Current Affairs
September 14, 2025
Q2 2025 Public Company Performance
Specialty Chemicals l Materials Sector: Q2 2025 Performance
August 19, 2025
The specialty chemicals and materials sector delivered an unexpectedly weak Q1, casting serious doubt on the consensus forecast for mid-single-digit EBITDA growth in 2025. Companies had widely cautioned that escalating trade tensions could further weaken already fragile demand, pointing to Q2 results as a critical test. The Q2 earnings season wrapped up last week, and results from 40 leading companies confirmed their fears.
Price deflation has now persisted for ten consecutive quarters. The modest volume recovery seen in 2024 not only reversed in Q1 but worsened in Q2. Consolidated adjusted EBITDA fell more than 17% year-over-year, with margins contracting by 220 basis points, sharply weaker than in Q1. More than half of the companies lowered full-year guidance, reflecting what many executives now describe as a “lower for longer” reality. Notably, some companies attempted to downplay weak results to avoid spooking investors; one CEO went so far as to label a 10% sales decline and a 28% drop in adjusted EBITDA as “resilient performance.”
Beneath the consolidated figures, performance diverged sharply by end market and geography. Water solutions, electronics, agriculture, and medical applications showed strength, but not enough to offset broad-based weakness. Against a backdrop of sluggish demand and persistent overcapacity, companies announced 21 plant closures in Q2 alone, with Europe bearing the brunt.
With global trade tensions still unresolved, the sector faces a sobering risk: 2025 could mark the third straight year of revenue and EBITDA decline. That said, our model suggests the second half could finally stabilize versus the prior year, potentially establishing a much-needed floor for performance.
https://creovgroup.com/blog/f/specialty-chemicals-l-materials-sector-q2-2025-performance
September 10, 2025
Annex II Updated
MODIFYING THE SCOPE OF RECIPROCAL TARIFFS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING TRADE AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS
September 5, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (section 232), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Background. In Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits), I found that conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, including the consequences of those deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States that has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States. I declared a national emergency with respect to that threat, and to deal with that threat, I imposed certain ad valorem duties that I deemed necessary and appropriate. In Annex II to Executive Order 14257, I set forth a list of certain goods that, in my judgment, should not be subject to the ad valorem rates of duty imposed pursuant to that order.
In section 4 of Executive Order 14257, section 5 of Executive Order 14326 of July 31, 2025 (Further Modifying the Reciprocal Tariff Rates), and other Executive Orders issued to address the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, I directed various officials to monitor the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 and to recommend to me additional action that would more effectively deal with the emergency conditions described in Executive Order 14257. Based on this monitoring, among other things, I have received additional information and recommendations from these officials. After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify Annex II to Executive Order 14257 as shown in the updated version of Annex II that is attached to this order. In my judgment, these modifications are necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257.
Further, in section 4(c) of Executive Order 14257, I noted that I might further decrease or limit in scope the duties imposed under Executive Order 14257, as amended, if any trading partner takes significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters. Accordingly, I later temporarily suspended the individual ad valorem rate of duty for certain trading partners to reflect the fact that some trading partners had signaled a willingness to undertake meaningful economic and national security commitments with the United States designed to combat the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257. In Executive Order 14326, I noted that certain foreign trading partners had agreed, or were on the verge of agreeing, to meaningful trade and security agreements with the United States, with the conclusion of the agreements to be completed in the future.
In my judgment, it is necessary and appropriate to take steps contemplated in certain current and forthcoming trade and security framework agreements (framework agreements) between a foreign trading partner and the United States. I determine that any modification of tariffs required to implement current and forthcoming framework agreements is necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 and to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security found in Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), as amended; Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), as amended; Proclamation 9888 of May 17, 2019 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States), as amended; and Proclamation 10962 of July 30, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Copper Into the United States). Except in rare circumstances, I will refrain from narrowing the scope of the reciprocal tariff or any relevant section 232 tariff before the conclusion of a final trade and security agreement (final agreement) between the foreign trading partner and the United States.
For example, the United States and the European Union recently announced a landmark “Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade” (Framework Agreement). In the joint statement announcing the Framework Agreement, the United States committed to reduce the reciprocal tariff imposed under Executive Order 14257, as amended, on certain products of the European Union to zero percent and to reduce tariffs imposed under section 232 for automobiles and automobile parts originating from the European Union if the European Union takes certain steps. In my judgment, it is necessary and appropriate to implement the tariff modifications described in the Framework Agreement. These modifications are necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 and to reduce or eliminate the threat to national security found in Proclamation 9888, as amended.
Similarly, I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to implement the terms of any final agreement between a foreign trading partner and the United States related to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257. In my judgment, the modifications required to implement the terms of such a final agreement are necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 and to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security I have found pursuant to section 232.
