President Donald Trump has begun implementing far-reaching shifts in policies relating to immigration, environmental regulation, foreign policy, civil rights, and many other issues since his second term began on January 20.
Faculty experts from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs discussed the potential impacts of those policy changes in three public events over the past several weeks, sharing their analysis of the most likely outcomes.
Ryan Allen, associate dean for research and professor of urban and regional planning, moderated the panel discussions. He noted that the Humphrey School held a similar event in 2016 after Trump was first elected.
“This time, we come together again in a different political moment, but with the same commitment: to foster thoughtful, nonpartisan dialogue about the civic and policy implications of our election outcomes,” he said.
“The Humphrey School is uniquely positioned to host these discussions. Our mission—to inspire, educate, and engage leaders for the common good—is rooted in the belief that informed dialogue is the foundation for effective public policy and community resilience. We hope these discussions provide clarity, spark constructive conversations, and help us all think more deeply about the role we can play as individuals and as a collective in navigating the road ahead.”
Here are some key points our experts shared during the panel discussions.
Panel 3: February 4, 2025
Housing policy and affordability
Ed Goetz, professor and director, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs: I think there are going to be a range of potential impacts, starting with fair housing. Laws and regulations that pertain to issues of discrimination in housing, in mortgage lending, access to credit, access to housing – I think we’re going to see some certain impacts here.
We’re going to see an effort to reduce regulatory burdens, as they are called. This will be in the service of trying to reduce costs associated with new home building. Given the housing crisis and the cost of new housing, the administration wants to make a dent in reducing housing costs, and I think their go-to strategy here will be to reduce federal regulations.
The problem with this, of course, is that most regulations related to housing are at the state and local levels. So there’s going to be a limited amount that the federal government can do. But the National Association of Homebuilders is very enthusiastic about this. They argue that regulations drive up costs by about 40 percent. I might be a little skeptical of that number coming from the industry, but it’s a non-negligible amount.
The issue with regulations is that each and every one of them constitutes a public policy objective of its own, whether it’s got to do with the environment, safety, or health, and so reducing them in the way that I think the administration might want to do it means taking stands on these other policy objectives as well.
Trump issued an executive order on January 22 directing federal agencies to eliminate federal regulations that are unnecessarily increasing the cost of housing construction. We haven’t seen any specific actions yet, but that will be coming. It might include promoting efficient land uses. That might mean higher density housing, it might mean preserving single family zoning or local zoning prerogatives.
Part of deregulation is constraining watchdog agencies, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a target of the administration. It was the agency that went after junk fees related to mortgages. That effort is likely to go away, which is in contrast to Trump’s overall objective [of reducing housing costs].
Tariffs and deportations are likely to impact the housing sector. Most of the lumber used in the construction industry in the U.S. comes from Canada, and most of the drywall that’s used in the housing construction industry comes from Mexico. To the extent that those goods will be subject to tariffs, we might see adverse impacts on housing construction costs.
We’re going to see a shift toward home ownership assistance and away from supporting rental housing. We’re going to see a shift toward more reliance on the private sector; we’re probably going to see the sale of public housing to private entities over the next four years. And we’re going to see the expansion of anti-immigrant initiatives – probably barring so-called mixed status families from housing assistance.
Energy and climate policies
Daniel Scholten, visiting assistant professor and research associate at Clingendael's EU & Global Affairs Unit, the Netherlands: President Trump has declared a national energy emergency and says he wants to unleash U.S. energy. He's basically talking about oil and gas, and he is not really very fond of renewable energy because that is where [federal] funds have been cut off.
Let me first state that the U.S. doesn't have an energy emergency. It is at peak production for oil and natural gas and it's a net exporter of both. There are some crude oil imports, but most of them come from Canada. Anybody who has ever worked on security or supply is not worried about U.S. energy.
I think Trump sees this as very cheap and dirty wealth to boost domestic competitiveness, because cheap energy is not just good for households – it lowers energy bills – but also for industry for all kinds of production. If it gets exported it's good for other importers because it floods the global markets, lowering prices. It might be pretty bad for Russia and OPEC countries because they will see a competitor rising.
Now the question is: why fossil fuels and not renewables? Why purposely stop all this renewables development? You could actually do both, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act [both of which include funds for renewable energy projects], he's really cutting all the funds there.
The status of the renewable energy or clean tech industry has grown dramatically over the last 15 years. It is no longer some fledgling industry that can be bullied away. It is mature, it has enough investments, and it will also find its way to lobby in Washington when it needs to. I think it's a growth market, and over time it will just drive out many coal and gas power plants.
