News

Building permits declined 3.7% in August and 11.1% over the year. Permits for single-family homes in August decreased 2.2% from July and 11.5% over the year. Meanwhile, permits for buildings with five or more units dropped 6.7% from July and 10.8% over the year.

In August, housing starts declined 8.5% from July and 6% from August 2024. Starts for single-family homes fell 7% from July and 11.7% over the year. Meanwhile, buildings with five or more units dropped 11% over the month but jumped 15.8% over the year.

Meanwhile, housing completions increased 8.4% over the month but decreased by the same percentage over the year. Single-family home completions gained 6.7% from July and 5.6% from August 2024. Completions for buildings with five or more units grew 10.8% over the month but plunged 28.7% from one year ago.

U.S. import prices rose 0.3% in August, after advancing 0.2% in July, with higher nonfuel import prices driving the increase. Over the past year, import prices stayed the same. Meanwhile, U.S. export prices stepped up 0.3% in August, with nonagricultural export prices driving the increase. Over the past year, export prices climbed 3.4%, the largest over-the-year rise since December 2022.

In August, U.S. import prices for manufacturing rose 0.2% over the year, but with significant divergences in prices across the industry. Petroleum and coal products manufacturing experienced the most significant over-the-year U.S. import price declines in August, falling 14.6%. On the other hand, the greatest yearly increase in U.S. import prices occurred in primary metal manufacturing, which advanced 11.3% from August 2024. Meanwhile, U.S. export prices for manufacturing in August grew 3.3% over the year, with primary metal manufacturing export prices exhibiting the largest rise (27%).

Fuel import prices decreased 0.8% over the month in August, following a 2.5% increase in July. Lower prices for petroleum and natural gas drove the decline, falling 0.2% and 13.2%, respectively. Over the past year, fuel import prices have fallen 10.1%. Import petroleum prices dropped 10.7% over the year in August, while natural gas prices surged 43.5% over that period. Nonfuel import prices rose 0.4% in August, the largest increase since April 2024. Higher prices for consumer goods, nonfuel industrial supplies, capital goods and automotives more than offset lower prices for foods, feeds and beverages. Nonfuel import prices increased 0.9% on an over-the-year basis.

After declining 0.2% in July, agriculture export prices stayed the same in August. Over the past 12 months, agriculture export prices advanced 5.1%. Meanwhile, nonagricultural export prices rose 0.3% in August. Higher prices for consumer goods, nonagricultural industrial supplies and materials, capital goods and automotives drove the increase. Over the past year, nonagricultural export prices jumped 3.2%, the largest over-the-year increase since December 2022.

Manufacturing activity in New York state declined in September for the first time since June, with the headline general business conditions index falling nearly 21 points to -8.7. The new orders index plummeted 35 points to -19.6, while the shipments index dropped nearly 30 points to -17.3, the lowest levels for both indexes since April 2024, indicating significant reductions in orders and shipments. Unfilled orders decreased further, from -5.5 to -6.9, while inventories increased 1.5 points to -4.9 in September, indicating that business inventories continue to shrink but at a slightly slower pace. Delivery times stayed the same, but supply availability slipped 3.3 points to -8.8.

Employment declined slightly in September, with the index for the number of employees coming in at -1.2. Meanwhile, the average employee workweek dipped to -5.1 from 0.2 in August, signaling a modest drop in hours worked. The prices paid index fell 8 points to 46.1 while the prices received index also moderated slightly, declining 1.3 points to 21.6, a reflection of a slower pace of increase for prices received and prices paid.

Firms’ optimism regarding the future remained positive but subdued in September. The future business activity index stepped down 1.2 points to 14.8. In the next six months, new orders are still expected to increase, and at roughly the same pace anticipated last month, clocking in at 16.6. The future employment index fell to 1.2, suggesting that employment levels are not expected to grow meaningfully over the next six months. Input prices are expected to still climb but at a slower pace, falling from 64.2 to 57.8. On the other hand, selling price expectations ticked up 1.8 points to 43.1. Capital spending plans remained soft, falling 3 points to -3.9.

In September, Philadelphia’s regional manufacturing activity expanded notably following weakness in August. Rising from -0.3 to 23.2, the index for current general business activity recorded its highest reading since January. Just 16.7% of firms reported decreases in activity this month, while 39.9% noted increases. The indexes for new orders and shipments both improved, rising from -1.9 to 12.4 and from 4.5 to 26.1, respectively. Meanwhile, the employment index was little changed at 5.6, but the average employee workweek index rose 10.2 points to 14.9.

