In the Field
Francis Palasieski, ABMA’s Director of Government Affairs.
Policy Spotlight: Building Codes and Housing Affordability
As the White House prepares to pivot toward housing policy, the American Building Materials Alliance (ABMA) is preparing to make its case that costly building code mandates are pushing the dream of homeownership out of reach for too many families.
ABMA’s lobbyist Jim Thompson has been positioning us to work directly with the administration to advance proposals that would ease housing costs, restore consumer choice, and protect affordability, especially for first-time and entry-level buyers.
Last week, ABMA highlighted the urgent need for permitting reform. This week’s focus is on the growing challenge of building code mandates.
The Challenge
Across the country, states and municipalities are piling on requirements that go far beyond the International Residential Code. These include all-electric construction mandates, compulsory solar panels, sprinkler mandates, and “stretch” energy codes. While often well-intentioned, these measures add thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home.
Consider these added costs:
- All-electric construction: estimated at $4,000 to more than $15,000 per home
- Mandatory solar: about $8,400 per unit
- Sprinkler mandates: $8,000 to $10,000, with some estimates reaching $20,000 to $30,000
- Stretch codes (e.g., NYStretch): $2,646 on a single-family home
- Base code jumps (2021/2024 IECC): up to $31,000 in added cost
Every added requirement chips away at affordability, making it harder for builders to deliver new inventory and harder for families to buy it.
ABMA’s Proposal
ABMA is calling on the federal government to step in when local mandates drive up housing costs without a demonstrated return on investment.
We believe the precedent already exists. The federal manufactured housing code (HUD Code) preempts local authority to protect affordability in manufactured homes. The same principle should apply here: if a mandate adds significant costs without measurable value, it should not stand in the way of affordable new home construction.
Our proposal would require state and local governments to conduct ROI assessments before adopting any mandate beyond the International Residential Code. If the analysis shows that the mandate significantly raises home costs, it could not go into effect without a federal waiver.
This approach creates accountability, keeps local flexibility where justified, and most importantly, ensures that a new generation of homebuyers is not priced out of the market.
ABMA’s Principles
- Affordability: Mandates that raise costs fall hardest on first-time and entry-level buyers.
- Freedom of Choice: Safety codes should be the limit; upgrades beyond that should remain consumer decisions, not government mandates.
- Transparency: ROI analysis reveals the true cost of mandates in plain numbers, giving homeowners and policymakers clarity.
The Evidence Is Clear
Studies, contractors, and policymakers across the nation are sounding the same alarm: mandates raise home prices.
- An MIT Center for Real Estate study found stricter codes added about 4% to the selling price of homes.
- The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates compliance with the latest energy code can add $22,000 to $31,000 to a new home.
- In New York, energy mandates can exceed $25,000 in added costs; sprinkler rules projected as high as $30,000, according to a New York State Builders Association (NYSBA) study.
- According to NAHB, Maine’s stretch code requirements have the potential to tack on as much as $22,000 to the cost of a new home.
- Georgia builders face higher than average regulatory burdens—27% of a home’s total cost.
- In Kansas City, new energy mandates brought homebuilding nearly to a halt. Permits plummeted 78% in one year after the stricter codes took effect. Families were forced to spend thousands for efficiency upgrades that saved just a couple of dollars annually.
If unchecked, rising mandate costs threaten not just new construction, but the future supply of affordable housing nationwide.
The Path Forward
Housing affordability is the defining issue in today’s market. Demand for entry level homes is far outpacing supply, and working families are struggling to keep up. Policies that pile on costs cannot be the solution to a supply crisis.
ABMA is urging the administration and Congress to recognize this reality—to pursue federal preemption where necessary, to require transparency through ROI reviews, and to put affordability back at the center of America’s housing policy.
When families can afford to buy homes, communities thrive, small businesses grow, and the American Dream stays within reach.
On the Hill
Jim Thompson & Team, ABMA Government Relations
House Passes Stopgap Funding Bill as Trump Threatens Mass Layoffs in Shutdown Standoff
WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing budget battle, President Donald Trump has threatened mass layoffs of federal workers if Congress fails to reach a funding agreement before the Sept. 30 deadline.
The House has approved a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to extend government funding through Nov. 21, but the Senate remains gridlocked, with Democrats demanding health care concessions and Republicans pushing for a “clean” extension.
The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget issued a memo directing federal agencies to prepare reduction-in-force plans for programs that would lose funding and are deemed “not consistent with the president’s priorities.” The move marks a sharp departure from previous shutdown protocols, in which nonessential workers were typically furloughed and later reinstated.
Trump defended the policy, blaming Democrats for the impasse and accusing them of making “unreasonable” demands, including restoring Medicaid cuts and extending Affordable Care Act subsidies. “This is all caused by the Democrats,” Trump said. “They want to give money away to illegals … people that entered our country illegally.”
Democrats condemned the threat of layoffs. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “an attempt at intimidation,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared, “We will not be intimidated by your threat to engage in mass firings. Get lost.”
The memo comes as part of Trump’s broader effort to shrink the federal workforce. More than 300,000 federal employees have already left their jobs in 2025, with 154,000 scheduled to drop off the payroll on Sept. 30 due to buyouts and agency downsizing.
As the Senate prepares for a crucial vote, the stakes are high—not only for government operations but for the livelihoods of thousands of federal workers. If no deal is reached, the government could enter its 15th partial shutdown since 1981, one that analysts warn could be more disruptive than any before.
