Forestry Protection Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 29, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to incentivize the use of U.S. raw wood in foreign-manufactured forestry products by reducing import costs, while also increasing transparency and public input for future trade actions affecting these products.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a 50% reduction in import duties and other fees for finished forestry products if the importer can demonstrate that the product contains 100% raw wood material originating in the United States. It also mandates a new 90-day public notification and 60-day comment period before the President can impose or modify duties or import restrictions on a broad range of forestry products under specific trade laws.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill promotes American forestry, supports U.S. timber producers, and encourages domestic job growth in the raw wood sector by making U.S. wood more competitive internationally. The transparency requirement also ensures greater accountability and predictability in trade policy decisions affecting the forestry industry.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the tariff reduction could complicate existing trade agreements, potentially leading to disputes or retaliatory measures. The administrative burden for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to verify 100% U.S. origin could be significant and prone to fraud. The notification requirement could also limit the President's flexibility in responding quickly to unfair trade practices or national security concerns.
The bill is short and relatively accessible, but understanding its full implications requires familiarity with trade law and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
Section 2(a)
50% Duty and Import Restriction Reduction for Products with 100% U.S. Raw Wood Material
This provision mandates a 50% reduction in import duties and certain other fees on finished forestry products if the importer can prove to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the product was manufactured, processed, or assembled outside the U.S. using only raw wood material that originated entirely within the United States. This aims to create a financial incentive for foreign manufacturers to source their raw wood from the U.S. by lowering the cost of importing their finished goods into the U.S.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly boosts the U.S. forestry sector by making American raw wood more attractive to international buyers, thereby supporting domestic jobs and sustainable forest management. It leverages trade policy to create a competitive advantage for U.S. natural resources.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that verifying 100% U.S. origin for raw wood material in finished products could be administratively complex and costly for CBP, potentially leading to loopholes or fraud. They might also argue it could be seen as a protectionist measure that distorts global trade flows and potentially invites retaliatory measures from other countries.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to support domestic raw material industries with the potential for administrative burden, revenue loss, and international trade friction.
Section 2(b)
Mandate for Implementation Regulations
This section directs the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in consultation with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), to issue necessary regulations within 90 days of the bill's enactment. These regulations must establish clear procedures for verifying the U.S. origin of raw wood materials and preventing fraud related to the 50% duty reduction, ensuring the program's integrity and practical application.
Section 3
90-Day Public Notice and Comment Period for New Forestry Product Trade Restrictions
This section amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to require the President to provide at least 90 days' public notice in the Federal Register before imposing or modifying any duties or other import restrictions on a broad range of forestry products under specific, broad trade laws (e.g., Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974). The notice must detail the restriction, its justification, affected products by Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, and allow for a 60-day public comment period, enhancing transparency and stakeholder input.
The definition of 'finished forestry product' for the notification requirement in Section 3 is significantly broader than the definition used for the tariff reduction in Section 2. Specifically, Section 3's definition includes raw wood materials (HTS 4401-4407) and wood pulp (HTS 4701-4705), which are explicitly excluded from the 'finished forestry product' definition in Section 2 and are instead categorized as 'raw wood material' for the purposes of the tariff reduction.
Section 3(d)(3) compared to Section 2(c)(3) and 2(c)(4)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate legislative choice to apply the transparency requirements to a wider array of forestry products, including raw and semi-processed goods, while limiting the direct financial incentive (tariff reduction) to more processed items. It's not necessarily evasive but requires detailed scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents would argue that applying the notification requirement to a broader range of forestry products, including raw materials and pulp, ensures comprehensive transparency for all significant trade actions affecting the entire forestry supply chain, not just finished goods.
Case against: No direct case against, but it highlights a potential for confusion due to inconsistent terminology for what constitutes a 'finished forestry product' across different sections of the same bill. It could also lead to administrative complexities if the scope of 'finished forestry product' is interpreted differently by various agencies or stakeholders.
Estimated impact: Expands the scope of presidential actions requiring public notice to include raw wood materials and wood pulp, significantly broadening the range of products subject to transparency requirements before new duties or restrictions can be imposed.