While the market tries to process what’s to come on the trade front, it’s abundantly clear that the new administration is paying special attention to lumber and likely other wood products. Trump and his surrogates have emphasized the point of view that the US has the underlying resources to produce all its own lumber and wood product needs. In response, there have been a number of news articles highlighting the statements and questioning the idea of whether or not America can quickly and completely wean itself off Canadian wood products. …Canada currently supplies about 12.0 BBF of softwood lumber to the US market. After accounting for the 1.3 BBF of exports the US has shipped in recent years, the US is still short just over 3.2 BBF of operable capacity to quickly fill Canadian lumber supply and still meet current demand levels. In other words, at current demand levels, the US softwood lumber market does not clear without Canadian supply.
…US sawmills could add second and/or third shifts to existing operations to eke out more production if prices and profitability warranted. …It’s plausible that the US could increase supply this way, but as basic economics teaches, there’s only so much upside to raising production by adding labor to the existing capital stock. What about building new sawmill capacity? …Even in favorable conditions, we are talking three to four years to build out the 3-4 BBF of sawmill capacity needed to replace Canadian supply. Even assuming modest demand growth over the remainder of the decade, the US would probably require closer to 10 years to completely and sustainably wean itself off external lumber supply. …Under the right policy conditions and given enough time, US “independence” from Canadian wood products supply and imports more broadly is a plausible scenario, but clearly comes with distinct trade-offs. The brunt of the pain over the near term will be carried by consumers as they absorb these higher prices, especially at a critical point when housing affordability in the US is also under a microscope.
WASHINGTON — Canadian officials are set to meet with the U.S. commerce secretary in Washington today — days after a dust-up with U.S. President Donald Trump that ended with Ontario pausing its surcharge on electricity exports to the United States. Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman and Ontario Premier Doug Ford are meeting with Howard Lutnick, and Ford says his goal for the meeting is to get a coherent sense of the Trump administration’s plans for tariffs. …Elsewhere in the American capital, Trump’s choice for the next U.S ambassador to Canada is set to take questions today as the relationship between the two countries is strained by tariffs and threats of annexation. Pete Hoekstra, a former Michigan congressman, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a nomination hearing.
When President Trump threatened new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China at the beginning of February, Steve Martinez flew into action. The Idaho-based general contractor spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on materials like lumber, windows, cabinetry and steel to stockpile them before the tariffs hit. …Since his lenders wouldn’t finance these purchases, he is paying out of pocket and using cash. Then after the president abruptly walked them back, Martinez was left with an upended business plan, less cash and feeling confused about what to do next. “I can’t keep ping ponging back and forth,” Martinez said. …Builders have been doing what they can to insulate themselves from higher import costs, from stockpiling materials and appliances to shrinking the size of the homes they will build. But if tariffs take effect long term, they will only be able to absorb so much cost. [to access the full story a WSJ subscription is required]
As we enter what are typically the most profitable months for US builders, widespread uncertainty regarding pricing is casting a pall over the industry. Northeastern Retail Lumber Association (NRLA) crystallizes these concerns, noting that: “Despite repeated delays of tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, prices continue to fluctuate unpredictably, leading to hoarding by customers, delayed orders for restocking, and customers abandoning purchases due to sudden cost increases.” The NRLA says the current situation recalls the tumult of pandemic-era supply chain shortages. “Now, dealers are reporting the same patterns: unpredictable cost increases, uncertainty in securing supply, and customers unable to move forward with purchases due to rapidly shifting prices.” …NRLA writes that daily price changes are making it impossible for retailers to provide accurate quotes, which constricts pricing guarantees. …NRLA dealers are reporting that even U.S.-made manufactured materials are seeing price increases.
Now that a 25% tariff on lumber from Canada is looming, will this cause crazy wood pricing to return? To some extent, that is very probable, and here’s why. In 2024, our country got about 72% of its lumber from its own forests. The rest was imported from various countries, especially Canada, from which we purchased 28.1 million cubic meters last year. Canada accounts for 84.3% of all softwood lumber imports. …While it might be possible to switch to importing more lumber from other countries, none has Canada’s large production capacity. Also, supply chains — especially for lumber — are complex and costly to change, says Frederik Laleicke, at NC State University. …As long as demand for lumber doesn’t drop, a 25% tariff on Canada will likely make lumber—and therefore new houses and renovations—more expensive since US companies will raise the price of Canadian-sourced lumber to compensate for the tariffs.
