03-06-2025

Addressing the Threat to National Security From Imports of Timber, Lumber, and Their Derivative Products

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14223 initiates a national security investigation into imports of timber, lumber, and related products like paper and furniture. [Sec. 1, Sec. 2(a)] This could lead to new tariffs or quotas on these goods.

Money: There is no direct appropriation of funds. However, the investigation itself carries administrative costs. If tariffs are imposed, it could generate federal revenue but also increase costs for industries that use wood products. A previous Section 232 investigation on steel and aluminum led to tariffs of 25% and 10%, respectively.

Your Impact: If you are buying a new home, renovating, or purchasing furniture, you could see higher prices if the investigation results in tariffs. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) often highlights how tariffs on building materials can increase the cost of housing.

Status: The Executive Order was signed on March 1, 2025, and the Secretary of Commerce initiated the investigation on March 10, 2025. A report with findings and recommendations is due to the President within 270 days of the order. [Sec. 3(b)]

What's Actually in the Bill

This Executive Order directs the Secretary of Commerce to use the authority of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to determine if timber, lumber, and derivative product imports threaten U.S. national security. [Sec. 2(a)] The order argues that a strong domestic wood products industry is vital for national security, including for military construction projects and the resilience of the U.S. supply chain. [Sec. 1]

Core Provisions:

  • Initiates an Investigation: The Secretary of Commerce must immediately launch an investigation into the national security effects of imported timber, lumber, paper products, furniture, and cabinetry. [Sec. 2(a)]
  • Scope of Investigation: The investigation must assess U.S. demand for wood products, the ability of domestic producers to meet that demand, the role of foreign supply chains, the impact of foreign subsidies, and the feasibility of increasing domestic production. [Sec. 2(b)]
  • Reporting Deadline: The Commerce Secretary must consult with the Secretary of Defense and other agencies and submit a report to the President no later than 270 days from the order's date (approximately November 26, 2025). [Sec. 3(b)]
  • Recommendations: The report must include findings on the national security threat and recommend actions to mitigate it, which could include tariffs, quotas, or other measures. [Sec. 3(b)(ii)]

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The executive order states that the United States faces vulnerabilities from imported wood products being unfairly dumped on the market, which undermines the domestic industry. [Sec. 1]

  1. To ensure a reliable, secure, and resilient domestic supply chain for timber, lumber, and their derivative products. [Sec. 1]
  2. To determine whether imports of these products threaten to impair national security due to unfair subsidies and foreign government support. [Sec. 1]
  3. To support the U.S. wood products industry, which is described as critical to national security, economic strength, and industrial resilience. [Sec. 1]

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Forestry, Logging, Lumber Mills, Paper Manufacturing, Furniture Manufacturing, Construction, and Defense.
Timeline: The Commerce Department has until late November 2025 to submit its report. If the President chooses to act, tariffs or other restrictions could be implemented within 15 days of that decision.
Scope: The investigation covers all imports of timber (unprocessed wood), lumber (processed wood), and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry from all foreign sources. [Sec. 1, Sec. 4]

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute (1982-Present):

The current executive order is the latest chapter in a long history of trade friction, particularly with Canada, over lumber imports.

  • 1982-1986 (Lumber I): The U.S. lumber industry filed its first complaint, alleging Canadian producers were unfairly subsidized because provinces charged low fees (stumpage rates) to harvest timber from public lands. This led to Canada imposing a 15% export tax on its own lumber to avoid a U.S. tariff.
  • 1996-2001 (Softwood Lumber Agreement I): After a period of managed trade, the U.S. and Canada signed a five-year agreement that replaced the export tax with a quota system for Canadian lumber exports.
  • 2001-2006 (Lumber III): When the agreement expired, the U.S. imposed new countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber.
  • 2006-2015 (Softwood Lumber Agreement II): The two countries reached another seven-year agreement that suspended U.S. duties in exchange for Canada levying export charges when lumber prices fell below a certain level. Over $5 billion in duties collected by the U.S. were returned to Canadian firms.
  • 2017-Present (Modern Tariffs): Following the expiration of the 2006 agreement, the U.S. once again imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber. As of 2023, the combined duty rate for most Canadian lumber was 7.99%.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Broadening the Battlefield: While past disputes focused heavily on Canadian softwood lumber, this Executive Order investigates all timber and lumber products from all countries, significantly widening the scope to include hardwood, paper, and furniture.
  • National Security as a Tool: Using Section 232 reframes the long-standing economic dispute as a matter of national security. This provides the executive branch with broad authority to impose restrictions like tariffs or quotas without congressional approval, a tactic used previously for steel and aluminum imports in 2018.
  • Economic Pressures: The order highlights that despite having ample resources, the U.S. is a net importer of lumber. [Sec. 1] This action appeals to domestic producers who feel they cannot compete with what they describe as unfairly subsidized foreign competition.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This action directly affects the timber, construction, and manufacturing industries, with potential cost increases passed on to consumers.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For those employed in the domestic logging and lumber industries, tariffs could lead to increased production, more stable pricing for their products, and potentially more job security.
  • Supporters argue that strengthening the domestic supply chain reduces reliance on foreign countries, which could prevent price shocks or shortages in a crisis.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (6-18 months):

  • If tariffs are imposed, the price of lumber and other wood products would likely rise for builders and consumers. This could increase the cost of a new single-family home.
  • Retaliation from other countries is possible. In response to past Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, countries like Canada, China, and the EU imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.

