By Craig Webb, President, Webb Analytics
President Trump's executive order seeking to expand U.S. lumber production adds new wrinkles to an old debate over what Americans want from their trees. And, while Trump's order refers to an "immediate expansion" of American timber production, odds are that Trump's goal will take years to achieve. In the meantime--thanks to new tariffs and duties on Canadian lumber--dealers can expect prices on framing materials will rise, as will the level of complaints from their homebuilding customers.
Trump's March 1 executive order gives various government agencies deadlines of between one and nine months to change "heavy-handed Federal polices [on timber resources that] have prevented full utilization of these resources and made us reliant on foreign producers." Notably, the order calls for a report that "identifies obstacles to domestic timber production" in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and then recommend ways to improve the process.
The vehicle to do so would be a provision of the ESA that permits special actions in case of an emergency. Trump's order says reversing current federal polices to produce more lumber domestically is vital "to protect our national and economic security."
Lumber and National Security
A second executive order, also issued March 1, orders the Commerce Secretary to study how imports of timber and lumber affect national security, as well as what it would take to increase U.S. production so imports weren't needed. The current United States softwood lumber industry has the practical production capacity to supply 95% of the United States’ 2024 softwood consumption. Yet, since 2016 the United States has been a net importer of lumber."
That reference to "practical production capacity" leaves unsaid the time it will take to move U.S. mills toward full capacity, if only because of the challenges finding and training workers. When Malheur Lumber closed a lumber mill in Oregon last July, its reason why included the "lack of a willing and drug-free workforce."
In the meantime, higher lumber prices can be expected. Trump's 25% tariff on products from Canada, which took effect March 4, is one reason why. But so are expected increases in duties imposed on Canadian lumber. The duties on Canadian wood--designed to even out the price differences between Canadian and U.S. lumber production costs--ranged from 12% to 17%, depending on the producer. The new rate could be as high as 20%.
Both of Trump's orders call for agency studies and recommendations to the executive and legislative branches, but they don't mandate specific, immediate change. Those actions are months in the future, and when they happen you can assume court challenges. The Sierra Club declared Trump's order "could result in widespread devastation of national forests" and would "line the pockets of timber industry executives."
A Long-Standing Debate
That kind of talk has been around since the 1890s, when people like then-President Theodore Roosevelt, Sierra Club founder John Muir, and U.S. Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot were aghast at the denuding of Western lands. But those three weren't totally in unison. "Pinchot wanted the land to work for the people," Timothy Egan wrote in his book The Big Burn, about a huge fire in 1910. "His was a practical conservation. ... Muir saw the land as sacrosanct, best when left alone, without human shaping."
That split--between managing forests for productive use or leaving it alone--helps explain why we have both national forests run by the Agriculture Department and national parks run by the Interior Department. Over the 20th and 21st centuries, the Forest Service in particular has been the subject of debates over how best to use that land: Cut down trees, or leave them alone to soak up carbon dioxide? Try to battle forest fires, or let them happen as part of the natural order of things? Until recently, there was talk of moving the Forest Service into the Interior Department. Now, with Trump's orders, the pendulum may be swinging back.
Comentarios