It sounded so patriotic, and it made for such a catchy slogan: Build America, Buy America.
But as one developer described yet another Trump Administration misjudgment, “It’s a nightmare.”
Those are the words of Kentucky builder Scott McReynolds, who says that instead of applying for a federal grant to build 20 to 30 affordable homes, he plans to build two, four-unit projects, small enough so that they aren’t subject to the so-called BABA mess.
The policy is becoming a case study in how good intentions in Washington can collide with economic reality and leave working Americans paying the price, right here in Aurora.
The Build America, Buy America Act was supposed to boost domestic manufacturing by requiring federally funded projects to use American-made materials.
Instead, according to developers here and across the country, it is slowing construction, driving up costs and, most troubling of all, choking off the already strained supply of affordable housing.
At a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to pay for housing, this is not just a policy misfire. It’s causing serious self-inflicted real damage.
The problem is straightforward. Many of the basic components that go into building housing, which include everything from ceiling fans to specialized fixtures, are simply not made in the United States at scale, if at all.
For decades, global supply chains have filled those gaps efficiently and affordably.
Now, developers must either hunt for scarce domestic alternatives or apply for federal waivers. In theory, that safety valve should keep projects moving. In reality, it has become a bureaucratic choke point, according to builders and developers who spoke with the Associated Press for a recent story.
Waivers are taking six months or more. Some developers report they are still waiting on approvals submitted last year. Meanwhile, projects stall, costs climb and angst spreads.
In Aurora, the consequences are becoming painfully clear. A planned 85-unit affordable housing project has been bogged down as developers scramble to identify compliant materials. It’s a process that has already cost tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees alone. More than 100 waiver requests remain in limbo. If approvals don’t come soon, the project risks grinding to a halt, according to the developer.
Across the country, developers say they are scaling back plans, delaying projects or abandoning federal funding altogether to avoid the regulatory maze. One builder summed it up bluntly by saying that fewer units will be built nationwide despite a growing housing crisis.
Supporters of the law argue that prioritizing American-made materials strengthens domestic industry and ensures taxpayer dollars stay at home. That is a reasonable goal. But political policy does not exist in a real-world vacuum. It must account for actual market conditions.
Even some advocates concede that the rollout has been flawed. Requirements were imposed before domestic manufacturing capacity existed to meet them. The result was predictable. There are endless shortages, delays and rising prices.
This is Economics 101, which the Trump administration just can’t seem to grasp. When the government artificially restricts supply without increasing production, costs go up.
You don’t have to believe or test anyone who tells you that. You can see it at the grocery store, the building supply store and in the price of buying a car or a home.
The deeper issue is one of philosophy. The Build America, Buy America Act reflects a growing tendency in the Trump-era strain of economic nationalism embraced by MAGA-aligned policymakers to intervene aggressively in markets.
Markets are not slogans. They are complex systems built over decades. Disrupt them carelessly, and the consequences ripple outward.
Here, the ripple effects are hitting some of the most vulnerable Americans, including seniors on fixed incomes, working families and first-time homebuyers already priced out of ownership.
The biggest hard truth policymakers seem reluctant to acknowledge is that not every product should or will be made domestically. The United States has a highly advanced economy. It excels in high-value industries. Requiring domestic production of low-cost, widely available components like door hinges or ceiling fans may sound appealing, but it ignores economic reality.
None of this was inevitable. A more targeted approach that would have phased in requirements and aligned them with actual manufacturing capacity.
Instead, the current system is doing the opposite.
Fixing it will require more than rhetoric. It will require a willingness to rethink assumptions, respect market realities, prioritize outcomes over slogans and most of all, deal with the president’s cumbersome ego.
It’s a trade-off folks – Do you want cheaper goods or a good paying job? Tariffs and “buy American made” policies favor the American worker over cheaper foreign labor. Additionally, we have off-shored so many products in search of cheaper goods that our very economy is now in peril as many items crucial to our nation and self-defense our now produced only in China, such as rare earth minerals, etc.
I would also add that we are becoming more acutely aware that we may not have the water and infrastructure to support the increased growth that building more housing as fast as possible will encourage. How many more people can future arid Colorado support?
Thank you for an excellent opinion piece. I taught economics and managed grant development, and accounting at a small University before retiring. I’ve been on both sides of this issue under different circumstances of course, but some of the issues remain the same. First, restricring purchases does indeed restrict supply and drives up prices and yes, you sure don’t have to have a degree to see the result. Second, good intentions in Washington usually come to local governments, state governments, and other institutions (like universities) in the form of grants. I’ve written and managed grants throughout my career. Grant opportunities are released by the government with much fanfare, and yes, they can sound terrific. The reality of the restrictions imposed by these wonderful grants can and sometimes do render them inoperable and can by more costly in time and money than is prudent. This happens under all administrations, but in this case it’s yet another example of biting off more than than you can chew. As I’ve watched, read, and listened to the reasoning from the Trump administration, I’ve come to a conclusion. When you try to do so many things in a short time, planning suffers and the wheels simply fall off of a lot of the implemented projects. We certainly can see it with this program, but others, like DOGE, immigration enforcement, and the plethora of executive orders issued without Congressional oversight, have met much resistance from the public, courts, and watchers throughout the world because implemention has come without prudent planning or any consultation with allies and certainly with public figures here who could offer thoughtful criticism of progam pitfalls before a rollout.
In the USA, under capitalism, it is not the governments job to place people into housing. That’s what socialist’s do. There is so much unneeded talk about housing. You want a home or house make it your personal aim to do it. Work harder, think better. Personal responsibility is what built America. Socialism is what appears to be taking down our way of handling problems.