Though I am generally unwilling for framework agreements to narrow the scope of the reciprocal tariffs or modify any relevant section 232 tariff before the conclusion of a final agreement, final agreements with the United States may include such modifications. My willingness to reduce the reciprocal tariff to zero percent for a given import or to modify tariffs imposed under section 232 will depend on numerous factors, including the scope and economic value of a trading partner’s commitments to the United States in its agreement on reciprocal trade, the national interests of the United States, the need to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, and the need to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security I have found pursuant to section 232. The list of imports for which I may be willing to provide a zero percent reciprocal tariff rate is set forth in the Annex to this order entitled “Potential Tariff Adjustments for Aligned Partners,” which contains products that cannot be grown, mined, or naturally produced in the United States or grown, mined, or naturally produced in sufficient quantities in the United States to satisfy domestic demand; certain agricultural products; aircraft and aircraft parts; and non-patented articles for use in pharmaceutical applications. Given the complex, fact-specific, and sensitive nature of negotiations and the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, among other relevant considerations, the imports that might receive a reciprocal tariff rate of zero percent may be different for each final agreement between a foreign trading partner and the United States.
Sec. 2. Updating Scope of Duties Globally. (a) The updated version of Annex II to Executive Order 14257 is attached to this order and shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time 3 days after the date of this order.
(b) The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) shall be modified as provided in Annex I to this order. These modifications shall enter into effect on the date set forth in Annex I to this order.
Sec. 3. Framework Agreements. (a) Upon the conclusion of any framework agreement of a kind described in section 1 of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall determine whether the United States must take any action to implement such framework agreement. Doing so shall include determining whether any condition or conditions to an action by the United States has occurred or will occur before the relevant action by the United States.
(b) If the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative determine that an action must be taken to implement a framework agreement pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and that any condition or conditions to such action have occurred or will occur before the relevant action by the United States, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall take the necessary and appropriate actions to implement such framework agreement in accordance with this order.
(c) The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall act in a manner consistent with the national interests of the United States, the purpose of this order, the need to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, and the need to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security I have found pursuant to section 232.
Sec. 4. Final Agreements. (a) Upon the conclusion of any final agreement of a kind described in section 1 of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall take the necessary and appropriate actions to implement the final agreement in accordance with this order.
(b) In implementing any final agreement, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall act in a manner consistent with the national interests of the United States, the purpose of this order, the need to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, and the need to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security I have found pursuant to section 232.
Sec. 5. Monitoring and Recommendations. (a) The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with any officials they deem appropriate, shall continue to monitor the conditions underlying the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, including the U.S. trade deficit, the lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption imports, the strength of our domestic manufacturing base, the strength of our defense industrial base, and any other relevant factors. The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall, from time to time, update me on the status of these conditions.
(b) The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall continue to inform me of any circumstance that, in their opinion, might indicate the need for further action and shall continue to recommend to me additional action that, in their opinion, will more effectively deal with the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257.
(c) The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall advise me of the conclusion of any agreement on reciprocal trade with a particular trading partner.
Sec. 6. Delegation. (a) Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Trade Representative are directed and authorized to take all necessary actions to implement and effectuate this order and any actions taken under section 3 or section 4 of this order — including through temporary suspension or amendment of regulations or through notices in the Federal Register and by adopting rules, regulations, or guidance — and to employ all powers granted to the President, including those granted by IEEPA and section 232, as may be necessary to implement and effectuate this order.
(b) The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Chair of the United States International Trade Commission, and any other senior official they deem appropriate, shall determine whether modifications to the HTSUS are necessary to effectuate this order and any actions taken under section 3 or section 4 of this order and may direct such modifications through notice in the Federal Register.
(c) If implementation of a framework agreement or final agreement of a kind described in section 1 of this order requires a refund of duties collected, CBP shall provide the refund to the extent consistent with law. Any refunds shall be processed pursuant to applicable law and CBP’s standard procedures for such refunds.
(d) Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Trade Representative may redelegate any of these functions within their respective department or agency.
(e) All executive departments and agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Commerce.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 5, 2025.