There's enough economic reason to go with renewables – you don't only have to do this for the climate. It really is also good for national energy security, it can be good for jobs and revenues.
Because I am European, I can say this is something where the rest of the world is perhaps a bit happy because the U.S., as an industrial competitor, is slacking off, and I think in China they probably are quite happy about that as well. The rest of the world will keep going with renewables. They will not be stopped because of these actions, and I think the U.S. will have enough incentive to keep in the race as well.
When it comes to the climate, Trump has a lot of environmental and climate policy initiatives that he wants to rescind, but the main one is withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to address climate change. The United States not being a part of that is a big deal and it really hinders global climate action. The United States is the world's second largest polluter of CO2, behind China, and when it comes to per capita emissions, it’s the first.
What is sure is that the U.S. is going to lose its global leadership role if it’s not part of these global negotiations on climate change. And this will be damaging, I think, more broadly than just in the climate scene. It will also affect the standing in political, economic, military, and all kinds of other matters if you're not showing up and trying to do something for this globe.
What makes me a bit more optimistic is that the last time Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement there was a coalition – the US Climate Alliance – established by 24 U.S. governors who really stepped up their game, and they continued all kinds of climate, environment, and energy actions. I want to say this is American civil society at its best, and so I hope and I have faith in U.S. civil society to keep the clean tech going.
What makes me more troubled is this flip-flopping going on, and because I sit in these meetings with European think tanks and some of the European Commission, they are very hesitant to make deals with [a country] with a split personality. How can you rely on that partner? That is really affecting America's reputation abroad.
Because this is the second time Trump was elected, it's a movement that is there to stay. The U.S. is moving into climate isolation and we will see whether this is beneficial for the U.S. as a whole. I doubt it.
International trade, tariffs, and the economy
Brad McDonald, adjunct faculty member and global economic expert: I want to share a little bit of historical context because I think this is such an important moment in U.S. and global trade policy. It's important to note that after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed in 1930 – which was very damaging – Congress began to grant the president more trade policy authorities, with fewer and fewer checks and balances, over the next several decades.
For decades presidents have actually put these authorities into very good effect. They were used generally very positively, and today the president has exceptionally wide unilateral legal authority on trade policy.
On the other hand, U.S. international legal commitments – most importantly at the World Trade Organization (WTO) – had placed guard rails on the use of such authorities by a U.S. executive or by other countries … The Trump and Biden administrations have actually severely weakened the enforcement of global trade rules and adherence to them, so that's some important background.
Let me turn to what looks like it's going to be the trade weapon of choice under this administration and that's the statute called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does exactly what the name suggests – it gives the president powers to restrict US commerce and other international economic transactions once the president has declared some sort of international emergency.
It has to be an emergency that begins outside the United States, but it could be just about anything else. This authority has been used in the past only with respect to U.S. financial sanctions and some export controls, but it is the authority that we've heard so much about the past few days. The authority under which the tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China were put forward, although some of them have been suspended.
As for the policy direction so far, what we're really seeing is instability, and that itself has economic concerns. It delays investment and leaves openness to corruption, so it's of concern just by itself.
If this goes in the direction of extensive tariffs applied consistently, there will be many likely economic effects. The first is foreign retaliation, which I would expect to be swift and commensurate. Countries will not delay doing that, as we've already seen from Canada and others. The pain will be felt especially by U.S. exporters, because these tariffs will raise input costs for manufacturers and farmers and other exporters. They'll also tend to appreciate the value of the dollar.
Investments in the U.S. will be delayed or slowed, weakening job growth and incomes. Prices are going to rise – how much depends very much on the extent of the measures, but you might expect consumer prices to go up something like 1 to 4 percent, probably spread over a number of years. This may lead the Federal Reserve Board to to delay interest rate reductions and further actions there, with implications for housing and other areas.
These higher prices are likely to hit low-income households the hardest because those households tend to spend larger shares of their budgets on traded products like clothing and food. I think the U.S. dollar will further appreciate. It's already high, but tariffs tend to do that for strong economic reasons.
I'd also expect lasting damage to multilateralism and international cooperation, not only within the trade and economic spheres, but international economic governance overall including on issues such as exchange rate management, climate cooperation, international debt issues, and economic development more broadly.
Watch video of the February 4 event
Panel 2: December 11, 2024
Government restructuring and democratic processes
Larry Jacobs, professor and director, Center for the Study of Politics and Governance: The second Trump administration will have a big impact on policy and the public agenda.
In the opening months, beginning with inauguration day, it’s going to be “shock and awe.” Donald Trump has extraordinary skills in setting an agenda, and we’re going to see quite an agenda that will look like the end of American public life as we know it.
