Last week, Abundance 2025 took place, where you had some of the brightest minds in policy and government convening to discuss the question that is on everyone’s mind: What is Abundance? For Steven Teles, one of the sharper voices at the conference, abundance isn’t another fight about the size of government. It’s not big versus small, left versus right. It’s about something more fundamental: America isn’t producing enough, not enough housing, not enough energy, not enough of the basics that make life work. That shortfall has created a politics of frustration, where alienation and anger seep into every ideological battle.
Framed that way, abundance is less a technocratic slogan and more a litmus test: can America still build? Can it deliver prosperity that people can feel in their daily lives?
We Really Need to Be Worried About China
Attending this conference, I understand why Abundance often draws the critique of being conservative-coded. If you had asked me five years ago how worried I would be about China and our competitiveness, I might have assumed that such concern would push me toward the Republican camp. But that is a simplistic notion to carry forward—and the reality is far more serious.
One comment that stuck with me over the short-lived Kamala Harris campaign, was her focus on ensuring that America, not China, wins the 21st century. Since Trump took office, it has become clear that this objective is not a governing priority. That reality is something Republicans will have to reckon with, no matter how strongly they argue for bipartisanship in pursuit of Abundance.
Rather than focusing on protectionism or zero-sum competition, advocates of the “Abundance” view argue that the United States must out-build and out-innovate its rivals. Representative Scott Peters (D-CA) pointed out that, for the first time in generations, America’s energy consumption has barely grown. This is not the result of radical efficiency gains, but rather a sign of stagnation in heavy industry. By contrast, China’s energy capacity and manufacturing output have surged. Peters framed this as a strategic competition the U.S. cannot afford to lose. China, for example, now installs more solar capacity each year than the U.S. has in total, while building infrastructure at a pace that investors increasingly compare to Vietnam or Brazil in terms of risk.
That risk perception is compounded by the posture of the U.S. government itself. The Department of Energy recently amplified the idea that solar and wind are “essentially worthless” when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
Image Credit: X
This framing is not only misleading, ignoring the role of storage, transmission, and complementary generation, but also corrosive. If the federal government itself casts doubt on renewables, it signals to investors that U.S. energy policy is unserious and unstable. Peters cited that some energy investors now view America as carrying developing-country levels of regulatory unpredictability, pointing to cases like the abrupt cancellation of already-approved wind projects. When policy is erratic and rhetoric undermines confidence, capital flows elsewhere.
The larger takeaway is that defeating China in this contest will depend on restoring confidence in America’s ability to deliver big projects, whether semiconductor fabs backed by the CHIPS Act, nationwide transmission lines, or cutting-edge laboratories for artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Without this renewed execution capacity, the U.S. risks being trapped in a status quo that prevents it from becoming an abundant society. The consensus settled in that while we may preach Abundance, it is certainly not something that we are practicing now.
On the flip side, participants also noted that China’s authoritarian model is not the only way to build fast. Some pundits argue only an autocracy could, for example, construct a hospital in 10 days or lay thousands of miles of rail quickly. The abundance movement rejects that defeatism – highlighting that democratic America has led great building booms in the past (the New Deal, interstate highways, the Apollo program, etc.). The key is updating our processes for the 21st century. We live in a world where legitimacy comes from outcomes, meaning democracies can earn back trust by delivering results that improve citizens’ lives. If we want to “save” democracy, we must show that democracy can still solve big problems (like climate change, housing shortages, pandemic readiness) and not just produce gridlock.
In that vein, several speakers were excited about technological aids to help – for instance, using AI tools to streamline bureaucracy. This did not lead us down a “Elon Musk was right” rabbit hole, but focused on more practical use cases of technology to actually make government more efficient. One idea floated was deploying AI to handle routine permitting paperwork or environmental impact analyses much faster, freeing up human experts to focus on critical decisions. The comparison was that the average person views government like a typical experience at the DMV, long, boring and a painful process to get through. If artificial intelligence can take over tedious approval processes, government agencies might become more responsive and projects could gain approval in months instead of years. It’s fitting that in the “world of bits,” progress is rapid and costs fall, whereas in the “world of atoms” – building things – costs only seem to rise. The abundance agenda wants to bring some of the deflationary, innovative spirit of software to the physical economy.
More People for More Building: Immigration & Labor Shortages
A striking point raised was by Jerusalem Demsas that an abundance agenda will require abundant human capital as well. If America intends to build millions of new homes, retrofit buildings for clean energy, expand high-tech manufacturing, and grow the economy, it simply won’t have enough workers without embracing immigration. We’re facing a labor crunch – we have low unemployment and many skilled trades are already understaffed. The construction sector, for instance, is short on carpenters, electricians, and plumbers; the push to electrify buildings and install EV chargers will demand hundreds of thousands of additional skilled workers. Who will do this work? Part of the answer is training and education, but a big part must be immigration. Immigrants already take up a large portion of our construction workforce, should we deport these important members of our society, we will have to reckon with mass consequences.