ANNEX I
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time 3 days after the date of this order, subdivision (v)(iii) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS shall be amended by inserting in numerical order the following provisions of the HTSUS:
| 2504.10.10 |
| 2604.00.00 |
| 2609.00.00 |
| 2612.20.00 |
| 2613.90.00 |
| 2825.40.00 |
| 2833.24.00 |
| 2903.51.10 |
| 2924.29.01 |
| 2924.29.03 |
| 2924.29.23 |
| 2924.29.26 |
| 2924.29.28 |
| 2924.29.33 |
| 2924.29.57 |
| 2924.29.80 |
| 2926.90.50 |
| 2933.29.05 |
| 2933.29.60 |
| 4703.11.00 |
| 4703.21.00 |
| 4703.29.00 |
| 7108.11.00 |
| 7108.12.50 |
| 7108.13.10 |
| 7108.13.55 |
| 7108.13.70 |
| 7108.20.00 |
| 7115.90.05 |
| 7115.90.30 |
| 7202.60.00 |
| 7501.10.00 |
| 7502.10.00 |
| 7502.20.00 |
| 7503.00.00 |
| 7504.00.00 |
| 7903.90.30 |
| 8505.11.0070 |
| 8541.41.00 |
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time 3 days after the date of this order, subdivision (v)(iii) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS shall be amended by removing the following provisions of the HTSUS:
| 2818.30.00 |
| 3824.99.93 3907.29.00 3907.30.00 |
| 3907.61.00 |
| 3907.69.00 |
| 3907.99.50 |
| 3910.00.00 |
September 9, 2025
L & P Online Mattress Study
Leggett & Platt study says several online mattresses fail 1633 flammability standard
September 4, 2025
According to new research from Leggett & Platt, many low-cost imported mattresses sold online fail federal flammability standards. It also says some even attain dangerous heat release rates in violation of U.S. law in as little as two to four minutes after exposure to an ignition source, according to test results submitted to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in July 2024.
The mattress manufacturer worked with Element Materials Technology, an independent CPSC-approved laboratory for mattress flammability testing and conducted the tests at its St. Paul, Minnesota, facility.
The lab tested eight imported mattress models (24 mattresses in total). These models had an average retail listing price of $233 — about half the wholesale price of an average mattress sold by U.S. manufacturers. The tested mattress models had high Amazon search rankings and were almost all sold on Amazon by third-party sellers. Each model underwent the same full-scale prototype testing used to establish a new mattress’s design compliance with the CPSC’s open-flame standard, known as the “1633” test.
The CPSC adopted this safety standard to reduce deaths and injuries related to mattress fires, particularly those initially ignited by sources such as lighters, candles and matches. The standard requires mattresses to maintain a heat release rate under 200 kW after being ignited by a pair of T-shaped gas burners.
Noncompliant mattresses burn rapidly and can quickly reach dangerous “flashover” conditions. Flashover is the point at which the entire contents of a room ignite simultaneously by radiant heat, making conditions in the room untenable and safe exit from the room impossible. Each year, compliance with the 1633 standard prevents scores of deaths and serious injuries from bedroom fires. To be compliant, a particular mattress design must pass the 1633 test three times. A single failure is considered to be a failure of the design to meet the 1633 standard.
Leggett & Platt says the results of the flammability testing are alarming. Seven of the eight tested mattress models (87.5%) failed the 1633 flammability test. One mattress model per brand was subjected to 1633 flammability testing. Five brands each had at least one model that failed all three 1633 tests conducted. Two of the brands had a model that failed two of three 1633 tests.
The test results submitted to the CPSC raise serious concerns that there may be widespread noncompliance of low-cost imported mattresses sold online in the U.S, according to Leggett & Platt.
An estimated 400,000 mattresses from models that failed 1633 flammability testing were sold on Amazon between 2024 and mid-2025, according to third-party market intelligence data. Many mattress brands identified as having noncompliant models continue to sell those models — as well as other models—on Amazon and other online retailers in the U.S.
According to trademark registrations, it appears to be common for a single foreign company to own several mattress brands that are imported and sold online in the United States. If a mattress model sold by a company under one of these brands fails flammability compliance, would other models sold under that brand, as well as other linked brands sold by that company, fail as well?
Over the past decade, imported mattresses have risen from approximately 10% to over 40% of the U.S. market. The vast majority of mattresses sold on Amazon are imported and sold at lower prices than their American-made counterparts, raising questions as to whether the foreign manufacturers used the materials necessary to make compliant mattresses with appropriate flammability protections.
In a majority of mattress recalls conducted over the past three years, Leggett & Platt says most sellers offer to provide consumers a remedy of a free cover that purportedly will bring the mattress into compliance with the federal flammability standard. However, many consumers are unlikely to call for a free cover, and, if they do, may not place it on the mattress or keep it on during the lifespan of the mattress. This common remedy has likely left thousands of dangerous, highly flammable mattresses in homes throughout the U.S.
“The message sent to companies selling low-cost, noncompliant mattresses is that their worst-case scenario for violating U.S. safety laws and exposing consumers to potentially deadly fires is that they will be required to spend $10 to $20 to send a mattress cover to the few consumers who request one,” the manufacturer says in a press release.
The tests were conducted on behalf of Leggett & Platt Inc., and the company has urged the CPSC to take the following actions:
- Require all online retailers and the mattress manufacturers to conduct an immediate recall of the mattress models that failed flammability testing.
- Expect companies that manufacture the models that failed testing to submit proof of testing to the CPSC, confirming that all other mattresses sold by that company in the United States meet flammability standards.