We’re going to see executive orders issued to reduce funding for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) efforts in universities and other institutions. We’re going to see national emergency declarations as a way to increase energy production, roll back climate change policies, use the military for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, and remove job protections for tens of thousands of federal workers. This is what I mean by shock and awe.
However, I think over the coming few years we’re going to see a diminishing of Donald Trump’s influence for a number of reasons: the opposition will slow down and obstruct his efforts to try to set the agenda; getting Congress to approve legislation in areas where he can’t rely on executive orders is going to be very difficult because of the Republicans’ narrow majority in the House; and the 2026 midterm elections are right around the corner. And at some point, the fact that he’s essentially a lame-duck president will become more of a factor.
There’s also a risk of overinflating Donald Trump’s power. He isn’t an all-powerful being; he’s a mortal. And if you look back at his first term, in a lot of ways it was a failure. His legislative productivity outside of the tax cut was pretty limited.
That fatalism leads to a sense of hopelessness and disengagement. Why protest? Why do the analysis that [students in the audience] are trained to do, when he’s going to win? No! He’s not going to necessarily win. It’s not in the bag. In the coming months and years, I think there’s going to be a very raucous battle and conflict and debate over these public policies, and we all should be part of it no matter your perspective.
Executive action and immigration
Michael Minta, professor, Department of Political Science: I expect we’ll see much of what we saw in the first Trump administration, but a lot more of it.
In general, I think we’re going to see more in terms of "identity politics." Most people don’t link that issue with Republicans, but I think you’re going to see more white identity politics.
The anti-immigrant rhetoric, which used to be considered a far-right position, has become somewhat mainstream. There are still some establishment Republicans who back away from it, but particularly in this cycle, it has become a winning strategy. And unless that strategy is defeated, you will continue to see more policies and actions by Republicans to restrict immigration, in their efforts to win elections.
For example, Donald Trump has said he’s going to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship (which means anyone born in the U.S. automatically becomes an American citizen). Why would he say something like that? He knows he can’t change that policy on his own, because it’s enshrined in the14th Amendment of the Constitution. And it would create chaos on a number of levels. But to his supporters, it sends a message that he’s doing everything in his power to "make sure our country is safe from undocumented immigrants."
Mass deportations are where the president has more executive power and can have his appointees to the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carry out his plans. I imagine he will issue orders to round up undocumented people in large numbers.
For quite some time, ICE policy has been that churches, schools, and hospitals were off limits for these kinds of raids. But Donald Trump is considering changing that as well. Can you imagine the fear that people will experience coming to church for services, or to a hospital for medical care, if they think they’ll be apprehended?
Republicans have really pushed the immigration issue, and I think Donald Trump is going to have to deliver on this. If he does nothing, it’s going to be really difficult for Republicans in the 2026 midterms, where the party of the president usually loses seats anyway.
Longer term, we should remember that demographics are changing in this country. There’s no doubt it will become a majority-minority country in the next couple of decades, when racial and ethnic minorities will outnumber white people. And those groups tend to vote for Democrats, although Trump made some inroads in the election, particularly with Latino men. In general, those groups tend to lean toward Democrats. The issue is, can the Democrats get these voters to support them? That’s their challenge.
Foreign policy
Mary Curtin, retired diplomat-in-residence, Humphrey School, and interim program director, Global Minnesota: Global policy is closely tied with our domestic priorities like immigration and refugees, since many other countries are dealing with rising immigration numbers as well.
This ties in precisely with the white identity politics that Professor Minta mentioned. In Europe, white identity politics is a driving force in a lot of the right-wing politics that is on the rise across that continent.
In Donald Trump’s first term, one thing we saw was the way in which unpredictability is a method with him, that chaos is part of his method. For example, I heard a recent discussion about his tariff proposal, and the question was whether it is what he really wants, or whether it’s just part of his negotiating strategy.
The chaos that he brings is worrisome, and may lead other countries to make decisions that may not be good for the United States.
His unpredictability is driven by highly personal motivations in his decision making, including narcissism and a desire to make money, that have an impact that is different from a purely ideological approach. The family business is something that we just never have seen before—the way in which his family orbit makes money off of international relations and engages in deals that have international impact.
All this makes it hard to put a label like "isolationist" to describe Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach; that doesn’t really capture it. He does come out of this deeply conservative tradition, but not in a very traditional way. He uses the term "America First," not in an isolationist way, but in a "We’ll do whatever we want as I decide" way.
Presidents throughout history have pretty much been able to do what they want in foreign policy as long as they have the budget to pay for it. But I think we are bound to see this on a scale that we have not seen before.
