Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why Owning a Home Just Got More Expensive: The Hidden Cost of Trump’s Tariffs

Opinion

Why Owning a Home Just Got More Expensive: The Hidden Cost of Trump’s Tariffs

A house icon in a line graph.

Getty Images, Vertigo3d

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.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less