- Work with online retailers to implement safeguards to ensure the compliance of all mattresses sold on their platforms going forward.
- Impose significant civil penalties on companies that fail to conduct legally required flammability tests or apply false tags indicating compliance, as permitted by law.
The CPSC has issued product safety warnings for the noncompliant mattress models sold under two of the brands tested by Leggett & Platt, citing violations of federal safety regulations. No recalls or warnings have been issued by the CPSC for the remaining noncompliant mattress models to date, Leggett says.
August 29, 2025
Customs Investigation
U.S. Customs accuses 23 importers in shipping scheme to evade duties
Sheila Long O’Mara //Executive Editor, Furniture Today//August 29, 2025
WASHINGTON – More than 20 mattress importers were part of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection investigation into illegal transshipment of goods to evade trade duties.
In an investigation that spans back to the spring of 2024, companies brought products into the U.S. through “evasion” and a “network of Chinese shell companies” funneling products manufactured in China through South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam. CBP estimated that the scheme resulted in more than $250 million in revenue owed.
“Never before has CBP identified this many importers evading AD/CVD in a single consolidated EAPA investigation,” said Susan S. Thomas, acting executive assistant commissioner for CBP’s office of trade. “The revenue identified for collection exceeds $250 million, but this figure may increase as we uncover additional importers in the scheme.”
The evasion scheme, the government said, hinges on the lower duty rate in countries other than China. As an example, CBP pointed out that under the China antidumping order, duty rates were up to 1,731.75%, while the Indonesia Order carried a duty rate of 2.2%.
The CBP carried out port inspections, analyzed trade data and conducted “on-the-ground” verifications in Indonesia and Taiwan. As part of its investigation, CBP said it visited a number of the companies’ listed factories only to learn that the locations were not operational. In one instance, a factory was said to have been destroyed in a fire in 2023 and never rebuilt.
In its determination, CBP paints a picture of companies that have U.S. addresses that are in strip centers and other suspect locations. A quick Google search indicates one company’s address as the location of a restaurant, Bean Bandit, in Colorado Springs, Colo. Another has the address of a PostNet location in Denver. Some companies in the filing share an address, and a number of the companies’ U.S. addresses are in residential areas with two as neighbors.
Ten companies are listed with U.S. locations in Colorado, six in New Jersey, two in New York with a shared address, four in California and one in Houston.
Companies listed as part of the investigation include the following companies, some of which, the government says, are tied to a larger entity, Foshan Aiyi, previously investigated for transshipping. The companies cited are:
Alexand Inc., Alloech Inc., Anlowo Inc., Bentensh Inc., Calimoon Inc., Day Day Up Inc., Deluxe Home of USA Inc., Gemmeo Inc., Haiide Inc., Hondex Inc., Incoroy Inc., Inland Empire Decor Home Furnishing Inc., Lincody Inc., Lirachy Inc., Newland Technology Inc., Outlier Inc., Splendid Life Distribute Inc., Startown Inc., Sunshine International Inc., Vovyace Inc., Weekaly Inc., Wuleitex Inc. and Zozonid Inc.
Products from some of the companies are sold via Amazon, Wayfair, Walmart and other furniture retailers, according to an online search.
Earlier this year, the Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission also published its continuation of the order from the 2018 antidumping case that resulted in duties on mattresses imported into the U.S. from China. The ITC said revoking the order would likely lead to continued or recurrent dumping and injury to the U.S. mattress market.
August 25, 2025
Furniture Tariff Investigation
Furniture Retailer Stocks Shaken Up by Trump Plan for Tariffs
By
Updated August 25, 2025
09:45 AM EDT
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-2214929140-7063719be3654e90a41b206c5f8cfc75.jpg)
Key Takeaways
- President Donald Trump said the administration would being a “Tariff investigation” of furniture imports.
- The president explained that after the 50-day study was completed, he would be putting tariffs on imported furniture.
- Shares of retailers that rely heavily on imports fell, while those with stronger U.S. manufacturing bases rose.
Shares of some big furniture retailers slumped Monday after President Donald Trump announced that he will soon be slapping tariffs on imported furniture.1
Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, last week that his administration was beginning a “Tariff investigation” of furniture coming into the country, which will be completed in 50 days. After that, he would determine tariffs on imports “at a Rate yet to be determined.”
The president added that the move was designed to “bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”
Shares of retailers that rely heavily on imports, including RH (RH), Wayfair (W), and Williams-Sonoma (WSM), all slumped at the opening bell. However, Ethan Allen Interiors (ETD) and La-Z-Boy (LZB), which make more of their products in the U.S., saw their shares rise.
https://www.investopedia.com/furniture-retailer-stocks-shaken-up-by-trump-plan-for-tariffs-11796667
Everchem Updates Archive 
Sign Up for Email Updates