Survey: Americans express concerns about global tariffs impacting local infrastructure

New Brightly Software data finds consumers are concerned about rising costs and delays to local infrastructure projects. Asset lifecycle management practices can help local governments mitigate risk and ensure long-term success. 

Earlier this year, the American Society of Civil Engineers released their 2025 Report Card for American Infrastructure, revealing the results of federal infrastructure investments over the last four years. The overall C grade showed minor improvement from the previous 2021 report, yet several months later, infrastructure funding looks more dire. 

The one-year mark of global tariff conversations and early 2025 federal funding freezes is approaching. These stressors combined with ongoing external infrastructure challenges like weather events, heat, power outages and more, place strain on local infrastructure – from educational and healthcare facilities to public parks, roads, bridges and transportation, to stormwater and waste services.

This consumer survey set out to evaluate how American consumers feel about the impacts of global tariffs on local infrastructure. Let’s dig into the findings. 

Consumers are anxious about tariffs’ impact on infrastructure 

The data found that, overall, 58% of respondents expect tariffs to drive up infrastructure costs, and more Gen X (60%) and Millennial (62%) respondents expect costs to rise than other generations. 

Beyond the expectation that costs will rise, consumers are also worried about the impact of these costs to local communities: 65% are concerned tariffs will impact service costs tied to public infrastructure, 62% are worried tariffs will impact the cost to repair or replace local school facilities and 81% are concerned tariffs will delay projects entirely. 

What transportation types are causing the most worry? 

The types of infrastructure and facilities that consumers are most concerned about include transportation (70%), hospitals and health system facilities (57%) and public buildings (53%). Public parks and green spaces (37%), stormwater and wastewater (37%) and water infrastructure (44%) were the infrastructure types citizens were the least worried about. 

While hospitals and health system facilities are the second top concern, 68% of respondents haven’t noticed consolidation or closing of hospitals in their local area. However, recent data from Becker’s Hospital Review finds 2025 hospital closures are currently set to outpace 2024. 

While less than half (49%) of consumers said they expect increased costs to repair and upgrade education facilities due to tariffs, about 3 in 5 (62%) people said they were concerned that these costs will increase. 

Uncertainty about bearing the costs of local infrastructure projects 

When consumers were asked about who should be responsible for offsetting local infrastructure cost increases due to tariffs, a majority (52%) pointed to Washington, D.C. and the federal government. Yet, much of the federal government funding is uncertain or tied up, including the previous funds set aside by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). 

Only 11% of respondents said the local government is responsible for offsetting tariff-related cost increases, and further, 45% of respondents noted they weren’t confident their local government could handle tariff-related financial strain. At the same time, nearly half (47%) of consumers said they would not support higher taxes to cover tariff-driven costs, even if it meant protecting school facilities. 

The low confidence in local governments to fund infrastructure projects and the reluctance of citizens to pay additional taxes points to one of the most critical challenges for government facility teams. With federal funding uncertainty, it’s up to the towns and municipalities to find and unlock capital, while maximizing the budget they do have. 

What’s next? 

Capital planning will continue to be critical for towns and cities to proactively budget and forecast long-term costs, especially as they deal with increased costs due to tariffs, as will strengthening and maintaining infrastructure. Both rely on having the right technology and high-quality data in a central location to inform decisions about directing funds towards assets and facilities. 

An asset lifecycle management strategy (ALM) – a comprehensive approach to managing and optimizing the lifespan of physical assets – can support facilities managers in transforming operations, planning and decision-making to drive long-term success. 

Learn more about Brightly’s asset lifecycle management solutions. 

Methodology: This survey was conducted via Dynata and polled 1,000 general U.S.-based consumers over 18 years of age in July/August 2025. Respondents were segmented and analyzed across age groups, gender, marital status, having children and household income.