“Keith Sonderling is uniquely qualified to serve as secretary of labor, with the experience, credentials and proven record of leadership needed to lead the department,” said Kristen Swearingen, ABC vice president of government affairs. “As deputy secretary, Sonderling has advanced policies that strengthen the American workforce, expand workforce development opportunities and address harmful Biden-era regulations that restrict worker freedom. ABC is proud to support Sonderling’s nomination.”

SEE ALSO: ABC SUPPORTS TRUMP ADMINSTRATION’S CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

The post ABC Applauds President Trump’s Nomination of Keith Sonderling as Labor Secretary first appeared on Construction Executive.

“ABC appreciates the DOL’s decision to drop its defense of part of these regulations,” said Swearingen. “In a victory for the construction industry, taxpayers and the rule of law, yesterday’s order recognizes the illegality of former President Joe Biden’s efforts to expand Davis-Bacon requirements beyond the scope Congress set out.

“However, there is much more to be done. This decision leaves in place the vast majority of the costly and burdensome Davis-Bacon regulations promulgated under the Biden administration. The misguided and unnecessary 2023 final rule continues to unlawfully distort the accuracy of prevailing wage surveys, discourage small business participation in federal contracting and unnecessarily increase costs for taxpayers.

“ABC urges the DOL to swiftly rescind the 2023 final rule, which would be a major step towards cutting red tape and improving the federal government’s delivery of critical construction projects, and to instead pursue commonsense reforms to prevailing wage regulations. ABC continues to pursue litigation seeking to overturn this unlawful and onerous rule entirely.”

This decision blocks the expansion of prevailing wage regulations to cover manufacturing facilities miles away from projects and delivery truck drivers spending any amount of time on a jobsite, and the ability of the government to retroactively impose the measure on already-executed contracts. The decision has no impact on other aspects of the 2023 final rule, which remain in effect.

The decision is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Associated General Contractors of America in November 2023.

The 1931 Davis-Bacon Act and related regulations require contractors and subcontractors that perform work on federal and federally funded construction projects to pay a government-determined prevailing wage and benefit rate.

SEE ALSO: DOUBLING DOWN ON DAVIS-BACON

The post DOL’s Retreat on Davis-Bacon Expansion Welcome, But Full Repeal Is Needed first appeared on Construction Executive.

The FLCA was introduced by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) in the House and Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) in the Senate. The bill would allow federal government-appointed arbitrators to set the terms of first contracts between unions and employers if the parties fail to reach a voluntary agreement within strict, short timeframes.

The FLCA mirrors deeply flawed provisions found in the radical Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the discredited Employee Free Choice Act both of which Congress previously rejected for good reason. Specifically, the FLCA would:

• Impose unrealistic, arbitrary deadlines requiring employers and newly formed unions to reach first-contract agreements on an accelerated timeline that ignores the complexity of real workplace negotiations.
• Require mediation via an obscure government agency—the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which the Trump administration is actively trying to eliminate and which has no experience mediating private sector employment contracts.
• Mandate binding interest arbitration if an agreement is not reached in just 120 days, handing unprecedented authority to federal bureaucrats and undermining the foundational principle of voluntary agreement in U.S. labor and contract law.
• Allow government arbitrators with no knowledge of the industry or business to set a contract dictating employment terms, including wages, benefits, workplace safety procedures and leave policies—areas that should be determined by the parties closest to the workplace, not government appointees. Arbitrators would have the ability to impose any terms they wish, with no requirement that they consider the employer’s ability to handle the contract terms imposed. The contract would be binding for two years.
• Strip workers and businesses of any meaningful recourse. If either party disagrees with the arbitrator’s decision, they have no avenue for appeal. Workers would not even have the right to ratify the contract imposed upon them.

Big picture, the FLCA represents an unprecedented expansion of federal authority into private-sector employment relationships. Never before has the U.S. government been empowered to unilaterally dictate the terms and conditions of employment in the private sector. This legislation does not protect workers—it strips them of their voice.

SEE ALSO: ABC OPPOSES THE EGREGIOUS FASTER LABOR CONTRACTS ACT

The post Arbitration Nation: Opposing the FLCA first appeared on Construction Executive.

