Dave Ramsey's Take on Trump's Tariffs Impacting the Housing Market
As the U.S. housing market grapples with the implications of newly imposed tariffs under President Donald Trump's administration, financial expert Dave Ramsey offered a perspective on his YouTube channel that diverges from many industry analysts.
Read Next:
For You:
While Ramsey downplays the potential impact of these tariffs on housing affordability and supply, other experts warn of significant cost increases and market disruptions.
In a recent discussion, Ramsey addressed concerns about the effect of tariffs on the housing market. He suggested that while tariffs might lead to some cost increases, they are unlikely to significantly affect housing affordability or supply. Ramsey emphasized that the housing market is influenced by a multitude of factors and tariffs represent just one component.
Discover Next:
Contrary to Ramsey's assessment, numerous industry experts and organizations have highlighted the following substantial impact tariffs could have on the housing market.
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates that tariffs on imported building materials from countries like Canada, Mexico and China could raise the cost of constructing a single-family home by approximately $7,500 to $10,000.
According to Reuters, data from March 2025 indicates a 14.2% decline in U.S. single-family home construction, reaching the lowest level since July of the previous year. This downturn is attributed to increased costs from import tariffs, despite falling mortgage rates.
The NAHB and Wells Fargo Housing Market Index reported a drop in builder confidence, citing concerns over tariffs, elevated mortgage rates and high housing costs.
The impact of tariffs extends beyond construction costs and also affects the following.
A report by Redfin indicates that over 30% of Americans are postponing plans to purchase big-ticket items, including homes, due to economic uncertainties stemming from tariff policies.
Tariffs on essential building materials like lumber and gypsum, primarily imported from Canada and Mexico, are expected to exacerbate existing shortages, further driving up prices.
While Ramsey maintains that tariffs will not significantly disrupt the housing market, a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. Increased construction costs, declining housing starts and reduced consumer confidence point to a market under strain. As the situation evolves, prospective homebuyers and industry stakeholders should stay informed and consider the potential long-term effects of these trade policies.
Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on GOBankingRates.com.
More From GOBankingRates
Mark Cuban: Trump's Tariffs Will Affect This Class of People the MostThese 10 Used Cars Will Last Longer Than an Average New VehicleHow To Get the Most Value From Your Costco Membership in 20254 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Dave Ramsey's Take on Trump's Tariffs Impacting the Housing Market
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.
Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament
NEW YORK (AP) — Philadelphia's host city executive for the 2026 World Cup says organizers accept that an immigration crackdown by President Donald Trump's administration may be among the outside events that impact next year's tournament. 'There are certainly things that are happening at the national level, the international level, there are going to be geopolitical issues that we don't even know right now that are going affect the tournament next year, so we recognize that we're planning within uncertainty,' Meg Kane said Monday at a gathering of the 11 U.S. host city leaders, one year and two days ahead of the tournament opener. The World Cup will be played at 16 stadiums in the U.S., Mexico and Canada from June 11 to July 19 next year, a tournament expanded to 48 nations and 104 games. All matches from the quarterfinals on will be in the U.S., with the final at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. 'Whether it's the Olympics, whether it's a World Cup, whether it's a Super Bowl, you name it, anytime you've got a major international sporting event, geopolitics is going to have a role,' said Alex Vasry, CEO of the New York/New Jersey host committee. Kane said the host committees must adapt to decisions made by others. 'One of the things that I think we all recognize is that we have to be really good at operating within that uncertainty,' Kane said. 'I think for each of our cities, we want to be prepared to make any person that is coming and makes the decision to come to the United States or come to this World Cup feel that they are welcome. We do not play a role necessarily in what is happening in terms of the decisions that are made.' Trump's travel ban on citizens from 12 countries exempted athletes, coaches, staff and relatives while not mentioning fans. 'We allow for FIFA to continue having constructive conversations with the administrations around visas, around workforce, around tourism,' Kane said. FIFA is running the World Cup for the first time without a local organizing committee in the host nation. Asked in late April whether FIFA president Gianni Infantino was available to discuss the tournament, FIFA director of media relations Bryan Swanson forwarded the request to a member of the media relations staff, who did not make Infantino available. Legislation approved by the House of Representatives and awaiting action in the Senate would appropriate $625 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 'for security, planning, and other costs related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.' The 11 U.S. host committees have been consulting with each other on issues such as transportation for teams and VIPs, and for arranging fan fests. At the last major soccer tournament in the U.S., the 2024 Copa America final at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, started 82 minutes late after fans breached security gates. 'Certainly we were not involved in the planning or the logistics for that particular match,' said Alina Hudak, CEO of the Miami World Cup host committee. She said local police 'have done an extensive review of the after-action reports related to that in collaboration with the stadium and so all of the things that happened are in fact being reviewed and addressed and I can assure you that everything is being done within our power to make sure that the appropriate measures are being placed, the appropriate perimeters.' ___ AP soccer:
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass deportations are an unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free