The prices paid index fell from 66.8 to 46.8, while the prices received index also declined, moving to 18.8 from 36.1. As has been the case for many months, the prices received index remained lower than the prices paid index, indicating that manufacturers have been absorbing a portion of higher costs paid.

Looking ahead, indicators showed expectations for future growth have continued to improve from previous months. After stepping up 3.5 points in August, expectations for future general business activity rose 6.5 points to 31.5 in September. A higher proportion of firms (52.2%) expect increases in activity compared to last month’s reading of 40.5%, though a higher proportion (20.8%) also anticipate activity will decline, compared to last month’s reading of 15.5%. Meanwhile, the future new orders index edged up from 39.2 to 42.4, but the future shipments index weakened from 40.3 to 31.0. The capital expenditures index fell from 38.4 to 12.5. The future prices paid index ticked up from 68.4 to 69.8, and the future prices received index jumped in September from 48.5 to 64.8. Additionally, the index for future employment increased from 12.7 to 23.7.

Industrial production ticked up 0.1% in August, while manufacturing output increased 0.2% after edging down 0.1% in July. At 100.3% of its 2017 average, manufacturing production in August rose just 0.9% from the same month last year. Capacity utilization for manufacturing inched up to 76.8%, up 0.1 percentage point from July and advanced 1.2% over the past year. Capacity utilization remains 1.4 percentage points below its long-term average from 1972 to 2024.

In August, major market groups posted mixed results. Consumer goods production rose 0.4%, while business equipment output dipped 0.1%. The rise in production of consumer durables (up 0.6%) was primarily driven by automotive products’ output growth, advancing 1.3%, while the index for consumer nondurables increased 0.3%, experiencing gains in nearly every category. Among business equipment, the 1.2% drop in the index for industrial and other equipment more than offset the 2.1% and 0.7% rise in the indexes for transit equipment and information processing equipment, respectively. On the other hand, the indexes for construction supplies and materials rose 0.6% and 0.1%, respectively, while the index for business supplies fell 0.4% in August.

Durable goods manufacturing rose 0.2% in August and 1.5% from the year prior. Monthly growth was greatest for motor vehicles and parts (up 2.6%), while furniture and related products and miscellaneous manufacturing posted the largest declines at 1.7% each. Meanwhile, led by a 2.5% boost in textile and product mills output, nondurable goods manufacturing increased 0.3% in August and 0.7% from August 2024.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published an official request for public comment yesterday on the U.S.–Mexico–Canda Agreement. The notice is part of the process for the schedule six-year review of the landmark agreement, which the NAM helped to shape and secure back in 2019.

The timeline: The deadline for comments is Nov. 3, ahead of a USTR hearing on Nov. 17.

The topics: The notice includes specific topics that the USTR would like respondents to address, including:

• “Any aspect of the operation or implementation of the USMCA”;
• “Any issues of compliance with the Agreement”;
• “Recommendations for specific actions that USTR should propose ahead of the Joint Review to promote balanced trade, new market access and alignment on economic security with Mexico and Canada”;
• “Factors affecting the investment climate in North America and in the territories of each Party, as well as the effectiveness of the USMCA in promoting investment that strengthens U.S. competitiveness, productivity and technological leadership”; and
• “Strategies for strengthening North American economic security and competitiveness, including collaborative work under the Competitiveness Committee, and cooperation on issues related to nonmarket policies and practices of other countries.”

Mexico’s notice: The government of Mexico also opened a 60-day window for public comment.

• For NAM members seeking to comment through their affiliates, the notice can be accessed here.

What NAM members should do: The NAM is issuing an urgent call for member feedback on specific nontariff barriers.

• This feedback might be part of bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, and so should be sent to the NAM as soon as possible, the NAM’s trade experts stressed. The NAM will be submitting a draft letter to the USTR summarizing manufacturers’ priorities for policymakers.

The NAM’s focus: The NAM asks that members focus on four broad topics:

• Technical fixes to make the USMCA function better
• Bilateral issues in Mexico or Canada that the review could help address
• New mechanisms or tools that could be built to counter shared challenges in third markets, particularly nonmarket economies
• Sector-specific agreements or commitments that could be pursued to strengthen North American manufacturing

Get in touch: If you are interested in contributing to this important message about an essential pillar of U.S. trade policy, please contact NAM Director of International Policy Kevin Doyle.