“Setting a dangerous precedent, House Democrats and a few unprincipled Republicans today voted to pass the Faster Labor Contracts Act,” said ABC President and CEO Michael Bellaman. “The FLCA imposes arbitrary and unrealistic deadlines on employers to finalize negotiations with newly elected unions or face ‘binding interest arbitration of first contracts.’ In practice, this means, for the first time in American history, a federal government bureaucrat will appoint an individual to dictate exactly what is included in a contract between two private negotiating parties.

“The consequences of this misguided bill include destroying voluntary agreement and good-faith labor-management negotiations and could expand to disputes over wages, benefits and working conditions to include social or political issues unrelated to the day-to-day needs of workers and employers,” said Bellaman. “ABC supports legislation that upholds the intent of the National Labor Relations Act and protects freedom of association. Unfortunately, the FLCA would undermine the bargaining process and counter the freedoms the NLRA was designed to protect.”

Key provisions of the FLCA:

• Within 10 days of receiving a request to collectively bargain with a newly recognized union, the parties must begin bargaining. If the employer and union do not reach an agreement on a first contract within 90 days of the beginning of bargaining—regardless of whether they are negotiating in good faith, and for any reason at all—the parties must participate in mediation. This would be an unprecedented expansion of federal government authority into the private sector.
• If mediation is also unsuccessful within mere weeks, a three-person arbitration panel chosen by the parties will be required to settle the dispute by a majority vote and the decision will be binding. If the parties fail to identify individuals to join the arbitration panel within two weeks, an arbitrator chosen by federal government bureaucrats will impose a collective bargaining agreement on the workers, employer and union.

In order of signing the discharge petition, the Republican supporters who voted for the bill are: Reps. Mike Lawler, N.Y., Max Miller, Ohio, Rob Bresnahan, Pa., Brian Fitzpatrick, Pa., Don Bacon, Neb., Riley Moore, W.Va., and Nick LaLota, N.Y. They were joined by Republican representatives Mike Carey, Ohio, Andrew Garbarino, N.Y., Carlos Gimenez, Fla., John Joyce, Ohio, Nicholas Langworthy, N.Y., Nicole Malliotakis N.Y., Michael Rulli, Ohio, Maria Elvira Salazar, Fla., Christopher Smith, N.J., Pete Stauber, Minn., Mike Turner, Ohio, Jefferson Van Drew, N.J., and Derrick Van Orden, Wis., in the final vote.

“The FLCA fortifies the role of government bureaucrats in private workplace matters and applies a one-size-fits-all contract process on business, workers and unions,” said Bellaman. “The Trump administration and U.S. Senate must reject this egregious legislation. ABC calls on them to instead stand with workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses.”

Visit protectingamericanworkers.org to learn more.

SEE ALSO: ABC OPPOSES EGREGIOUS FASTER LABOR CONTRACTS ACT

The post House-Passed Faster Labor Contracts Act Is a Disgrace to Free Enterprise first appeared on Construction Executive.

In a December 2025 video, Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., called for a national moratorium on data center construction to “give democracy a chance to catch up and ensure that the benefits of these technologies work for all of us, not just the wealthiest people on Earth.” He was referring to individuals such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who are investing billions in the AI race.

Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced legislation this month that would mandate all data centers supply their own power with off-grid sources. Most important for merit shop contractors, the bill includes a provision mandating the use of project labor agreements in power source construction. This legislation represents another attempt to steer construction projects toward union-only contractors—a scheme that would cut out 98% of the industry from bidding on these jobs.

In 2026, more than 300 bills related to data center construction have already been filed in 30 states. New York, South Dakota and Oklahoma have followed Sanders’ lead by introducing moratorium bills to pause construction while studying data centers’ impact on utilities, the environment and local communities.

Polling on data centers in the United States shows electricity is the top concern for Americans. According to a Politico poll, respondents ranked higher electricity prices and the risk of blackouts as their leading concerns about data centers—above fears of job losses or costs to taxpayers.

On March 4, 2026, in an effort to ensure the data center boom helps address affordability concerns, U.S. tech leaders joined President Donald Trump at the White House to sign the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. Under the pledge, companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI agreed to build, bring or buy new generation resources and cover the cost of power delivery infrastructure upgrades required for their data centers—ensuring those expenses are not passed on to American households.

