President Donald J. Trump signed a March 1 executive order mandating a dramatic expansion of domestic timber production through regulatory rollbacks, accelerated permitting processes, and revised forest management protocols. The order, titled Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, aims to reduce reliance on foreign lumber, lower construction costs, and enhance wildfire resilience — but has sparked immediate debate over its environmental and economic consequences.

The directive targets federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which collectively oversee over 280 million acres. Key mandates include:

• 30-Day Deadline: The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture must issue updated guidance to streamline timber sales, leveraging tools like the Good Neighbor Authority (16 U.S.C. §2113a) for state-led forest management and stewardship contracts (16 U.S.C. §6591c) for public-private partnerships.
• 90-Day Timber Targets: Agencies must establish a four-year plan with annual timber sale quotas measured in millions of board feet, marking the first federal timber production targets since the 1990s.
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) Overhaul: Strategies to expedite Section 7 consultations under the ESA will be finalized within 60 days, potentially delegating review authority to other agencies to bypass delays.

The order also revives categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), allowing bypasses of environmental reviews for projects deemed to reduce wildfire risks or salvage storm-damaged timber.

The U.S. currently imports 16.1 billion board feet of lumber from all countries in lumber annually, with about 91% coming from Canada. Trump’s 25% tariff on softwood lumber products from Canada will begin March 4. This is in addition to an effective 14.5% duty rate already in place.

Currently, only 31% of U.S. forest land is federally owned and managed, while state and local governments control another 11%. The remaining majority is privately owned and largely free from federal regulation. Despite this, the federal government permits the private timber industry to harvest from public lands, generating $3 billion annually.

Conservation groups warn the policy prioritizes logging over ecosystem preservation. 

Specific concerns include:

• Endangered Species: Streamlined ESA consultations could fast-track projects harming protected species.
• NEPA Exclusions: By adopting categorical exclusions, agencies may approve logging without assessing cumulative impacts on water quality or biodiversity.
• Legal Challenges: A 2024 lawsuit (Chattooga Conservancy v. USDA) revealed the Forest Service set timber targets without environmental reviews, violating NEPA. Similar litigation is expected.

Forests offset 15% of U.S. emissions annually.

The administration ties increased logging to wildfire mitigation, citing California’s 2025 fires that destroyed 1.2 million acres and killed 29. The order promotes thinning dense stands and salvage logging burned areas to reduce fuel loads. However, studies conflict on whether industrial logging effectively curbs megafires:

• Logging 10 million acres of mature forests would release 1.2–1.5 gigatons of CO₂—equivalent to 3 years of U.S. aviation emissions—by eliminating carbon sinks.
• A 2023 Nature study found logged areas face 20–35% higher fire intensity due to residual debris and reduced canopy cover, contradicting administration claims.

The order coincides with a Commerce Department investigation into foreign lumber “dumping,” targeting Canada, Germany, and Brazil. Potential tariffs could reignite trade disputes like the 2017–2021 U.S.-Canada softwood lumber war, which saw duties reach 20.23%.

This action followed the expiration of the 2006 U.S.–Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, which had previously stabilized cross-border timber trade. The tariffs targeted Canada, which supplied ~30% of U.S. softwood lumber—a critical material for residential framing, roofing, and siding.

Lumber prices reacted swiftly:

• Pre-Tariff Baseline: $400 per thousand board feet (early 2017).
• Post-Tariff Peak: $600 per thousand board feet (summer 2018), a 50% increase attributed to reduced Canadian supply and market uncertainty.

By 2018, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimated these tariffs added $9,000 to the cost of a typical single-family home, disproportionately impacting first-time buyers

The tariffs disrupted the delicate balance of U.S. lumber supply chains:

• Domestic Production Gaps: U.S. sawmills could not rapidly scale production to offset reduced Canadian imports. By 2018, domestic output met only 70% of demand, leaving a ~15 billion board-foot deficit.
• Substitution Challenges: Alternatives like steel framing or engineered wood products faced their own supply constraints and higher costs.

Builders absorbed 17–25% increases in framing lumber costs, which account for ~15% of total home construction expenses. For a median-priced new home ($327,000 in 2020), tariffs contributed to ~3% price appreciation annually from 2017–2020.

The NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) repeatedly warned that tariffs undermined housing accessibility:

• First-Time Buyers: A $9,000 cost increase priced 153,000 potential buyers out of the market between 2017–2020.
• Rental Markets: Multifamily construction costs rose 6–8%, pressuring rental rates amid a national shortage of affordable units.

Although the 2025 executive order focuses on the increased production of lumber through national forests in the United States, it, once again, does not account for production of the material. 

Over the last decade, sawmills in the United States have struggled, closing facilities nationwide. Expanding lumber production would require $2.5–$3 billion in new investments, which lag due to high interest rates and labor shortages.

A 40% (25% plus the current 14.5%) tariff would immediately reduce imports by 40–50%, creating a 12–15 billion board-foot annual deficit. Domestic producers could fill only 60–70% of this gap in the short term.

Between tariffs and supply constraints, analysts predict a price spike within six to 12 months.