The Senate voted 89-10 on Thursday to pass sweeping housing legislation aimed at loosening regulations, curbing corporate investors, and expanding local control over housing policy. The bill now heads to the House, which passed a similar version earlier this year, setting up negotiations over a final deal that could land on President Trump's desk.
As reported by Newsmax, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren led the effort, an unlikely pairing that managed what Washington has fumbled for years. Scott put it plainly ahead of the vote:
"Do what so many people failed to do in this legislative body for the last few decades, and that is pass consequential legislation that makes it easier to become a homeowner."
That 89-10 margin speaks for itself. In a chamber that struggles to agree on lunch, near-unanimity on housing signals just how deep the crisis runs.
The legislation is broad, but several provisions stand out for conservatives who have long argued that the federal government is more often the obstacle than the solution to affordable housing:
Peter Carroll with Cotality, a company that tracks housing data, captured the philosophy behind the approach:
"You've got many provisions in this bill that stop treating the U.S. like one single housing market and start giving local leaders the tools they need to fix their unique regional puzzle."
That is exactly right. A housing shortage in rural South Carolina and a housing shortage in downtown Boston are two entirely different problems. Federal one-size-fits-all mandates have spent decades making both worse.
The provision barring institutional investors from scooping up single-family homes deserves its own attention. President Trump drove this issue into the conversation with a social media post in January, writing that "people live in homes, not corporations."
The bill defines institutional investors as those owning 350 or more single-family homes, directly or indirectly. Those entities would be forced to sell to individual buyers within seven years. It is a targeted measure, not a broad attack on property rights, aimed at the massive firms that have converted entire neighborhoods into permanent rental stock.
For years, Americans watched Wall Street-backed funds outbid young families at closing tables, paying cash above asking price for starter homes that were never intended to be line items on an institutional balance sheet. This provision does not fix every distortion in the market. But it draws a clear line: the American dream of homeownership should not be arbitraged away by firms managing portfolios from Manhattan.
The numbers paint a grim picture of where the housing market stands. Sales of previously occupied homes have hovered near a 4-million annual pace since 2023, well below the historically normal 5.2-million pace. Last year, sales slowed to a 30-year low. The slump dates back to 2022 and shows no signs of reversing on its own, with sales declining again in January and February versus a year earlier.
Renters are not faring much better. Median U.S. monthly rent was 15.2% higher in January than at the start of 2020, according to Realtor.com data. Rents have been declining for more than two years, but the damage from the post-2020 surge is already baked into household budgets across the country.
The core conservative insight here is straightforward: when government regulations strangle supply, prices rise. When environmental review requirements delay construction for months or years, fewer homes get built. When zoning mandates and federal strings make it harder for localities to approve new housing, the market cannot correct itself. This bill, whatever its imperfections, attacks the supply side of the equation. That is the right instinct.
The path forward is not quite as smooth as that 89-10 vote might suggest. House Financial Services Chairman French Hill called the Senate passage "an important step," but added a caveat:
"It is critical we get the details right and mitigate some of the concerns raised by House members with the Senate bill."
House leaders have suggested they could launch a formal conference process to negotiate a final version. Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged that possibility but noted that "obviously the quickest way to do this would be to pick up the Senate bill and pass it." He added that "they'll probably have to make that argument to House leadership," a nod to the White House's role in pushing the legislation across the finish line.
There is one additional wrinkle. President Trump declared last weekend that he will not sign any new measures unless Congress passes legislation requiring voters to show proof of citizenship and ending most mail-in balloting. The Senate is expected to begin consideration of that bill next week. The housing bill's fate may ultimately depend on whether Congress can move both priorities in tandem.
Washington loves to talk about housing affordability. It has been a staple of campaign rhetoric for decades, from both parties, producing precious little in the way of results. What makes this bill notable is not just the bipartisan vote count but the underlying philosophy: deregulate, decentralize, and get the federal government out of the way so that markets and local leaders can actually build.
Elizabeth Warren will claim credit. She is welcome to it. The substance of this bill, cutting red tape, empowering local governments, and restraining corporate consolidation of family homes, reads far more like a conservative wish list than a progressive one. When the policy is right, the co-sponsor's party registration is beside the point.
The question now is whether the House can resist the urge to relitigate every provision and instead deliver a bill to the president's desk. Millions of Americans priced out of homeownership are not interested in watching another conference committee dissolve into turf wars. They need housing. This bill is a start.