As policymakers focus on affordability ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, ABC will continue its work to preserve fair and open competition so all qualified contractors can help build this infrastructure. If data center construction continues to create competition for contractors, good-paying local jobs and economic growth for communities, it should remain a win for both the economy and the American workforce.

SEE ALSO: DRY DATA: ZERO-WATER DATA CENTER DESIGN

The post Data Center Debate: The Effect of the Ratepayer Protection Pledge first appeared on Construction Executive.

For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not.

A Constitutional Boundary, Not a Market Correction.

The Court’s holding is significant. Writing for the six-justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to impose tariffs—emphasizing that the statute contains no reference to tariffs or duties, that no President has read IEEPA to confer such power in the statute’s nearly fifty-year history, and that Congress has consistently used explicit language when delegating tariff authority.

In a plurality portion joined only by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, Roberts went further, invoking the major questions doctrine to underscore that Congress must clearly authorize delegations of authority involving “economic and political significance,” particularly where the claimed power implicates a core congressional prerogative under Article I.

The decision invalidated every tariff imposed under IEEPA since early 2025, including the reciprocal tariffs on virtually all trading partners and the country-specific duties on Canada, Mexico and China that contributed to cost escalations for imported steel, aluminum, lumber, and equipment for the better part of a year. Notably, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented, warning that the process of securing refunds for previously paid IEEPA tariffs will be a “mess.”

Most significantly for the construction market marketplace, the ruling was limited to tariffs imposed under IEEPA’s now-invalidated tariff authority and, therefore, left the executive branch room to explore other pathways for the imposition of tariffs. For example, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum—now at 50%—remain untouched. Section 301 tariffs are unaffected by the ruling. And the administration’s new Section 122 surcharge—set at 10% in a signed proclamation, with the President announcing via social media his intent to raise the rate to the statutory maximum of 15%—applies broadly to imports from all countries not already covered by Section 232 or qualifying under the USMCA. For construction firms, tariff driven market disruption and volatility will likely remain.

Brief Relief, Then Reality

In the hours after the Learning Resources opinion was delivered, a cautious optimism swept through the marketplace. That sentiment faded quickly, however, as industry associations, like the Associated Builders and Contractors, projected modest reductions in prices for specialty equipment, HVAC systems and electrical components—but acknowledged that the structural cost pressures on core materials are likely to be materially unchanged.

The practical reality for the construction industry is that pricing is less affected by whether a tariff is technically lawful under one authority or another, and is far more affected by whether pricing is stable. Stability is likely to remain elusive, as recent patterns of tariff announcement, adjustment and readjustment show no sign of ending.

The Refund Question

One of the most consequential aspects of the ruling is found in its silence:  The opinion did not address whether importers are entitled to refunds for tariffs previously paid under IEEPA and, if so, how the refund process will be administered. By most estimates, the federal government collected upwards of $160 billion in IEEPA duties over the past year. Approximately 2,000 importers have already filed suit with the Court of International Trade to preserve their refund claims. That litigation is just beginning and is likely to extend for months, if not years.

For the construction industry, the refund issue is uniquely complex because the party that paid the tariff at the border is likely to own the refund claim, but the cost implications of the tariffs flowed throughout the market as the costs of construction inputs were adjusted to reflect the market disruptions.  Refunds, if they are ever to be issued, will flow to importers of record, with the consumers of wrongfully tariffed inputs likely excluded from cost recoveries.

Whether an importer has any obligation to pass tariff recoveries back through the supply chain will likely depend on each participant’s contracts, and many of those agreements were never drafted with retroactive tariff relief in mind.  Disputes at every tier of the supply chain should be expected. 

What Now?

The question construction professionals should be asking is not whether IEEPA supports tariffs. The Court answered that question definitively:  it does not. The question is whether tariffs will continue to be deployed as a primary policy instrument of the executive branch, and the administration’s response to the Learning Resources opinion leaves no room for doubt on this important question. Tariffs and market disruptions are here to stay for the foreseeable future.  Almost immediately after the Learning Resources opinion was rendered, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced that Section 301 investigations will be initiated “in short order” against most major trading partners. Multiple Section 232 investigations are already pending. And if those actions evolve into new tariffs, market volatility can be expected to continue.

