The Senate passed a sweeping affordable housing package backed by President Trump on Thursday by an 89-10 vote, but the bill now faces a rocky road in the House, where GOP lawmakers say the upper chamber gutted key provisions.
The legislation, renamed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, aims to boost housing supply, cut red tape, and ban large institutional investors from snapping up single-family homes. It marks the first major housing overhaul in over a decade. But House Republicans warn the Senate stripped out important measures that would have slashed barriers to building.
The package is a product of negotiations between Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who chairs the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., the panel’s top Democrat. That odd-couple pairing produced a bill with broad appeal, 89 senators voted yes.
The centerpiece is a provision Trump himself demanded. It would bar institutional investors who own 350 or more single-family homes from buying additional ones. As AP News reported, those firms could still build or buy homes to rent, but would have to sell them to individual buyers after seven years.
Trump signed an executive order earlier this year targeting the same practice. During his State of the Union address last month, he urged Congress to make the ban permanent law.
His message was blunt:
“We want homes for people, not for corporations.”
The bill also reduces some construction and environmental review regulations and creates grant programs to build more housing, as the New York Post detailed. It expands affordable housing financing tools designed to help first-time homebuyers and lower-income Americans enter the market.
The investor-ban provision gave some senators heartburn, notably Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. Industry groups warned the design would kneecap the build-to-rent market and harm the supply of rentals nationwide.
But supporters framed the fight in populist terms. The Washington Times reported that Sen. Raphael Warnock made the case starkly:
“In my state, one in four single-family rental homes are owned by private equity and institutional investors.”
That statistic alone explains why the provision commands broad public support, even as Wall Street lobbyists push back. When hedge funds outbid young families for starter homes, something is broken.
Sen. Tim Scott drove the point home. As the New York Post reported, he told colleagues:
“Today, the average age of a first-time homebuyer is 40. Forty years old, before you ever experience the American Dream, that age is too old.”
The bill now heads back to the House, and that’s where trouble starts. Fox News Digital reported that Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., co-lead of the House version, flagged serious concerns about what the Senate changed.
Flood told Fox News Digital the bill was:
“intended to cut costs, but the Senate removed important bipartisan House provisions that would have slashed barriers to building more homes.”
That’s a significant charge. If the Senate traded real deregulation for a splashy investor ban, the bill could end up as a political win that fails to move the needle on housing supply.
Flood didn’t mince words about the path forward:
“Given the bill’s current state, I think a conference may be the most viable path forward.”
A conference committee would let House and Senate negotiators hash out differences. But that takes time, and Flood noted the clock is ticking.
“Their process is still ongoing, and I am holding out hope for some fixes, but time runs short.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed confidence that the White House would help bridge the gap. He told reporters:
“the White House will be wanting to work with our House counterparts to try and get it passed over there and get it on the President’s desk.”
Thune acknowledged the House has additional concerns, including banking issues, but argued the Senate delivered a strong product:
“We know we’ve added some things to the bill here in the Senate that were designed to make it more palatable to the House. I know there are other issues they would like to address in it, some of the banking issues too, but I think this is, by and large, a housing bill.”
Warren, meanwhile, claimed the package takes “a good first step to rein in corporate landlords” and urged Congress to pass it. Newsmax noted that the bill’s future remains uncertain, as it still faces both House and presidential hurdles before becoming law.
The legislation also faces a complication beyond housing policy itself. Trump declared he would not sign any bills unless the Senate passed voter ID legislation, a separate demand that could stall even popular measures.
The core question is whether Congress can deliver a bill that actually increases housing supply, not just one that scores political points. Here are the key pressure points:
The 89-10 vote proves Americans across the political spectrum want action on housing costs. The investor ban aligns with Trump’s populist instinct to put families ahead of Wall Street. But Rep. Flood is right to push back if the Senate traded real supply-side reform for a headline-friendly provision.
Good policy means building more homes and getting government out of the way, not just telling corporations to stop buying the ones that already exist. Congress should deliver both.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.