Lumber futures rebounded to around $650 per thousand board feet, nearing the two-and-a-half-year high of $658 touched earlier this month as escalating U.S. tariff threats on steel, aluminum, and dairy—along with the prospect of sharply higher auto tariffs—stoked fears of further trade restrictions, reversing the recent plunge. The renewed trade war tensions have heightened concerns that lumber could be the next target, prompting traders to reassess supply risks. Earlier, prices had dropped to around $600 after President Trump delayed a 25% tariff on Canadian softwood for the second time, temporarily easing supply concerns. The proposed levy, which would raise total duties to as much as 52%, could significantly strain North American production and push construction costs higher. However, the latest escalation in the trade war has reversed sentiment, with traders wary that lumber could still face new restrictions, driving speculative buying. [END]
I have received several questions from owners and contractors regarding what to expect with lumber prices given the tariffs (or the potential of tariffs, depending on the day). The short answer is prices will go up. The long answer is much more complicated and hinges on a number of factors and considerations. 1. Almost 30 percent of the lumber used in the U.S. each year comes from Canada. …2. Any tariffs or potential for tariffs creates opportunistic price increases. …3. Demand, however, doesn’t seem to be particularly strong for new construction at this time. …4. Tariffs do help to onshore manufacturing (a long-term positive), but the trees aren’t all in America. …In the short-term, tariffs create more uncertainty and increased pricing, which only further adds to the inflation story. In the long-term, tariffs on lumber won’t achieve the level of onshoring that can happen in other industries. 
US lumber futures have fallen from their all-time highs after president Trump’s delay to tariffs on Canada this week halted a surge in prices. Contracts tracking a truckload of lumber hit the highest point in their 30-month history this week. …Trump initially planned to impose 25% tariffs on critical Canadian imports, boosting prices, but Thursday’s pause for a month pushed prices for delivery in May down more than 6% over two days, to $651 per MBF. Even so, prices remain elevated as Trump also ordered a federal investigation into Canadian companies potentially dumping excess supplies into the US market. …Together with potential tariffs, the total duty on Canadian imports could rise from 14.5 per cent to 52 per cent. “This is going to be devastating for Canadian producers,” said Dustin Jalbert, senior economist for wood products at price reporting agency Fastmarkets. “No Canadian producer is making the margin to be able to absorb that.”
What are Musk, Trump and the congressional right really after? Anyone who works in land management knows these agencies have long gone underfunded and unsupported by Republicans, rendering them less and less effective as the demands on them grow ever more pressing. Now this bloodletting is accelerating, and soon it will be time to go for the throat. As these agencies flounder, turning their lands over to private administration — to timber, mineral and oil extraction or to private ownership and development — will begin to seem logical and even appealing. While sustainable logging can be a valuable forest management tool, research shows that when lands are managed primarily for resource extraction, they become less resilient to wildfire. This is a shortsighted, profit-driven turn toward a land-use model that is ultimately unsustainable. What will the public be left with? Will we still have places to hike, fish, hunt, dirt-bike and ski? Or will a new landlord be setting new rates?
With $2.6 billion in hurricane-recovery money on its way to the national forests of North Carolina, Jenifer Bunty, a US Forest Service disaster-recovery specialist, spent much of the week of February 10th working on a plan to start spending the money. Four months after Hurricane Helene, this meant deciding which bridges urgently needed to be rebuilt, which road repairs prioritized. …“The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,” Donald Trump declared in his speech to Congress last week. For the White House, the firing of tens of thousands of federal workers like Bunty is evidence of “promises made, promises kept.” But for the Forest Service the loss of at least two thousand workers will make it harder to fight ever-worsening wildfires and storms across the country. …After the Trump cuts, a spokesperson for the USDA said that they didn’t include “operational firefighters,” a term Bunty had never heard. 