Abuse of the 340B program has caused manufacturers’ health care costs to rise, as they miss out on negotiated drug manufacturer rebates. Reforms are necessary, the NAM told Congress this week.

What’s going on: “The 340B program, intended to provide lower cost medicines and expand care for low-income and underserved patients, has rapidly and massively expanded beyond its intent,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Jake Kuhns told House Subcommittee on Oversight Chair David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Ranking Member Terri Sewell (D-AL) on Tuesday ahead of a hearing on tax-exempt hospital spending.

• “Many covered entities, which include tax-exempt hospitals, have taken advantage of the program to increase their profits. This has added to health care costs for manufacturers.”
• The 340B program allows participating hospitals and clinics to charge patients’ insurance the full list price for pharmaceuticals that were purchased at a discount. Patients then become ineligible to receive negotiated drug rebates, as duplicate discounts are prohibited by law.
• Hospitals keep the spread, boosting their profits, as manufacturers and manufacturing workers pay more for health care.
• Dr. Ge Bai, professor of health, policy, and management at
  Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, noted the substantial profits for hospitals and lack of transparency in the 340B program in her opening statement at the hearing.

The costs: “The expansion of [the 340B] program was associated with approximately $23 billion in additional employer-based health care expenses in 2023, of which employees paid about $4.5 billion per year in added insurance premiums,” or approximately $137 in additional annual premium payments for a single person and $415 for family coverage, the NAM pointed out.

• Lost drug manufacturer rebates account for “a $5.2 billion increase in health care costs for self-insured employers and the 103.4 million workers they employ.”
• Christopher Whaley, associate director of the Center of Advancing Health Policy through Research at Brown University, raised this issue in his opening statement as well.

What should be done: The Health Resources and Services Administration recently announced a rebate model pilot program for drugs subject to both the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and 340B.

• This is an important first step in increasing transparency and accountability in the 340B program, the NAM noted.
• The NAM “encourage[s] Congress to consider additional 340B reforms that would reduce health care costs for manufacturers and manufacturing workers,” Kuhns told the subcommittee.

Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the burden that stringent emissions regulations inflict on businesses without providing any environmental benefit.

Speaking as an Arizonan: “Arizona businesses aren’t asking for a free pass … just a fair chance to grow responsibly,” Seiden told legislators.

• “Arizona is at the center of America’s growth story. … A symbol of that growth is TSMC’s decision to invest $165 billion in Arizona—the largest foreign direct investment in U.S. history,” he pointed out.
• Arizona has managed to achieve record growth while also reducing emissions, he noted: “Since 1990, our state’s population has skyrocketed, our GDP has risen more than 550%, and vehicle miles traveled have soared. Yet overall emissions are down more than 70%.”
• “That’s proof that economic growth and cleaner air can go hand-in-hand.”

Beyond the state’s control: In addition, Arizona’s ozone emissions levels are caused largely by factors it cannot control, Seiden said.

• “In fact, approximately more than 80% of our ozone comes from other states, from Mexico and Asia, and natural events like wildfires.”
• “Even if we shut down every industrial source in the state and took every car off the road in Phoenix, an area about the size of Connecticut, we wouldn’t meet the standard,” he added. “Still, Arizona businesses are penalized as if they are responsible.”

The costs: This regulatory burden threatens crucial industrial and infrastructure projects that are “vital to national security,” Seiden warned.

• “If companies can’t build here, they’ll build somewhere else—likely in countries with weaker standards. That’s a lose–lose scenario.”
• “To make matters worse, unlike states with long industrial histories, Arizona has no emissions reduction credits, or offsets, to rely on,” he noted. “So when a new facility wants to break ground, or an existing one wants to expand, there are no offsets available to purchase.”

The bigger picture: Arizona’s problem is the nation’s problem, Seiden emphasized, as states work to attract and support major manufacturing investments—“especially if standards continue to be set at or below natural background levels.”

A good start: Seiden praised EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, saying, “Administrator Zeldin came to our state early on and took action. By rescinding outdated Section 179B guidance, signaling flexibility on unfair nonattainment classifications and recognizing the difference between controllable and uncontrollable sources, EPA is moving toward fairness.”

