The 2026 Agenda America Needs

Affordability Requires More Than Headlines

In addition to actions taken abroad, President Donald Trump has started 2026 with three bold domestic policy messages. In a single week, Trump called for a cap on credit card interest rates, a $200 billion order to buy mortgage bonds, and a ban on institutional investors in single-family housing. These announcements are welcome news, given that Americans still face persistent economic pressures at home and have been starting to lose confidence that the administration is focusing on these issues. Yet for the Trump administration to effectively address the cost-of-living crisis, they won’t be enough. To truly deal with affordability and calm domestic worries, the administration should propose a comprehensive package that addresses three areas: healthcare, housing, and transportation. Some solutions will take years for the effects to materialize, but by taking concrete steps now, the administration can show its commitment to making working families’ lives less stressful.

To begin, healthcare costs have been outpacing inflation since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, even as Americans’ life expectancy has declined. The average American family spent over $14,570 annually on healthcare, with some spending even more than on housing due to high premiums or lack of coverage.

These sky-high costs are, as American Compass’ Oren Cass has argued, a symptom of the financialization of the American economy. So far, the solution being considered – expanding the ACA subsidies — falls short. While the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies have helped some afford insurance premiums, they function as an expensive band-aid that keeps a fundamentally inefficient system intact.

To directly take on healthcare costs, there are three ways the admin can take immediate action. First, the Federal Trade Commission must scrutinize and, where appropriate, block private equity acquisitions of essential healthcare services. As the Bull Moose Project noted in their recent report, private equity ownership of oncology care has demonstrably increased costs while reducing care quality. Studies show PE-backed oncology practices charge 30-40% more for the same treatments, while patient outcomes deteriorate as physician autonomy disappears. When profit-maximizing becomes the focus of cancer care, patients literally pay the price. The administration should impose a moratorium on PE acquisitions of essential medical practices and require divestment of existing holdings that demonstrably harm patients.

Second, the administration should enforce and expand price transparency for health services. The administration should mandate all-in pricing for standard procedures instead of sticking with a byzantine system that obscures costs until after care is provided. Patients need upfront, binding price quotes for elective procedures, just as they would demand and receive for auto or home repair. This transparency can encourage genuine competition among providers and empower consumers to vote with their feet.

The third action is to reduce regulatory barriers preventing nurse practitioners and physician assistants from practicing to the full extent of their training. Most Americans require primary care easily provided by nurse practitioners, but scope-of-practice laws create artificial shortages that drive up costs without improving outcomes. States that have modernized these laws have seen increased access and lower costs without compromising quality. The administration can promote these reforms, allowing people to see a nurse practitioner for a relatively minor issue without spending hundreds in a doctor’s office. These three reforms attack the structural problems of consolidation, opacity, and artificial supply constraints that make healthcare too expensive.

Healthcare is not the only expenditure that has been rapidly increasing. Housing affordability has reached crisis proportions, with young families unable to buy homes, and renters increasingly spending more than half their income on shelter. The Trump administration has made some attempts at fighting this, like adopting the new Vantagescore 4.0 credit score model, a tri-merge which gives lenders a more complete look at the credit histories of home buyers (as opposed to only seeing one or two scores, which can hurt purchasers).

But those efforts have not been enough. The average 30-year mortgage payment remains near 30-year highs at ~$2,210. Some of the housing costs are due to the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates high to fight inflation, which also raises mortgage rates. The Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates will be a short-term boon for families, but the general limit has been a lack of supply in major metropolitan areas.

This has been the result of decades of restrictive zoning laws that have artificially constrained housing supply, particularly in the high-demand metropolitan areas where jobs are concentrated. Rules such as single-family zoning mandates, minimum lot sizes, and arbitrary height restrictions have prevented the construction of the diverse housing stock America needs. The administration can incentivize zoning reform by conditioning infrastructure and urban development grants for legislative efforts to allow housing. States and municipalities that eliminate exclusionary zoning practices and streamline their approval processes should receive preferential treatment for federal housing assistance.

Equally important is the streamlining of permitting processes for housing construction. Currently, developers face a maze of federal, state, and local approvals that can delay projects for years and add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs passed on to homebuyers. The administration should establish fast-track permitting for housing developments, particularly those that include affordable units, and encourage a review process that coordinates the various agencies involved in environmental, transportation, and utility approvals.

The third pillar for affordability must be transportation, where American families face mounting costs for their cars. The average household spends over $12,000 annually on transportation, with auto loans and maintenance consuming an ever-larger share of family budgets. Auto financing has become expensive, with average interest rates near 7%, resulting in monthly payments that strain household finances for five to seven years. Worse, the used car market, which was traditionally where working families and young Americans have bought their cars, has seen prices surge 41% since 2020, while subprime lending proliferates with interest rates exceeding 15%. The administration should direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to crack down on predatory add-ons, such as overpriced warranties and gap insurance, that dealers use to inflate profits.

Additionally, vehicle maintenance costs compound the problem, especially for newer cars. As cars have more digital features, manufacturers increasingly use their technology and parts to monopolize repair services, forcing consumers to pay for expensive dealership repairs for routine maintenance. Independent mechanics cannot access diagnostic codes or replacement parts, eliminating competition.

In fairness to the auto industry, this is not a unique problem. From smartphones to tractors, manufacturers have increasingly designed products to be difficult or impossible to repair, forcing consumers to replace rather than fix items and locking farmers out of maintaining their own equipment. To resolve this issue, one policy the administration can implement, widely supported by Democrats and Republicans, is to champion the “right to repair.” Five states thus far have passed right to repair bills, and dozens more are considering their own. The administration should champion comprehensive federal “right to repair” legislation that requires manufacturers to provide repair manuals, diagnostic tools, and replacement parts to independent repair shops and consumers. This is helpful for consumers and small businesses, as it allows them to compete with the manufacturer for repair services and reduces environmental and economic waste. Such a policy helps everyday Americans and is a perfect example of a policy that empowers individuals against corporate overreach.

These policy changes will take time to work, but they address the structural factors that have forced working families to pay more to an increasingly concentrated corporate America. President Trump has already taken steps on some of these concerns, but these efforts have thus far been piecemeal and should instead be part of a comprehensive agenda to make an impact on the rising cost of living. Critics will argue these policies interfere with free markets, but the current system is hardly free. It’s been rigged by decades of policy choices that have favored corporate incumbents and entrenched interests over consumers and small businesses. These proposals are far from radical interventions but are instead a correction that allows the market to truly compete. The policies outlined here offer concrete action for everyday Americans. If the administration wants to ensure its political mandate survives the midterms, it should have the will and focus to pursue them.

Heberto Limas-Villers is a co-founder at a geopolitical advisory firm called SkySeal Global and a Fellow at the Bull Moose Project.