There was some hope that a Supreme Court ruling would bring clarity and reduce tension in the marketplace. Constitutionally, the Court drew a bright line and rejected one of the broadest assertions of unilateral executive trade authority in modern history.  The Learning Resources decision will have historical resonance for its reaffirmation of the separation of powers among coequal branches of government.  Economically, however, the import markets will remain unsettled and the cost structure for construction inputs has not fundamentally changed. 

The industry should proceed on the assumption that new tariffs will be announced with limited notice, that legal challenges will take time to work through the courts, and that alternative tariff strategies will follow adverse rulings, as the administration seeks to preserve one of its most favored policy tools. Even after tariffs are lifted, as in the Learning Resources case, refund litigation could persist for years, extending uncertainty well beyond the initial imposition of the tariff itself. This, however, does not mean that projects will stall or investment will be deterred. Markets adapt, as pricing models, financing structures, and contracting adjust to reflect the reality of the marketplace. The Court resolved an important constitutional question. It did not bring an end to tariff-driven market disruption.

SEE ALSO: CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRICES SURGE AGAIN IN JANUARY, DRIVEN AGAIN BY TARIFFS

The post Supreme Court Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet first appeared on Construction Executive.

“ABC strongly supports the DOL’s proposed rule to rescind the Biden-era 2024 independent contractor final rule and replace it with a commonsense proposal similar to the ABC-supported 2021 final rule,” said Swearingen. “The 2024 final rule creates an ambiguous and difficult-to-interpret standard for determining independent contractor status. Under the rule’s multifactor test, employers are forced to guess which factors should be given the greatest weight in making the determination.

“Instead of promoting much-needed economic growth and protecting legitimate independent contractors, the 2024 final rule results in more confusion and expensive, time-consuming, unnecessary and often frivolous litigation, as both employers and workers will not understand who qualifies as an independent contractor,” said Swearingen.

“ABC is pleased to see the DOL is proposing to simplify and clarify the factors for determining when a worker is an independent contractor versus an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” said Swearingen. “ABC looks forward to providing comments to the DOL on the proposed rule.”

ABC, its Southeast Texas chapter, the Coalition for Workforce Innovation and five other organizations are challenging the 2024 final rule in federal court, which is currently pending.

SEE ALSO: RETURN OF THE QUORUM: NEW NLRB CONFIRMATIONS SECURE QUORUM AND GENERAL COUNSEL

The post DOL Proposes to Rescind Biden-Era Independent Contractor Rule first appeared on Construction Executive.

“ABC appreciates the president’s continued focus on the economy, expanding opportunity for American workers and addressing affordability. These priorities align with the principles that have guided ABC and its 67 chapters for more than 75 years and continue to drive success across the construction industry, which employs more than 8.3 million people and contributes more than $2 trillion annually to the U.S. economy.

“Merit shop construction workers build the nation’s most enduring, innovative, high-quality roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, industrial facilities, renewables, airports, data centers and military bases safely, with skill and professionalism. This political powerhouse in the construction industry, according to recent polling, focuses on growth, fairness and worker choice, daily building a brighter future for the workforce and our communities. ABC stands ready to work with the Trump administration and Congress to advance policies that prioritize these values for contractors so they can continue to deliver the best possible value for taxpayers.

“ABC strongly urges the president to restore government neutrality in federal contracting by reversing President Joe Biden’s illegal project labor agreement mandate. New unionization data reinforces the need for policies that reflect today’s workforce. Merit shop construction workers continue to dominate the industry, as the latest government data shows nearly 89% of the U.S. construction workforce is not unionized. These millions of construction industry professionals deserve policies that respect their freedom to belong or not belong to a union.

“The president’s broader pro-growth agenda is delivering tangible benefits. The historic Working Families Tax Cuts legislation, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, allows hardworking Americans to keep more of their paychecks and invest in their businesses. Meanwhile, progress on permitting reform is helping critical projects move forward more efficiently, while a more predictable and balanced approach to the Waters of the United States rule is reducing regulatory uncertainty for construction employers nationwide. Further, the new majority on the National Labor Relations Board will bring a more balanced approach to labor law and end regulatory overreach that threatens workers and job creators alike.  

