The 2024 Election results are in. Now what for architects?

Photo by Artaxerxes, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons 

Let’s address the elephant in the room. Donald Trump won last Tuesday’s 2024 U.S. presidential election (convincingly), with Republicans gaining control of the Senate and poised to win the House of Representatives. Many voters cited the economy as their top issue, though abortion rights, border security and immigration, climate change, foreign policy, and the future of democracy itself also weighed heavily as they cast their votes. Pundits across the country are now speculating about the implications of the broad mandate a second Trump administration will command upon its return to the White House on January 20, 2025.
 
I’ll start by saying I am most decidedly not fond of politics, especially the rancorous debate or conflict that has accompanied recent elections. Because I am not an American citizen, I cannot directly take part in this nation’s vote. That doesn’t mean I am immune to the fallout. I lament the extreme polarization, rampant disinformation, and the unwillingness to find common ground during every election season and especially this most recent one. Even if I had wanted to, I could not put my head in the sand and ignore what was happening around me. The fact is the next four years will be of great consequence for everyone here in the U.S. and around the world, so I must care. The results of this cycle’s election will resonate for generations.
 
As a (now retired) architect, I have a specific interest in what the election results mean for the future of the architectural profession and the built environment. With Trump’s victory and Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, the 2025 legislative and executive landscape is likely to prioritize deregulation, traditional infrastructure projects, and conservative tax policies. The consequences for the design and construction industries will be significant. Here’s a breakdown of what these changes could mean for architects:
 
Reduced Environmental Regulations and Green Building Standards
Trump has a track record of easing environmental regulations, and a Republican-controlled Congress is likely to support further rollbacks. Federal emissions standards and environmental protections will undoubtedly be loosened, reducing the costs of compliance. If energy efficiency and emissions guidelines are relaxed and disincentivized, fewer public and private projects will prioritize sustainable certifications such as LEED. This in turn will affect the green building sector, potentially reversing decades of environmental gains.
 
Increased Spending for Traditional Infrastructure
If Trump favors infrastructure development, it is for highways, bridges, and conventional energy projects. With a supportive Congress, he is likely to push for increased funding in these areas. Architects involved in transportation, industrial, and large-scale public infrastructure may stand to benefit. On the other hand, this emphasis could mean fewer funds dedicated to climate-resilient infrastructure, potentially impacting the profession’s shift towards climate-adaptive design.
 
Tax Cuts and Economic Incentives
Republicans will prioritize the passage of corporate tax cuts, which may lower tax burdens on architecture firms and potentially increase investment in private-sector projects. Reduced corporate taxes could provide firms with more capital to invest in technology, staffing, and new business opportunities. On the downside, lower federal revenue from tax cuts could result in fewer funds available for public-sector projects, especially those dedicated to community development and affordable housing.
 
Decreased Funding for Affordable Housing
Speaking of affordable housing, funding for such projects or programs are likely to see cuts under Trump’s leadership. HUD grants or subsidies for low-income housing may be deprioritized, reducing the availability of affordable housing projects for architects specializing in community development. Private developers could step in to fill some of this gap, but the loss of federal incentives will dramatically slow new affordable housing initiatives, particularly in high-demand urban areas, even as they are needed now more than ever before.
 
Trade and Tariff Policies
Trump has promised to levy significant tariffs on imported goods and building materials. If protectionist trade restrictions on materials like steel and aluminum are reinstated or intensified, construction material costs will rise, triggering inflation and affecting budgets for both public and private construction projects. Higher material costs will set back project funding, especially for those sensitive to budget constraints, particularly affordable housing or public-sector infrastructure. In this regard, the Trump administration would be working at cross purposes, simultaneously trying to stimulate development with deregulation and tax cuts while imposing cost burdens that discourage construction.
 
The American Institute of Architects outlined its top election priorities in advance of the election. These focused on the need for increased investment in affordable housing, aggressive climate action measures, enhanced resiliency against natural disasters, and sound tax policies (such as implementing increases in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit). Needless to say, not all the AIA’s priorities hew closely to those of the incoming Trump administration. The Institute now needs to recalibrate its advocacy efforts by proactively adapting to the new political dynamic. I’m not sure what form this recalibration will take, but perhaps it should take stock of its priorities while still upholding its core values (sustainability, resilience, affordable housing, and equity, diversity, & inclusion).
 
Of course, a fully realized Trump agenda will be sweeping on many fronts beyond those specific to impacts on the practice of architecture and building construction. If his first term as president serves as evidence (and for better or worse) the probability of a wild, unpredictable ride during his second term is high. He is simply too impulsive, quick to shift positions based on political or personal advantage rather than on any set of principles he stands on. Conventional norms hold little sway with him. His moral outlook is unmoored, largely shaped by self-interest, expedience, his drive to expand presidential powers, and a desire to disrupt the status quo. I simply chose to highlight those issues of particular interest to the architectural profession. Architects need to gird themselves for a challenging policy environment, finding ways to reconcile professional obligations with shifting political priorities.