Trump Imposes New Tariffs on Imported Wood Products Citing National Security

On September 30, 2025, President Donald Trump announced the imposition of new tariffs on imported wood products, including a 10% duty on lumber and a 25% tariff on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and upholstered furniture. These tariffs, effective October 14, are justified under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, claiming that such imports threaten U.S. national security and the domestic wood industry. The proclamation warns that rates will increase starting January 1, 2026, to as much as 50% on certain products from non-cooperative countries.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to adjust imports of goods or materials from other countries if the quantity or circumstances surrounding those imports are deemed to threaten national security. This can be done through tariffs or other means. The process begins when a government official requests the Department of Commerce to investigate the effects of a certain import on national security. The Secretary of Commerce may also self-initiate an investigation. The Department of Commerce then reports its findings to the President within 270 days, with an emphasis on whether or not certain imports threaten to impair the country's national security. The President has 90 days to concur formally or not with the report received from the Commerce Department. If they concur, their statutory authority under Section 232 allows them to modify or adjust the imports as necessary through tariffs or quotas.

Canada, the largest supplier of softwood lumber to the U.S., along with Vietnam and Mexico—key furniture exporters—are expected to suffer the most economic impact. Canada has already earmarked $870 million in aid for its softwood lumber sector. Meanwhile, countries with existing trade agreements like the UK, EU, and Japan will face capped tariff rates of 10-15%.

Despite support from Trump’s administration for increasing tariffs as a revenue stream, opposition comes from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warning the move will increase costs for businesses and housing while harming domestic industries reliant on those imports.

This development is part of a broader series of trade measures implemented during Trump's second term, which have seen the average applied U.S. tariff rate rise significantly.

The administration's decision to invoke Section 232—a provision allowing the President to adjust imports deemed a threat to national security—has sparked significant debate. While the move aims to bolster domestic wood industries, it raises concerns about potential economic repercussions, international trade relations, and the broader implications of utilizing national security as a justification for trade measures.

The new tariffs are expected to have a significant impact on the U.S. housing market, as lumber is a key component in home construction. The National Association of Home Builders has expressed concern that the tariffs will lead to higher construction costs and, consequently, higher home prices for consumers.

Internationally, the tariffs have strained relations with key trading partners. Canada, in particular, has expressed disappointment with the U.S. decision and is considering retaliatory measures. The Canadian government has stated that it will continue to defend its lumber industry and workers against what it perceives as unfair trade practices.

The use of Section 232 to justify these tariffs has also raised legal and political questions. Critics argue that invoking national security concerns in this context is a stretch and could set a precedent for future trade restrictions. Some members of Congress have called for a review of the President's authority under Section 232, suggesting that it may be time to re-examine the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in matters of trade policy.

As the October 14 implementation date approaches, businesses and consumers alike are bracing for the impact of these new tariffs. The full extent of the economic and political fallout remains to be seen, but it is clear that this move marks a significant shift in U.S. trade policy with far-reaching implications.