Across the country, immigration enforcement raids have sparked growing protests. Militarized federal agents, often in a confusingly ramshackle assortment of gear and uniforms, have been met by angry crowds shouting them down with chants of 'shame!' Over the weekend in Los Angeles, the federal government for the first time since 1965 deployed the National Guard over the objection of a state's governor. President Donald Trump "is sending 2,000 National Guard troops into LA County — not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Sunday. 'He's hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control.' The division and disorder on display are the culmination of an absurd premise which has long gone unchallenged: the whole concept of immigration restriction. This policy of segregation by place of birth presents a choice between three basic options. You can muddle along with de facto nonenforcement, putting swaths of the population and economy into a legal gray area and creating underground black markets. You can take the Trumpian tact of aggressive enforcement against millions of people, at the cost of civil liberties and social peace. Or you can confront the elephant in the room: the reality that these laws are unjust, unnecessary and an affront to the freedom of not just immigrants, but also citizens and our democratic republic. Mass removal is a profoundly unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free. Mass deportation and large-scale immigration enforcement require nothing less than a police state, and the more of a crackdown you demand, the more obviously it will look and act like a police state. When the government sends paramilitary-style law enforcement units into people's neighborhoods, this is no longer some abstract argument about 'the border.' It's Boyle Heights. It's Queens. It's Milwaukee. It's San Ysidro. It's armored vehicles and flash-bangs outside your grocery store. The administration's frequent line — including from Trump himself — is that only United States citizens possess legal and constitutional rights, such as due process. This is wrong as a matter of law and at best dubious as a matter of morality. Making the mere entry and presence of people illegal, turning millions who've committed no other offense into marginalized outlaws, undermines the foundations of a free society. But suppose, for argument's sake, you care only about the freedoms of native-born Americans. Any attempt to seriously enforce restrictionist immigration laws impinges on your liberties. The enforcement of such a sweeping prohibition, the division of society it entails, can only be accomplished with a massive enforcement machine to match. And citizens can be, and frequently are, caught up in that machine's grinding gears. Those horrified by the more physical means of enforcement may imagine that other, less direct methods can be sufficient to 'secure the border.' But policymakers have attempted for decades to impose administrative barriers to accomplish the exclusionary goal with fewer actual arrests. All 50 states now issue REAL ID-compliant identity cards, which are checked constantly in daily life. E-Verify, tenant screenings, banking rules and benefit restrictions are all burdens created to make undocumented life less desirable in hopes that people will simply leave of their own accord. Yet, millions remain, because even such burdens pale in comparison to tin-pot dictatorships, civil war or simply grinding poverty. When the paperwork fails, the boots arrive. To make mass deportation a reality, the government inevitably must send militarized agents into peaceful neighborhoods to sweep up cashiers, day laborers and housekeepers. It must unleash tear gas and violence in the streets when communities push back against raids on apartment buildings and local restaurants. It must intrude on personal relationships and violate privacy, freedom of association and economic liberty. It must tear away parents, traumatize innocent kids and shred trust in the law. To keep the assembly line of deportations moving, the government needs to trample due process with the truncated procedures offered by executive branch immigration courts, created to sidestep the independence of regular federal courts. It diverts law enforcement agencies from chasing real criminals. And it wastes tax money and sabotages the economy — all to no real benefit nothing except morally repellent abstractions about bloodlines and race. These destructive social dynamics always show up in the context of enforcing victimless offenses. Aside from marijuana use (another absurdly unenforceable federal prohibition), undocumented presence is probably America's most common victimless offense — unlike violent crimes or property crimes, which immigrants commit at a lower rate than native-born Americans, and which can and should be prosecuted in their own right. Claims about drains on resources ignore their real economic contributions to the tax base and exclusion from benefits. Social Security, for example, is actually subsidized by immigrants, including undocumented immigrants who still pay taxes. There is one truth on the other side of the equation: it is indeed corrosive to have laws on the books which go unenforced and widely flouted. That has been the reality of our immigration regime for far too long. But we now see that the solution isn't to tear apart our society while trying to enforce bad laws. Instead, we should repeal them. Every time we ban peaceful, voluntary conduct — crossing a border, renting a home, taking a job — we expand government power and shrink liberty. The trade-off is unavoidable. Across history, one of the main arcs of moral progress has been the advancement of legal equality regardless of arbitrary, immutable characteristics. Nothing is more arbitrary or immutable than your place of birth or whom you were born to. Our civic creed insists all are created equal. Anything else shackles us all to illiberal impositions and societal dysfunction. Push hard enough on mass deportation and Americans will meet ICE with human chains to protect their neighbors. Tear apart people's lives and communities, and they will start to fight back. Try to commandeer regular police, and states and localities will refuse. Produce endless horror stories and scenes of dystopian authoritarianism, and you can't keep pretending this is merely about building a wall through the desert. This has never been about just controlling the border, it's about controlling America, and at the end of the day Americans are not a people who like to be controlled. The reconstruction of a post-Trump America will require a radical liberalization of immigration laws. Our aspirations to be a free country and our reality of being a nation of immigrants are, and always will be, inseparable. This article was originally published on
