Marty Davis, the CEO of Cambria, has transformed from a Midwestern business scion into a focal point of a national trade fight — and his political ties are central to the controversy.
Cambria, a privately held Minnesota company founded by the Davis family in 1999, is now the dominant U.S. maker of engineered quartz countertops. The business is roughly a $500 million company that employs about 1,800 people and is part of a broader family business empire that once included dairy operations and an airline. Davis presents himself as a small-business Midwesterner who champions American manufacturing and ‘‘free and fair trade,’’ arguing that protecting domestic industry preserves middle-class jobs.
But Cambria’s competitors — and many small fabricators and builders who use imported quartz — say Davis is using tariffs to tip the market in his company’s favor, and that his close relationship with former President Trump has amplified the pressure. Those opponents argue the tariffs Cambria has sought and largely won will raise costs, force layoffs at small shops and installers, and make housing and renovations less affordable for ordinary homeowners.
Cambria’s complaint is straightforward: foreign producers and exporters, particularly in China, India and some other countries, are flooding the U.S. market with slabs priced artificially low, undercutting U.S. manufacturers. In petitions filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Cambria and a handful of domestic manufacturers asked for relief from what they called unfair competition. ‘‘It’s so unfair when you have to compete against a foreign government, not another company,’’ Davis says.
The company has had prior success. In 2018 Cambria persuaded the USITC to impose duties and penalties on imports from China, and later the agency acted on imports from India and Turkey. More recently, Cambria and other domestic producers sought a ‘‘global safeguard’’ — essentially tariffs and quotas covering imports from almost every country — arguing that broad limits were needed to stop a surge of cheap slabs.
Last month the USITC ruled in favor of the petition and recommended steep measures: tariffs of up to 40 percent on imported quartz slabs for a four-year period, plus limits on quantities that can be imported. The commission’s recommendations now go to the president, who will decide whether to implement them.
That final step has sharpened accusations that Davis is leveraging political connections. Davis has been a conspicuous Trump supporter and fundraiser, has invested in Trump’s social-media venture, and has hosted high-dollar events for the former president. Competitors and critics say those ties give Cambria an unfair advantage in getting favorable trade action and have made the tariff fight emblematic of what some call ‘‘crony capitalism.’’
Opponents organized into a broad coalition — including large importers, independent fabricators and homebuilders — to fight the tariff request. Groups such as MSI, a California-based distributor reporting roughly $2.5 billion in annual sales, say a small group of domestic manufacturers is trying to use trade policy to box out thousands of fabricators, retailers and installers across the country. Small fabricators like Marble Uniques in Indiana, which employs about 30 people cutting imported slabs for local customers, warn that higher slab prices will be passed to consumers and could force businesses to reduce staff.
Industry debates have spilled into public view. Both sides hired major law firms and communications teams to make their case to the USITC and to sway public opinion. Each frames its position as protecting American jobs: Cambria emphasizes preserving U.S. manufacturing capacity, while the coalition opposing tariffs warns of job losses among small shops and higher housing costs.
Trade experts note that this kind of petition — producers asking for protection from imports — is common and longstanding in U.S. trade policy. Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute calls it ‘‘a dirty little secret’’ of the trade system: a mechanism that routinely produces import protection. Economists say tariffs can help protected firms but also raise input prices for builders and consumers, adding to an affordability squeeze in housing and remodeling.
The political angle matters: with the president making the final decision, critics say firms with White House access can turn trade remedies into competitive weapons. Legal scholars and opponents point to Davis’s fundraising and investments as fodder for their public-relations campaign, even as Cambria stresses that it has won support from lawmakers across the aisle and previously found relief under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Senator Amy Klobuchar, for example, testified on behalf of Cambria at a trade hearing.
The quartz dispute also sits beside other, grimmer industry issues. Workers who cut engineered quartz slabs face serious health risks from silica exposure — a problem that has led to deaths and growing calls for stronger safety measures. Manufacturers and trade groups have also sought legal protections from lawsuits tied to those health claims, adding another layer to the industry’s battles.
For homeowners, the immediate effect of higher tariffs would likely be higher countertop prices. For builders and fabricators, an increase in slab costs can ripple through project budgets. Cato Institute analysts and other economists argue that while quartz isn’t as central as materials like lumber, higher costs for any component can raise overall construction expenses and ultimately affect homebuyers.
Davis rejects the narrative that he is simply gaming politics. He maintains Cambria sought government relief because the playing field is distorted and that the company’s actions are about protecting U.S. jobs and manufacturing capacity. Opponents counter that the remedy being sought benefits a small number of domestic producers at the expense of many smaller businesses and consumers.
At stake is a broader question: whether trade policy should be used to shield specific U.S. producers in an industry where domestic and imported products coexist across price tiers, or whether policymakers should resist requests for protection that can raise costs for consumers and fragment markets. The USITC has recommended heavy protections; the president now holds the deciding vote, and the outcome will reverberate across a supply chain that runs from overseas quarries and factories to neighborhood fabricators and kitchens across America.