On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that his administration will launch a sweeping tariff investigation into imported furniture under Section 232 of the national security statute, a move that could lead to substantial new duties on the sector. Trump framed the decision as part of his broader push to revitalize American manufacturing jobs and reduce reliance on foreign imports, particularly from countries like China and Vietnam, which currently dominate the U.S. furniture market.
In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump declared: “Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined.” He also promised that the investigation would conclude within 50 days, although past Section 232 reviews have typically stretched for months or even years. A White House official later confirmed that the Commerce Department would oversee the probe, with its findings potentially serving as a legal backstop for tariffs already in place or currently under dispute in federal courts.
The immediate market response was sharp. Shares of furniture retailer RH, formerly known as Restoration Hardware, dropped 7.5% in after-hours trading following Trump’s announcement, reflecting investor concerns over higher costs and price volatility in the industry.
Trump argued that the tariffs would bring furniture production back to U.S. states historically tied to the industry, such as North Carolina, South Carolina, and Michigan. He cited long-term declines in employment as justification for the policy shift, noting that while furniture and wood product manufacturing employed 1.2 million workers in 1979, the figure has steadily dropped to about 340,000 jobs today, according to federal labor data.
The statistics underline the dramatic structural changes the industry has faced. U.S. furniture imports in 2024 totaled roughly $25.5 billion, representing a 7% increase from the previous year. About 60% of those imports came from Vietnam and China, according to the trade publication Furniture Today. At the same time, U.S. consumers have already felt the effect of tariffs: the Commerce Department reported that home furnishing prices surged 0.7% in July, even as overall inflation was held down by lower fuel costs.
Industry groups have signaled opposition. The American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), headquartered in High Point, North Carolina, has previously challenged similar tariff moves under Section 232, especially regarding lumber and wood products. In earlier statements to the Commerce Department, the group argued that there is “no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States.” It further warned that new tariffs would not revive the industry to its former scale, but would instead raise costs for manufacturers and consumers alike, and even harm companies that still produce domestically while relying on imported components.
This announcement makes furniture the latest in a growing list of sectors subjected to Trump’s Section 232 probes. In recent months, his administration has initiated investigations into wind turbines, copper, heavy trucks, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, timber, and drones. These probes give the White House broad latitude to impose tariffs under the justification of national security, a strategy that has been repeatedly criticized by trade groups and foreign governments.
Internationally, the move could complicate relations with key trade partners. Just one day before Trump’s furniture announcement, the European Union reached a partial reprieve in negotiations with Washington, securing exemptions or capped tariffs on certain products, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and aircraft components. However, the EU agreement does not cover furniture, leaving the sector vulnerable to new duties if the probe concludes in favor of tariffs.
For now, the future of U.S. furniture manufacturing hangs in the balance. While the administration argues that tariffs could create a pathway for reshoring jobs and stabilizing supply chains, critics maintain that the policy risks higher consumer prices, strained international relations, and limited benefits for domestic producers. The outcome of the investigation—and whether it can truly deliver the revival Trump promises—remains uncertain.
