting and clearer intake decisions without claiming outcomes that have not been observed.

Historical secondary data

We extracted the ten observation years in EPA's textile material table, from 1960 through 2018. The original unit is thousands of U.S. short tons of textiles in municipal solid waste. Reported quantities were retained; charts convert thousands to millions where indicated. Unavailable cells remain unavailable, including composting and the 1960 combustion value. No missing years were interpolated into the downloadable dataset.

For each pathway, its share is the reported quantity divided by generated textile MSW in the same year. Endpoint percentage change is the later quantity divided by the earlier quantity, minus one. Percentage-point change is the subtraction of two shares. The primary comparison uses 2000 and 2018; the full chart preserves earlier observations to make the historical frame visible.

EPA describes a national materials-flow methodology using industrial, governmental and other sources. These are estimates of a national waste stream, not direct measurement of every shipment or a survey of the six services in this report. EPA methodology 6.

Route-documentation audit

This is an original public-documentation comparison and practical synthesis. We fixed a six-route purposive frame and five constructed scenario families before detailed coding: previously used wearable household shirts, previously used worn-out household clothing, used branded polyester/cotton work shirts requiring resale controls, unused fabric scraps, and contaminated used garments. During internal review on September 13, 2026, we split the last family into wet/moldy items and chemical contamination because the evidence differed. The final dataset therefore contains six distinct cases for each route, or 36 classifications. The amendment is retained with the original protocol. No items were sent to a service.

The audit used official program and provider pages, including acceptance rules, service descriptions and selected report announcements. Each case was coded as documented, requiring confirmation, not established from the reviewed material, or explicitly excluded. “Documented” refers to published intake wording within the stated channel and geography. It is not a booking, a contract or evidence of a completed recovery outcome. “Requiring confirmation” means a relevant service is documented but one or more important conditions remain unresolved. The actual contaminant still needs to be identified before choosing a handling route.

The six examples are deliberately different. Their results cannot estimate the proportion of U.S. providers accepting a material or the percentage of U.S. textiles recycled. Missing public information is a documentation gap in this review, not proof that a service does not exist. The county page had changed from the earlier Threadcycle reference, so we used the authority's current textile guidance. No candidate was replaced because its results were inconvenient.

No interviews, facility inspections, laboratory tests or independent outcome audits were conducted. Provider descriptions are attributed to their documents; the accompanying audit file retains the source and reasoning for every classification.

Global fiber context

The Textile Exchange figures are attributed secondary estimates from its 2025 Materials Market Report. Their geography is global, their production period is 2024 unless otherwise stated, and their mass unit is metric tonnes. Polyester market share uses all polyester production as its denominator; recycled-textile fiber share uses all fiber production. Neither denominator is U.S. discarded textile MSW. These series are displayed separately and are not added or divided across datasets.

This 2026 report reviews the latest source material located by September 13, 2026, alongside historical U.S. textile-waste data. Textile recycling encompasses multiple collection channels, processing technologies and material outputs. This report examines three questions: how reported U.S. textile waste and recycling quantities changed over selected historical years; how published intake rules differ across six recovery routes; and what evidence is required to distinguish collection from a demonstrated recovery outcome. We analyzed EPA textile municipal-solid-waste data ending in 2018, coded public documentation for six purposively selected routes against six final material scenarios, and reviewed official technology research and global fiber-production estimates. Between 2000 and 2018, estimated textile waste generation increased by 79.6%, while recycled tonnage increased by 90.2%. The recycling share nevertheless rose by only 0.81 percentage points, from 13.92% to 14.74%. In the documentation audit, four providers described relevant business services but required confirmation for the specified branded-workwear case. Global fiber-production statistics describe a separate population and cannot be interpreted as U.S. waste-recovery rates. The findings support material-specific intake decisions, separate reporting of recovery pathways and traceable outcome records. This is a secondary-data analysis and documentation audit; it does not measure provider performance or current national recycling outcomes.

September 13, 2026. The Citation, reuse and data files (ZIP) provides data, editable SVGs, PNGs, templates, source receipts and suggested references. Reuse a finding with its geography, observation period, unit, source and limitation. The claim ledger distinguishes source-reported values from Arklavo calculations and interpretations.

Research uses primary-source checks, reproducible calculations and a separate internal editorial review. Arklavo commissioned the report. No external academic peer review, field study or independent provider-outcome audit is implied.

Dates marked n.d. are not asserted publication dates. Observation periods are specified in the text and data files.

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Textiles: Material-Specific Data. Accessed September 13, 2026.

2. Textile Exchange. (2025). Materials Market Report 2025: report summary. Accessed September 13, 2026.

3. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024, December 12). Textile Waste: Federal Entities Should Collaborate on Reduction and Recycling Efforts, GAO-25-107165. Accessed September 13, 2026.

4. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). Improving Resource Efficiency in the Textile Industry. Accessed September 13, 2026.

5. Fashion for Good. (n.d.). Sorting for Circularity USA. Accessed September 13, 2026.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Methodology for EPA's Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling. Accessed September 13, 2026.

7. King County. (n.d.). Circular Economy: Textiles. Accessed September 13, 2026.

8. Retold Recycling. (n.d.). Retold Recycling: Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed September 13, 2026.

9. SwagCycle. (n.d.). SwagCycle: Sustainable Solutions for Branded Merchandise. Accessed September 13, 2026.

10. Helpsy. (n.d.). What We Accept. Accessed September 13, 2026.

11. FABSCRAP. (n.d.). Fabric & Textile Recycling Resources. Accessed September 13, 2026.

12. Debrand. (n.d.). Services. Accessed September 13, 2026.

13. Debrand. (n.d.). Contact. Accessed September 13, 2026.

14. SwagCycle. (n.d.). 2025 Impact Report, pages 2 and 3. Accessed September 13, 2026.

15. Helpsy. (n.d.). Retail and Brand Partnerships. Accessed September 13, 2026.

16. Retold Recycling. (n.d.). How It Works. Accessed September 13, 2026.

17. Debrand. (2026, April 28). Debrand Sets a New Transparency Benchmark for Textile Next-Life Logistics. Accessed September 13, 2026.

18. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024, July 9). Science & Tech Spotlight: Textile Recycling Technologies, GAO-24-107486. Accessed September 13, 2026.

19. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2025, January 7). NIST Database Can Help Increase Recycling of Textiles and Clothing. Accessed September 13, 2026.

20. Retold Recycling. (n.d.). B2B. Accessed September 13, 2026.

21. FABSCRAP. (n.d.). Commercial Fabric & Textile Recycling Service. Accessed September 13, 2026.

22. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024, with 2026 status updates). Textile Waste: report and recommendations tracker. Reviewed September 13, 2026; status comments include February 2026.

23. New York City Department of Sanitation. (n.d.). Clothing, Household Fabrics, & Accessories. Accessed September 13, 2026.