Homeownership will be more expensive, and a major cause is President Trump’s new tariffs on building materials. With a 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminum taking effect this month, and potential new tariffs on lumber imports, the cost of new home construction and maintenance will rise. While these policies aim to protect certain American industries, they also threaten to make housing even less affordable for millions of Americans.
This February, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminum, and Canadian lumber imports are under consideration, which could lead to further tariffs. These actions are designed to boost U.S. manufacturing but will also increase costs for essential construction materials. Steel and aluminum—necessary for framing, roofing, and siding—will now be significantly more expensive, forcing builders to pass these costs onto homebuyers. Lumber, which Canada supplies in large quantities, could also become costlier if new tariffs are imposed. Other materials, such as nails, pipes, and insulation, may see price hikes due to supply chain disruptions.
These increased costs will put further strain on a housing market already struggling with affordability issues. As material prices rise, the cost of building new homes will increase, making homeownership more difficult, particularly for first-time buyers. At the same time, homeowners will also feel the effects when maintaining or upgrading their properties. Roof replacements, kitchen remodels, and essential repairs will become more expensive, and many homeowners may be forced to delay necessary maintenance, which could lead to long-term structural problems. Those in the lower- and middle-income brackets will be hit hardest, as they often lack the financial flexibility to absorb rising costs.
Beyond individual homeowners, these tariffs will have broader economic consequences. Higher construction and maintenance costs contribute to inflation, which could prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, making mortgages even less affordable. A slowdown in home sales and new construction would weaken the housing market and could lead to job losses in construction, real estate, and other related industries. The ripple effects will be felt throughout the economy.
Supporters of tariffs argue that they will strengthen domestic industries, create jobs, and reduce reliance on imports. Some economists believe tariffs provide necessary protection for U.S. workers against unfair global competition. Encouraging domestic production could also stabilize material costs in the long run, shielding the economy from fluctuations in international markets. The manufacturing sector contributes trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy, and proponents argue that protecting it is vital for long-term economic security.
However, the economic risks and trade-offs cannot be ignored. There are alternative policy approaches that could achieve similar goals without making housing less affordable. One option is targeted tariff exemptions for key housing materials, a measure the National Association of Home Builders has strongly advocated for. Certain items, such as Canadian softwood lumber, could be exempted to prevent steep price increases. Government subsidies or tax incentives could also support domestic steel, aluminum, and lumber production without imposing broad tariffs. Studies have shown that tax incentives, such as the Domestic Production Activities Deduction, have been effective in encouraging U.S. manufacturing growth. Additionally, increased investment in affordable housing programs could help offset rising costs. Expanding the Housing Choice Voucher program, for example, could provide financial relief to renters and low-income families struggling with higher housing expenses.
Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and potentially lumber will raise home construction and maintenance costs, worsening an already severe housing affordability crisis. While the goal of supporting domestic industries is understandable, these policies could have unintended consequences, including higher inflation and mortgage rates. A more targeted approach, combining limited tariffs with targeted exemptions and incentives, could better balance economic security with housing affordability. Without such adjustments, homeownership will slip further out of reach for millions of Americans.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.