Businesses, communities, and wildlife across a vast portion of western Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern California rely on healthy national forests. Since 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) has guided conservation, recreation, timber production, and other uses of these 19.2 million acres of species-rich and economically important lands and rivers, and now, as it does periodically, the U.S. Forest Service is updating the NWFP… The scientists and land managers who authored the original NWFP recognized the importance of drawing on the best available science. They also had the foresight to incorporate ways to monitor the forests and adjust management if their assumptions—for example, about the plan’s impact on nature and communities—proved wrong… The Forest Service is 
Oregon lawmakers are considering a legislative package that would provide some protection to utility companies whose equipment sparks wildfires. House Bill 3917, introduced Tuesday by Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, would create a fund to help people who lose homes or businesses to utility-caused wildfires — as long as they agree not to sue utility companies for that damage. Marsh is also sponsoring a complementary bill, House Bill 3666, which would allow the Oregon Public Utility Commission to grant a safety certificate to utilities it deems are “acting reasonably with regard to wildfire safety practices.” The wildfire assistance fund created by HB 3917 would be seeded by utility companies that are regulated by the state’s Public Utility Commission, including Pacific Power and Portland General Electric. Half of their their seed contribution could come from ratepayer dollars, and the other half would come from the share of rates designated for profits.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Monday urged the Trump administration to scrap plans to kill more than 450,000 invasive barred owls in West Coast forests as part of efforts to stop the birds from crowding out a smaller type of owl that’s facing potential extinction. The 19 lawmakers claimed the killings would be “grossly expensive” and cost $3,000 per bird. They questioned if the shootings would help native populations of northern spotted owls, which have long been controversial because of logging restrictions in the birds’ forest habitat beginning in the 1990s, and the closely related California spotted owl. Barred owls are native to eastern North America and started appearing in the Pacific Northwest in the 1970s. They’ve quickly displaced many spotted owls, which are smaller birds that need larger territories to breed.
Northeastern Minnesota loggers and the nation’s forest products industry could get a lift under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. New guidance or updates to facilitate increased timber production, sound forest management, reduced timber delivery time, and decreased timber supply uncertainty, are by the end of March to be issued by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and U.S. Forest Service chief, under Trump’s “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” order. National and Minnesota timber products officials say Trump’s order is a positive step toward boosting American timber production. “We’ve had nearly 150 mills close across the U.S. in the past 24 months,” Scott Dane, American Loggers Council (ALC) executive director said. “We need to turn the dismantling of the American timber industry around before it is too late. President Trump’s “immediate” increase in lumber production is the beginning of that turnaround.”
HORRY COUNTY, S.C. — The 
HORRY COUNTY, S.C. — As the Covington Drive fire in Carolina Forest reaches Day 11, the South Carolina Forestry Commission told News13 the agency will cover all its costs associated with fighting the blaze but that it’s “too early to know” what the actual price will be. “We will cover all our costs associated with the fire — personnel, food, lodging, equipment, etc,” the agency said. “Since the Southeast Compact was activated, we will reimburse the Florida IMT for their costs — personnel, food, lodging, equipment. As with all large incidents of this type, there will be expenses we don’t even know about yet that we will have to pay for.” The forestry commission said since the fire management assistance grant was approved, FEMA will reimburse agencies and fire departments for 75% of approved costs. 
Donald Trump’s administration is to reconsider the official finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to public health, a move that threatens to rip apart the foundation of the US’s climate laws, amid a stunning barrage of actions to weaken or repeal a host of pollution limits upon power plants, cars and waterways. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an extraordinary cavalcade of pollution rule rollbacks on Wednesday, led by the announcement it would potentially scrap a landmark 2009 finding by the US government that planet-heating gases, such carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health. The so-called endangerment finding, which followed a supreme court ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases, provides the underpinning for all rules aimed at cutting the pollution that scientists have unequivocally found is worsening the climate crisis.
President Trump is pushing federal agencies to expand timber harvests… The U.S. Forest Service is already set to increase the number of trees it harvests to one of the highest levels since 2019, a result of Biden-era policies. But advocates argue that we need trees now more than ever and that this increase in timber harvest doesn’t make sense. The Forest Service is facing a lawsuit 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit from Republican attorneys general in 19 states aimed at blocking climate change suits against the oil and gas industry from Democratic-led states. The justices acted on an unusual Republican effort to file suit in the Supreme Court over the Democratic states’ use of their own state courts to sue fossil fuel companies for deceiving the public about the risks of their products contributing to climate change. The Supreme Court typically hears only appeals, but the Constitution gives the court authority to hear original lawsuits states file against each other. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed for now. The justices don’t have the discretion to reject the complaint at this stage, Thomas wrote in a dissent that did not deal with the merits of the claim.