Image Credit: NAHB
We need more people in this country, period, especially people eager to work in construction, manufacturing, and caregiving. Any large-scale abundance agenda (from housing to semiconductor fabs) could stall out if there simply aren’t enough hands to do the job.
The politics of immigration are fraught, but the conference sought to reframe it in abundance terms. Rather than seeing immigrants as competitors or “costs,” they should be seen as contributors to shared prosperity. The data backs this: immigrants are key drivers of innovation and economic growth. One remarkable statistic Demsas noted: immigrant inventors accounted for 23% of all patents in recent decades, and when you include patents co-authored with U.S.-born collaborators, immigrants contributed to over one-third of U.S. patent output. In other words, many of the innovations powering the economy – from Silicon Valley tech to medical breakthroughs – have immigrants’ fingerprints on them. Beyond the high-skilled tech realm, immigrants also play outsized roles in entrepreneurship, healthcare, and yes, construction and the trades. For example, studies show that areas which lost immigrant workers to deportation saw significant drops in homebuilding and higher housing prices, hurting everyone. The abundance coalition’s stance is that more people means more growth – new workers, consumers, taxpayers, and neighbors who can help build an America with enough housing, caregiving, and services for all.
Marrying Popular Messages with Good Policy
It would not be an abundance conference if there were no conversations on polling! As noted on Day 1 of the conference, elected leaders are not out there campaigning on the word “Abundance” (which I have noted on The Rebuild, is the smart thing to do!). Do not campaign on books alone, but ideas and good messaging. We have even found if you test individual ideas from the Abundance framework, they actually poll quite well! Voters care about outcomes, and campaigning is typically a time to tell a story, not dive into the nitty gritty of permitting reform. However, since voters are outcome oriented, they care if you are able to deliver results or not, and that means governing with good policy.
There’s often a disconnect between what’s popular to say and what’s effective to do. But in this case, the gap can be bridged. On the stump, politicians should talk about people’s real economic pain and promise bold, visible action – “I will fight to bring your costs down – your rent, your groceries, your gas and electricity”. That’s the broad message that wins hearts. They should vow to “build housing you can afford” and “make your city/state a place where you don’t have to struggle to live”. These are unifying appeals – everyone feels the pinch, and everyone benefits from abundance. Crucially, candidates should signal they’ll take on whatever or whoever has been standing in the way, be it greedy price-gougers, or broken systems, or do-nothing officials. This shows voters the candidate is on their side and ready to fight for results.
Then, once in office, those politicians can implement the nuanced solutions: reform zoning codes, invest in affordable housing, streamline permitting, welcome skilled immigrants, etc. Voters have essentially given a mandate on the goals – it’s up to leaders to deliver the goods. And interestingly, many of those wonky policies can likely be sustained if framed under the umbrella of achieving the popular goals. For example, a governor can push through zoning reform by continually reminding the public (and media) that it’s part of her promise to build more homes and reduce rent. As long as that connection is maintained, the public support can hold even for complex reforms.
Abundance Will Be Measured in the Cost of Living
The abundance coalition is big and messy — technocrats, activists, Democrats, Republicans. But underneath all the debates about permitting timelines and regulatory reform, the real question was simpler: can America make life affordable again?
That’s why so much kept coming back to the cost of living. At The Rebuild, we’ve always believed this would be the core of the Abundance movement. At the end of the day, the 2024 election was about the economy, and Democrats demonstrably lost that fight. The cost of living is something you cannot spin or fake; people feel it every time they pay rent, buy groceries, or fill their gas tank.
Even if it wasn’t said outright in every panel, it was woven into almost every conversation: the core root of Abundance is making life more affordable without sacrificing quality. Everyone wants cheaper living, but not at the expense of dignity. That means building more homes so families aren’t locked out of ownership. It means investing in energy so power bills come down and blackouts don’t loom. It means streamlining regulation so medicine is cheaper and innovation can flourish. It means welcoming more workers so labor shortages don’t choke off growth. (And it is the right thing to do!)
In other words, abundance is not just about producing more — it’s about producing in a way that improves the daily lives of ordinary people. That’s the test of the movement. If abundance lowers costs while raising quality of life, it will resonate far beyond conferences and Substacks.
Housing sharpened that point most clearly. If young people believe they’ll never own a home, if one in four say they can’t start families because of financial constraints, then Abundance is just another Beltway slogan. A recent poll shows that across the board, being secure financially rings as the highest concerns for young people.
Image Credit: NBC News Decision Desk
If abundance is going to be more than a vibe, it needs to make a dent in the affordability crisis, out-build China where it matters, and rebuild faith that government can deliver. That’s the coalition worth betting on.
The truth is, abundance will be judged on one thing: the cost of living. If it moves down, if people feel relief, then the movement earns trust. Yet, at a time where the guy in charge wakes up and throws out a tariff for fun, it becomes a harder task! But that only underscores why the Abundance agenda is worth pursuing, because delivering affordability and stability is the surest way to rebuild confidence in America’s future.
If the measure of Abundance success is the cost of living, you should all just become Republicans and move to the Sunbelt.
But what its going to mean in practice is the same old blue state governance + a couple of upzoning bills at the state level that probably doesn't change much.