Long-term:

  • Sustained higher prices for wood products could make housing less affordable and increase the cost of goods from furniture to paper products.
  • Domestic producers may not be able to scale up production quickly enough to meet all U.S. demand, leading to potential supply bottlenecks.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups:

  • U.S. timber and lumber companies (e.g., Weyerhaeuser, Sierra Pacific Industries).
  • Foreign lumber producers (especially in Canada, the European Union, and Asia).
  • U.S. home builders and construction companies.

Secondary Groups:

  • Homebuyers and renters.
  • Furniture manufacturers and retailers.
  • Paper and packaging industries.
  • Transportation and logistics companies involved in importing wood products.

Regional Impact:

  • States with significant logging and timber industries, such as those in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington) and the Southeast (Georgia, Alabama), could see economic benefits.
  • States with high rates of new construction could experience the negative effects of higher material costs more acutely.

Bottom Line: This executive order could make wood products more expensive for everyone in an effort to protect and bolster the U.S. timber and lumber industry.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Protecting American Industries"

Core Stance: The Republican party is generally divided on tariffs, but there is a strong faction that supports using them as a tool to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition, consistent with an "America First" trade policy.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Using Section 232 is a legitimate exercise of presidential authority to protect industries critical to national defense.
  • ✓ Tariffs are necessary to counteract the effects of foreign government subsidies that harm U.S. workers and companies.
  • ⚠️ Some free-trade-oriented Republicans express concern that broad tariffs can act as a tax on American consumers and businesses, inviting harmful retaliation from trading partners.
  • ✗ The investigation is a necessary step to gather facts before taking action.

Legislative Strategy: Support the President's authority to conduct the investigation and act on its findings. Some members may introduce legislation to refine or limit the President's authority under Section 232, but this is often a minority position within the party.

Democratic Position: "Balancing Worker Protection and Consumer Costs"

Core Stance: The Democratic party is also divided on trade, with a focus on protecting unionized labor while also expressing concerns about the impact of tariffs on consumer prices and housing affordability.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support for measures that protect American manufacturing jobs from unfair foreign trade practices.
  • ✓ Acknowledgment that reliance on foreign supply chains can create strategic vulnerabilities.
  • ⚠️ Concern that broad tariffs could raise housing costs and the prices of everyday goods, disproportionately affecting working-class families.
  • ✗ Opposition to unilateral presidential actions on trade that bypass congressional authority and could disrupt relationships with key allies.

Legislative Strategy: Monitor the investigation closely, pushing for transparency and emphasizing the potential negative impacts on consumers. They may also advocate for more targeted, incentive-based approaches to strengthen domestic supply chains rather than broad tariffs.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The Executive Order is based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which is a delegation of Congress's constitutional power to the President. Congress's authority stems from:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (Commerce Clause): "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations..."

Constitutional Implications:

[Delegation of Authority]: Congress legally delegated its authority to impose tariffs for national security reasons to the President through the Trade Expansion Act.
[Precedent]: The Supreme Court has upheld this delegation. In the 1976 case Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., the Court found that Section 232 did not grant the President unlimited authority but provided an "intelligible principle" for the executive to follow.
[Federalism]: This action pertains to foreign commerce, which is a power explicitly granted to the federal government, and does not overstep into powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

While the underlying authority of Section 232 has been upheld, legal challenges are still possible.

  • The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hear recent cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, letting lower court decisions that affirmed the president's authority stand.
  • Opponents, such as the American Institute for International Steel, have argued that the law gives the President an improper and overly broad delegation of Congress's tariff-setting power, but this argument has so far been unsuccessful in the courts.
  • Any new tariffs resulting from this investigation would likely be challenged in the U.S. Court of International Trade by industry groups and foreign exporters.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge you to support the administration's Section 232 investigation into timber and lumber imports to protect American jobs."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means, as they have jurisdiction over trade policy.
  • Join an Organization: Groups that advocate for domestic timber producers include the American Forest & Paper Association, the U.S. Lumber Coalition, and the Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge you to oppose any new tariffs on timber and lumber that could result from the Section 232 investigation, as they will raise housing costs."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Explain how higher lumber costs will affect your community, from affordable housing to construction projects.
  • Join an Organization: Groups that advocate against broad tariffs include the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Americans for Free Trade, and the National Foreign Trade Council.