“While resilient, the construction industry faces ongoing headwinds from high costs, tariff uncertainty and a chronic workforce shortage. As these concerns mount, the president should note that this industry is key to achieving his promises to lower the cost of housing, infrastructure and energy for American families. ABC urges the president to create the conditions for contractors to thrive with pro-growth policies so that he can deliver on his affordability promise to the American people.

“Looking ahead, ABC encourages continued action on policies critical to the future of the industry’s workforce, including advancing a new market-based worker visa program that supports American workers, strengthens national security and protections for taxpayers and helps communities build what we need. This new program would tie construction worker visas to documented demand rather than an arbitrary numerical cap, an approach that reflects economic reality and provides stability for workers, employers and communities. While ABC supports strong enforcement of immigration laws, enforcing the law and meeting workforce needs are not mutually exclusive goals. Other critical priorities include passing the Fair and Open Competition Act to prohibit government-mandated project labor agreements and expanding proactive, industry-driven apprenticeship and workforce development programs that align with industry needs.”

SEE ALSO: TARIFFS DRIVE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRICES UP 2.8%

The post ABC Statement on President Trump’s 2026 State of the Union Address first appeared on Construction Executive.

With these confirmations, the NLRB now has both a quorum and a new general counsel to set enforcement priorities for the first time in 11 months. While the board’s new 2-1 Republican majority allows it to resume regular operations, some have suggested that meaningful policy corrections must wait for the confirmation of a third Republican-appointed member. As former NLRB Chair Marvin Kaplan has recently observed, that might not be entirely true.

Traditionally, the board has required three votes to overturn precedent through adjudication, but seemingly, it has another lawful and appropriate tool available: rulemaking. Unlike adjudication, rulemaking requires only a majority vote of a quorum and is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides robust safeguards, including public notice, meaningful opportunities for comment, transparency, and both judicial and congressional review. By contrast, policy changes made through adjudication often occur without public input, may apply retroactively and offer limited transparency. For these reasons, the board’s three-member tradition is well suited to adjudication but should not be treated as a barrier to rulemaking.

ABC is considering petitioning the board to propose rules to address issues where clarity and stability are urgently needed, including representation election procedures and use of bargaining orders, employer speech and independent-contractor classification. Decades of policy shifts in these areas have created uncertainty for employers, workers and unions alike. 
The board has the authority to act through rulemaking, the president should nominate a well-qualified third member committed to fully effectuating the board’s mission as a neutral arbiter of the National Labor Relations Act.

SEE ALSO: HOUSE PASSES ABC-SUPPORTED PERMITTING REFORM LEGISLATION

The post Return of the Quorum: New NLRB Confirmations Secure Quorum and General Counsel first appeared on Construction Executive.

Overall construction input prices are 2.8% higher than a year ago, while nonresidential construction input prices are 3.2% higher. Prices increased in two of three energy categories last month. Natural gas and unprocessed energy materials prices were up 34.8% and 5.5%, respectively, while crude petroleum prices were down 2.7% in December.

“Construction materials prices posted a welcome decline in December, yet key inputs are still experiencing rapid escalation,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “This is especially true for materials most exposed to tariffs. Copper wire and cable prices, for instance, jumped an incredible 4.6% in December and are up more than 22% year over year, and prices for primary nonferrous metals are up nearly 62% over the past 12 months.

“Prices for commodities less exposed to tariffs, like asphalt or crushed stone, will likely remain tame in the coming months due to soft demand for construction services,” said Basu. “While that may limit increases in overall materials prices, trade policy will continue to put upward pressure on certain materials. This has not significantly dimmed contractor optimism; 7 in 10 ABC members expect their profit margins to remain stable or grow over the next two quarters, according to ABC’s Construction Confidence Index.”

SEE ALSO: FIND THE RIGHT DATA FASTER FOR SMARTER CONSTRUCTION

The post Tariffs Drive Construction Materials Prices Up 2.8% in 2025 first appeared on Construction Executive.