And his decisions are not always ideological. If you think back to his first term, he railed against NAFTA, for example, and then in the end he negotiated a follow-on treaty with Mexico and Canada that really wasn’t that different.
That leads us into Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on goods from several countries, including Mexico and Canada. This is another trend that’s not just in the U.S. A number of countries are raising tariffs to act as fees for access to their economies. But Trump’s bombastic and unilateral pronouncements are on a much different scale.
Some of the pushback may lead to negotiations of new trade deals, as I mentioned with NAFTA. But the European Union (EU) is very worried about the tariff threat and will retaliate. They know how to manage a good trade fight. It’s their bread and butter. So it could hurt the U.S. economy, it could hurt our trade. Absolutely, there will be retaliation if Trump follows through.
Watch video of the December 11 event
Panel 1: December 5, 2024
Immigration and national security
Eric Schwartz, professor of global policy: Immigration policy will be substantially impacted. Donald Trump has said as much in very specific terms. He is channeling and stoking popular sentiment, despite the federal funding that’s been provided to assist immigrants coming into the country.
His plans may have severe economic consequences in some areas of the country, because certain industries like agriculture and construction employ a large number of immigrants. Minnesota’s economy benefits from immigration as well; we need immigrants to grow jobs here.
Donald Trump’s plans for large-scale deportations echo other periods of time in U.S. history. He will face obstacles to those plans, including what is likely to be a large number of legal challenges. And some of the home countries of these immigrants may refuse to let them return.
He may also take aim at programs that allow certain noncitizens to temporarily stay in the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons, such as a natural disaster or armed conflict in their home countries. The status of hundreds of thousands of people will be at risk.
In terms of foreign policy, Donald Trump has little interest in making a sustained commitment of U.S. funding and resources unless the U.S. is being directly threatened. I believe he’ll try to address the Ukraine war in ways not favorable to Ukraine. He may broker a deal with Russia, but I'm not confident that the Russians are done with their aggressions in the region.
Gender equity and women’s rights
Christina Ewig, professor and director, Center on Women, Gender, and Public Policy: Cabinet picks tell us a lot about what the Trump administration will be like. Three of them so far (Matt Gaetz, who withdrew as attorney general nominee; Pete Hegseth, Defense secretary nominee, and Linda McMahon, Education secretary nominee) set the tone—a tone of disregard for women, particularly women’s right to be free of sexual and other forms of violence.
Reproductive rights have been rolled back in recent years, with Roe v. Wade overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The results of that decision are already devastating, with a rise in pregnancy-related deaths in Texas and other states with severe restrictions on abortion.
In his first administration, Trump rolled back contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Additional restrictions could play out under the new administration, such as:
Instituting the Comstock Act of 1873, which criminalizes the transportation of certain materials through the mail, including contraceptives and abortion-related matter. So mailing abortion medications could be restricted.
The FDA could be pressured to further restrict the use of abortion medication.
Threats to Medicare and Medicaid, which could affect reproductive health more broadly.
Transgender rights will be restricted. Donald Trump has said he will stop promotion of gender or sex transition at any age. He could exclude transgender people from Title IX protections, which prohibit gender discrimination.
Under Democratic interpretations of Title IX, trans students have been included under the definition of ‘sex.’ That was reversed under the first Trump administration and is likely to happen again. He has also threatened to cut off federal funding for schools if they don’t adopt a binary definition of gender.
Human rights and business
Tricia Olsen, professor of global policy: There is more nuance to many of these issues broadly than we may realize. History is more complex, and full of compromise, than many admit. With uncertainty comes opportunity, and hope. We may see unlikely allies working together on some of these issues.
For example, Donald Trump says he wants to increase oil drilling and open up federal land to more exploration. But the U.S. has been the largest producer of oil and gas in the world despite the current restrictions on national lands. The oil industry may not be that interested in increasing production in the U.S. because then that will lower the price of oil. So the demand to relax restrictions may not be there.
He also has said he wants to terminate the Inflation Reduction Act, which has paid for a great many climate-friendly projects across the country, and end subsidies for electric car production. The vast majority of this funding has gone to red states – EV battery manufacturers, for example. So he may not get support from some GOP members of Congress.
Businesses are also speaking out about some of Trump’s proposed policies on immigration and tariffs, and warning about how they will increase costs for consumers.
There is so much happening globally to address climate change and human rights – with or without Donald Trump. Global businesses are preparing to respond to a new law in the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which requires companies of a certain size to assess and mitigate the environmental and human rights impacts of their own operations, their subsidiaries and in some cases, those of their business partners.
The takeaway is that it’s a more complicated picture than just rolling everything back.
Watch video of the December 5 event
