New steel, aluminum tariffs will push construction costs higher
This story was originally published on Construction Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Construction Dive newsletter.
New tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum will raise construction costs further, adding to price spikes triggered by an initial 25% tariff on the materials earlier this year, according to a June 3 industry webinar hosted by Skanska USA.
President Donald Trump increased steel and aluminum tariffs from 25% to 50% on Wednesday, doubling down on a strategy that has reshaped construction supply chains since his administration took over. Only the United Kingdom is exempt from the hike until July 9, per the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal.
The move will inflate material costs across a range of commercial building materials, at a time when many projects stand on shaky financial ground, according to panelists.
'We're still digesting the most recent announcement of the steel and aluminum tariffs doubling,' said Rob Cantando, national director of strategic supply chain at Sweden-based developer and builder Skanska. 'We're going to be working with our supply chain partners to assess that impact over the coming weeks.'
In one case study shared by Skanska, the new tariffs could add around $22 million to a $375 million healthcare development. Nearly half of that jump is tied to derivative components that embed steel or aluminum in their assemblies, according to Skanska. Panelists added these cost increases could even jump as high as 8%.
But other categories are showing resistance to price swings, said Cantando. Several manufacturers that announced price hikes earlier in the year, particularly of drywall, lumber and steel studs, have since scaled back further increases.
'Many of those markets that shot up early when the first round of tariffs were announced are giving back some of those gains as these new tariff policy changes are accounted for. In addition, manufacturers and suppliers are taking action to remain competitive,' said Cantando. 'Many of them are shifting sourcing and materials to minimize the impact of tariffs. In some cases, tariffs are being partially absorbed by the supply chain.'
The result is an unpredictable pricing climate. For now, structural steel escalation is hovering around 5% to 8%, but that could rise quickly, said Cantando.
Coil-based steel products, including hollow structural sections and bar grating, have already surged by as much as 50% since January. Midwest aluminum premiums jumped 54% following Trump's announcement last week of the new tariffs, he added.
To stay ahead of volatility, suppliers have been reworking logistics. Kawneer, a Norcross, Georgia-based manufacturer of commercial construction products, has begun rerouting cross-border contracts and adjusting production footprints across North America to avoid tariff exposure, said Sarah Andreasen, director of North American sales at Kawneer.
Kawneer's architectural aluminum product range includes windows, doors, framing systems, curtain wall systems and railings. The firm's products are used on nonresidential buildings such as stadiums, offices, schools, retail and healthcare construction, according to the company.
'For us, it's been all about rediverting our supply chain,' said Andreasen. 'We have had to do a lot of work, set up production capability in different plants so that we can mitigate those types of transactions from tariffs.'
On the steel side, firms such as SteelFab, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based structural steel fabricator, are working directly with owners and general contractors to create bundled purchasing agreements, said Chris Gregory, executive vice president at SteelFab. Gregory recommended locking in pricing across multiple upcoming projects by combining expected orders into a single package.
'Package projects together. Say 'It's not just 1,000 tons we're buying, we'd like 15,000 tons. What kind of deal can you structure for us to lock in price and help us with the schedule?'' said Gregory. 'That has saved a tremendous amount of money this first quarter that goes directly to the owners.'
However, risks still remain, said panelists. In certain cases, tariff impacts won't appear on an invoice at all, said Cantando.
For instance, if the cost of a component rises due to reshuffled sourcing or overseas market constraints, there's rarely a clean paper trail.
'A component costs $100 but because of tariffs, it now costs $150. My supply chain team quickly gets to work to try to find an alternate source. Let's say they find a source that's $125,' said Cantando. 'You can argue that the $25 increase was a result of tariffs. But you're not going to have a document that shows that because there's no tariff that's applied to it.'
Tariffs' impacts are further complicated by shifting domestic capacity. While U.S. steel mills are currently running below peak capability, at around 75%, certain segments have already seen stretched lead times, said Gregory. Aluminum smelting capacity, idled in recent years, will also be harder to ramp back up, said Andreasen.
'I do think it's something that we're going to have to watch pretty carefully,' said Andreasen. 'I think that's a challenge that we'll continue to watch on the horizon.'
In the meantime, executives should continue to develop contingency planning and contract strategies. Panelists during the session advised clients to revisit contracts to help mitigate risk.
'You might want to consider establishing unit pricing, or index-based pricing, for products where the supply chain is suggesting that firm fixed pricing won't reflect future tariff policies,' said Sarah Vakili, senior director of business planning and strategy at Skanska. 'Of course, stay informed and be willing to adapt.'