A prescription for change: Seiden made a list of recommendations for policymakers that would advance Arizona’s and the country’s economic growth:

1. Protecting competitiveness by keeping standards realistic 
2. Codifying reforms to Section 179B
3. Incentivizing upwind controls
4. Modernizing permitting
5. Encouraging innovation and collaboration
6. Strengthening cooperative federalism by allowing states to approve projects if the EPA fails to act within a reasonable time frame

The last word: “Give us the flexibility and tools to continue reducing emissions while ensuring that industries vital to Arizona’s economic future are not sanctioned out of existence,” Seiden told legislators.

More than one in five unemployed Americans have been out of work for more than half a year, a post-pandemic high (The Washington Post, subscription).

What’s going on: “In all, more than 1.9 million Americans had been unemployed ‘long term’ in August, meaning they have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, a critical cliff when it comes to finding a job. That’s nearly double the 1 million people who were in a similar position in early 2023.”

• While the likelihood of losing one’s job has not increased substantially, the probability of remaining unemployed in the event of a job loss has risen, according to the Post.
• The past two months have shown job market cooling, with weaker-than-anticipated jobs numbers leading “policymakers to voice concerns that the labor market could continue deteriorating.”
• Recent weekly unemployment insurance claims were at their highest in nearly three years.

Why it’s significant: “Six months of unemployment often signals a turning point in a person’s job search, according to economists. They’ve probably run out of unemployment insurance benefits and severance payments by then, leaving them on shakier financial ground.  People who have been unemployed for more than six months are also more likely to become discouraged and stop looking for work altogether.”

• Although the unemployment rate is near historic lows, many employers have paused hiring as they wait to see the effect of tariffs and other trade-related policies.

Confidence tanks: Now, for the first time in four years, there are more unemployed people in the U.S. than there are open jobs—and job-seeker confidence is crashing.

• In a recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York survey, respondents gave themselves less than a 45% chance of finding work in the next three months in the event they were to lose their current jobs. That’s the lowest reading in more than 12 years.
• Finding work has been especially difficult for recent college graduates, as there are fewer entry-level positions available.

An economist’s view: “As reflected in the previous four months of job losses, the manufacturing industry has faced challenges,” said NAM Chief Economist Victoria Bloom. “We’re now seeing that weakness spread to other industries and through the broader economy, a cautionary signal.’”

A few months after the landmark tax bill’s passage, manufacturers’ optimism has jumped—even as challenges persist across the sector.

• The NAM’s Q3 2025 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey found a 10-percentage-point increase in confidence, with 65.0% of respondents reporting a positive outlook for their companies, up from 55.4% in Q2.

Still concerned: Respondents reported the same top business concerns as in Q2—and at growing levels:

• Trade uncertainty: 78.2% (up from 77.0%)
• Rising raw material costs: 68.1% (up from 66.1%)
• Increasing health care costs: 65.1% (up from 60.0%)

Timmons says: “These results confirm what we’ve seen in the economic data—that the sector is still enormously challenged as manufacturing output took four months to recover from this spring’s dip, and optimism still falls below the survey’s historical average of 74%,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons.

• “To supercharge the increase in optimism we’re starting to see, manufacturers need certainty across a full manufacturing strategy spanning sensible trade policy, permitting reform to unleash American energy dominance, modernized regulations and workforce investments,” Timmons said.
• “Put another way, so long as this uncertainty persists, manufacturers will not be able to tap fully into the strength of President Trump’s monumental and historic tax provisions, championed by our allies in the White House and Congress.”

The economic data: “The third quarter optimism level aligns with August’s production data released by the Federal Reserve, which showed that manufacturing output was 100.3% of its 2017 average, barely above March’s level of 100.2%, taking four months to recover from April’s drop,” said NAM Chief Economist Victoria Bloom.

• “At the same time, manufacturers are projecting moderate growth over the next 12 months with production expected to rise 2.5% (up from 1.4% in Q2) and capital investments 1.0% (up from 0.3%),” Bloom said.
• “Costs are still expected to climb, but at a slightly slower pace than Q2, with raw material and input costs projected to increase 5.4% (down from 5.8%) and product prices up 3.7% (down from 4.3%).”
• “These findings reflect both the resilience of the sector and the real challenges still weighing on growth.”

Read more: Further information on the survey is available here.