Urban policy is, theoretically, supposed to be a state and local issue in the U.S. But the federal government always has its way of butting into these issues. This can be good or bad depending on who has power in Washington and what any given individual thinks of them. For lovers of liberty in general and market urbanism specifically, this upcoming Trump presidency has promise, given his record in the first term. Below are 4 urban issues that I’ll be watching: 

Housing: Trump’s housing approach, given that he himself is a developer, will almost certainly involve cutting federal regulation and spurring private sector development. In his first administration, for example, he limited the scope of the EPA and other environmental laws.  On other housing regulations his administration, namely under then-HUD secretary Ben Carson, proved more nuanced. For example they were against “affirmatively furthering fair housing”, because they viewed it as a federal encroachment against local zoning. But given that zoning laws restrict housing nationwide, this contradicted Trump’s stated goal of wanting to increase home production. While a new HUD secretary has yet to be named, Polymarket puts the early odds on Carson resuming the role, meaning likely more of the same. 

Transportation: Trump’s mindset, which increasingly seems inspired by bold entrepreneurial thinkers like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, may really surface for transportation. America is somewhat behind on cutting edge transport modes such as driverless automobility, VTOL-style air travel, and tunneling. Federal regulations are often in the way, and Trump tried to weaken them in his first term. 

On other transport issues, Trump has proven to be more of a traditional politician – he wants “investment” in roads, bridges, etc., in a process that requires ever greater tax spending. But he has been more willing than Democrats have been to making at least a portion of these infrastructure projects privately-funded.  

Crime: Violent crime was down in Trump’s early years before spiking during COVID and the 2020 summer of riots. But this could hardly be blamed on Trump, and his law-and-order mindset is needed given how soft on crime many Democratic-run cities have become. 

During his first administration, Trump launched Operation Legend to deploy more public safety spending in select crime-ridden cities. His efforts this term to deport immigrants may rest on shakier foundations – it just depends on how ICE conducts itself. There is a difference between deporting convicts and deporting those who illegally crossed the border but are otherwise living productive lives. Focusing too much on the latter group would waste law enforcement resources and break up families. 

Charter cities: This is by far the most compelling urban policy idea coming from Trump. Previously he proposed “Freedom Cities” – 10 special jurisdictions that would be created on federal land. One thing this would accomplish is to reduce the vast acreage held by the federal government, which causes land scarcity for the American people and economic distortions. But Trump’s larger philosophical point is to introduce competitive governance: have new cities that lure people from existing ones with lower taxes, less regulations, and new economic models. This, too, is a domestic policy issue that the U.S. trails on compared to, say, many Third World countries that are experimenting with “startup cities.”

*

Two notable principles drive the Trump administration that, while not having to do with urban policy per se, could very much improve American cities. 

First is that there seems to be animal spirits rising around the idea that Trump will open the economy, ushering a new wave of prosperity. In the days following his election, the stock market rose over 4%. The gloves are coming off with new agencies like DOGE, a federal effort spearheaded by Musk and Ramaswamy to reduce government waste. Cities should feel this economic boom (if it happens) even more than suburbs, given they are still hubs for the best jobs and innovations.

Second is that Trump seems more committed than modern Democrats do to the notion of federalism. Whether it’s public health, education, or more, he understands intuitively that decision-making power should be decentralized to states and cities. That will be a win for cities, which for too long have been victims to federal overreach.