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

DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less
Living Underground: Tel Aviv in the Shadow of a Widening War

Steps leading to a private underground bunker in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Hugo Balta
A billboard that reads, "We've got your six," and "Confidential abortion support for service members, veterans, and their families. You make the appointment, we handle the rest."

Female service members face higher rates of sexual assault, limited reproductive healthcare, and policy barriers shaped by the Hyde Amendment and the Dobbs decision. This piece examines how military and VA policies are failing women in uniform and after service, widening inequality and restricting access to critical care.

All Women Left Behind

Our sisters in arms are facing a life cycle of abandonment. Female service members have a separation rate 28% higher than men, largely attributed to sexual assault, family planning, and childcare—inherently sexist issues that threaten to weaken our force. When women are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy, with decades of unsuccessful efforts to reduce rape in the ranks, the military is lucky women volunteer to serve at all. But for those who do take the oath, the betrayal only deepens. In states with abortion bans, the uniform offers no protection against healthcare deserts created by Dobbs. Instead of expanding care, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have retreated, leaving these women with less access to care than they would have in a federal prison. Their president might be a blue falcon, but We the People are going to have their backs.

Just as the military sees more rapes than the civilian population, it also sees more unplanned pregnancies. Maternal death rates are higher in America than in other developed nations, but they are higher still in states with abortion restrictions. In fact, for women of reproductive age who live there, death rates are higher, independent of pregnancy. Following Dobbs, 40% of female service members saw increased risks to their health and careers, simply by being stationed at one of the 100 military installations housed in one of those states, while Pentagon officials admitted: “there is not much they can do [for them].”

Keep ReadingShow less