Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Mary Kenion on Homelessness: Policy, Principles, and Solutions
man lying on brown cardboard box
Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Mary Kenion on Homelessness: Policy, Principles, and Solutions

I had the opportunity to speak with Mary Kenion, the Chief Equity Officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The NAEH, in her words, is a non-profit organization with a “deceptively simple mission; to end homelessness in America.” We discussed the trends in policy that potentially could worsen the crisis, in relation to Medicaid, and the recent Executive Order regarding vagrancy and the mentally ill, and, finally, why this should matter as practical policy and how this reflects our national character and moral principles.

The NAEH cooperates with specialists to guide research efforts and serve in leadership roles; they also have a team of “lived experience advisors.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
A teacher passing out papers to students in a classroom.

California’s teacher shortage highlights inequities in teacher education. Supporting and retaining teachers of color starts with racially just TEPs.

Getty Images, Maskot

There’s a Shortage of Teachers of Color—Support Begins in Preservice Education

The LAist reported a shortage of teachers in Southern California, and especially a shortage of teachers of color. In California, almost 80% of public school students are students of color, while 64.4% of teachers are white. (Nationally, 80% of teachers are white, and over 50% of public school students are of color.) The article suggests that to support and retain teachers requires an investment in teacher candidates (TCs), mostly through full funding given that many teachers can’t afford such costly fast paced teacher education programs (TEPs), where they have no time to work for extra income. Ensuring affordability for these programs to recruit and sustain teachers, and especially teachers of color, is absolutely critical, but TEPs must consider additional supports, including culturally relevant curriculum, faculty of color they can trust and space for them to build community among themselves.

Hundreds of thousands of aspiring teachers enroll in TEPs, yet preservice teachers of color are a clear minority. A study revealed that 48 U.S. states and Washington, D.C have higher percentages of white TCs than they do white public-school students. Furthermore, in 35 of the programs that had enrollment of 400 or more, 90% of enrollees were white. Scholar Christine Sleeter declared an “overwhelming presence of whiteness” in teacher education and expert Cheryl Matias discussed how TEPs generate “emotionalities of whiteness,” meaning feelings such as guilt and defensiveness in white people, might result in people of color protecting white comfort instead of addressing the root issues and manifestations of racism.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a megaphone with a speech bubble.

As threats to democracy rise, Amherst College faculty show how collective action and courage within institutions can defend freedom and the rule of law.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

A Small College Faculty Takes Unprecedented Action to Stand Up for Democracy

In the Trump era, most of the attention on higher education has focused on presidents and what they will or won't do to protect their institutions from threats to academic freedom and institutional independence. Leadership matters, but it's time for the rank-and-file in the academy — and in business and other institutions — to fulfill their own obligations to protect democracy.

With a few exceptions, neither the rank and file nor their leaders in the academy have stood up for democracy and the rule of law in the world beyond their organizations. They have had little to say about the administration’s mounting lawlessness, corruption, and abuse of power.

Keep ReadingShow less