WASHINGTON (AP) – Naturepedic, a Cleveland-based mattress and furniture company, had plans to launch an upscale upholstered headboard late this year or early in 2026. However, these plans have been disrupted by President Donald Trump’s recent announcement on social media, declaring a 30% tariff on imported upholstered furniture. Naturepedic currently sources its headboards from India and Vietnam, putting its future product rollout in jeopardy.
Arin Schultz, Naturepedic’s chief growth officer, expressed the dilemma facing the company: “Do we continue forth … and hope for the best? Or do we feel like we’re priced out and drop it altogether?” If the company decides to proceed, Schultz questioned whether they would absorb the extra costs or transfer them to the consumers.
Naturepedic is not alone in facing uncertainties. Many U.S. business leaders were asking similar questions following Trump's announcement. In addition to upholstered furniture, Trump also proposed tariffs of 100% on pharmaceutical drugs, 50% on kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, and 25% on heavy trucks. These tariffs are set to take effect on Wednesday, resulting in swift concerns among industry executives.
Trump’s justification for the tariffs hinges on national security, particularly the need to protect U.S. industries from foreign competition. Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, criticized the rationale, questioning how kitchen cabinets could be seen as vital for national security. Trump’s tariffs represent a shift from decades of American trade policies that aimed for lower trade barriers, as he builds a tariff wall around the U.S. economy.
Since the start of the fiscal year 2025 on October 1, the U.S. Treasury has collected $172 billion in customs duties, a dramatic increase of $96 billion (or 126%) from the same period in fiscal year 2024, although tariffs still comprise less than 4% of federal revenue. The immediate effects are palpable, with businesses, lawyers, and trade analysts eagerly awaiting further details to understand the impact of these new tariffs.
Particularly concerning are the implications for drug production. Trump has suggested extensive tariffs on pharmaceuticals to push pharmaceutical companies to shift jobs and build factories in the U.S. Drugmakers have increasingly moved operations abroad to capitalize on lower costs in countries like China and India. The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the risks associated with dependency on foreign suppliers, especially considering the geopolitical tensions with China. Interestingly, stock prices for several pharmaceutical companies rose following the tariff announcements, suggesting that the tariffs may not be as detrimental as initially perceived.
The tariffs on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and upholstered furniture could escalate housing costs, making home ownership more expensive, particularly as the housing market is already strained. The prices of living room, kitchen, and dining room furniture have risen nearly 10% in the past year. Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, warned that these tariffs would further inflate costs in an already unstable market.
On the other hand, tariffs on heavy trucks are somewhat perplexing given that the U.S. has a developed manufacturing sector in this category, led by companies like Paccar (manufacturer of Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks). Analysts speculate that this move may be a strategic effort aimed at Mexico, as negotiations regarding the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) approach.
Trump has leveraged Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to justify investigations into whether imports in various sectors threaten U.S. national security. His administration has historically invoked a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs, though it faces legal challenges over the extent of this authority. Commentators suggest that Trump’s use of Section 232 serves as a contingency if the IEEPA-related tariffs are invalidated by the courts, providing a fallback for pursuing his aggressive trade policy.
Amidst this uncertainty, experts express concern regarding the administration’s approach to trade, which often seems reactionary rather than strategically planned. Such abrupt implementations of tariffs create challenges for businesses attempting to adjust to evolving conditions, leaving them grappling with unclear objectives and potential ramifications.