Recommended Reading
Construction costs dip, but tariffs hike some materials' prices
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
#TeamTrump vs #TeamMusk: A tenuous relationship in its twilight
The breakup of a once-powerful allyship between billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has forced even the pair's most ardent supporters to pick sides. Conservatives watched this week with a mixture of bemusement and horror as the men publicly fought on social media, sharing explosive allegations, threats and more than one ridiculing meme.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UBS faces $26B in capital requirements from Swiss bank reforms, Bloomberg says
UBS (UBS) is facing as much as $26B in capital requirements to be phased over the next decade under banking reform proposals from the Swiss government, Bastian Benrath-Wright and Noele Illien of Bloomberg reports. The largest hit to the bank is set to come from a proposal that would require the company to increase the capital held at home against its stakes in foreign units to 100% from the current 60%. The government estimates this will force UBS to add as much as $23B in capital to its Swiss-based main unit. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>> See Insiders' Hot Stocks on TipRanks >> Read More on UBS: Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue UBS Lowers Price Target on Berkshire Hathaway Stock (BRK.B) as 'Buffett Premium' Ends UBS Group AG Faces Sell Rating Amid Regulatory Uncertainty and Capital Challenges UBS call volume above normal and directionally bullish UBS upgraded to Buy from Hold at Jefferies Unusually active option classes on open May 27th Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Verge
28 minutes ago
- The Verge
A ban on state AI laws could smash Big Tech's legal guardrails
Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump's massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block. Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' say it will help ensure AI companies aren't bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place. 'What this moratorium does is prevent every state in the country from having basic regulations to protect workers and to protect consumers,' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), whose district includes Silicon Valley, tells The Verge in an interview. He warns that as written, the language included in the House-passed budget reconciliation package could restrict state laws that attempt to regulate social media companies, prevent algorithmic rent discrimination, or limit AI deepfakes that could mislead consumers and voters. 'It would basically give a free rein to corporations to develop AI in any way they wanted, and to develop automatic decision making without protecting consumers, workers, and kids.' 'One thing that is pretty certain … is that it goes further than AI' The bounds of what the moratorium could cover are unclear — and opponents say that's the point. 'The ban's language on automated decision making is so broad that we really can't be 100 percent certain which state laws it could touch,' says Jonathan Walter, senior policy advisor at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 'But one thing that is pretty certain, and feels like there is at least some consensus on, is that it goes further than AI.' That could include accuracy standards and independent testing required for facial recognition models in states like Colorado and Washington, he says, as well as aspects of broad data privacy bills across several states. An analysis by nonprofit AI advocacy group Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI) found that a social media-focused law like New York's ' Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act ' could be unintentionally voided by the provision. Center for Democracy and Technology state engagement director Travis Hall says in a statement that the House text would block 'basic consumer protection laws from applying to AI systems.' Even state governments' restrictions on their own use of AI could be blocked. The new Senate language adds its own set of wrinkles. The provision is no longer a straightforward ban, but it conditions state broadband infrastructure funds on adhering to the familiar 10-year moratorium. Unlike the House version, the Senate version would also cover criminal state laws. Supporters of the AI moratorium argue it wouldn't apply to as many laws as critics claim, but Public Citizen Big Tech accountability advocate J.B. Branch says that 'any Big Tech attorney who's worth their salt is going to make the argument that it does apply, that that's the way that it was intended to be written.' Khanna says that some of his colleagues may not have fully realized the rule's scope. 'I don't think they have thought through how broad the moratorium is and how much it would hamper the ability to protect consumers, kids, against automation,' he says. In the days since it passed through the House, even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a staunch Trump ally, said she would have voted against the OBBB had she realized the AI moratorium was included in the massive package of text. California's SB 1047 is the poster child for what industry players dub overzealous state legislation. The bill, which intended to place safety guardrails on large AI models, was vetoed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom following an intense pressure campaign by OpenAI and others. Companies like OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman once advocated for industry regulation, have more recently focused on clearing away rules that they say could stop them from competing with China in the AI race. 'What you're really doing with this moratorium is creating the Wild West' Khanna concedes that there are 'some poorly-crafted state regulations' and making sure the US stays ahead of China in the AI race should be a priority. 'But the approach to that should be that we craft good federal regulation,' he says. With the pace and unpredictability of AI innovation, Branch says, 'to handcuff the states from trying to protect their citizens' without being able to anticipate future harms, 'it's just reckless.' And if no state legislation is guaranteed for a decade, Khanna says, Congress faces little pressure to pass its own laws. 'What you're really doing with this moratorium is creating the Wild West,' he says. Before the Senate Commerce text was released, dozens of Khanna's California Democratic colleagues in the House, led by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), signed a letter to Senate leaders urging them to remove the AI provision — saying it 'exposes Americans to a growing list of harms as AI technologies are adopted across sectors from healthcare to education, housing, and transportation.' They warn that the sweeping definition of AI 'arguably covers any computer processing.' Over 250 state lawmakers representing every state also urge Congress to drop the provision. 'As AI technology develops at a rapid pace, state and local governments are more nimble in their response than Congress and federal agencies,' they write. 'Legislation that cuts off this democratic dialogue at the state level would freeze policy innovation in developing the best practices for AI governance at a time when experimentation is vital.' Khanna warns that missing the boat on AI regulation could have even higher stakes than other internet policies like net neutrality. 'It's not just going to impact the structure of the internet,' he says. 'It's going to impact people's jobs. It's going to impact the role algorithms can play in social media. It's going to impact every part of our lives, and it's going to allow a few people [who] control AI to profit, without accountability to the public good, to the American public.'