Skip to main content

Sweeping housing affordability bill becomes law, despite Trump’s delay. Here’s what it actually means for the housing market

(CNN) — The 21st Century Road to Housing Act, a bipartisan bill that aims to tackle housing affordability, officially became law early Saturday, despite a series of attempts by President Donald Trump to stall the legislation.

Its passage signals that lawmakers recognize the frustration many Americans feel about the high cost of housing. At a time of elevated mortgage rates and near-record high home prices, many feel locked out of homeownership or struggle with monthly rent payments.

Supporters of the law have touted it as the most comprehensive housing reform in at least three decades. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the new law “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American History,” in a social media post last month.

But Trump, who had previously expressed support for the law, has since turned critical.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said he refused to sign the bill in protest of the Senate’s failure to pass the SAVE America Act, a voter ID measure he has argued should be Congress’ top priority.

Last month, after the bill passed Congress, Trump also canceled a signing ceremony just two hours before it was scheduled to begin, later calling the bill a “big yawn.”

Regardless, the measure became law automatically on Saturday morning under the Constitution, since he did not veto it.

Trump’s last-minute criticism capped months of bipartisan negotiations on what would become the largest housing affordability legislation in a generation. Instead of promoting their efforts, Republican lawmakers were left scrambling when the president abruptly withdrew his support over a separate political fight.

The nation’s housing affordability crisis did not stem from a single event or policy failure. It is the result of years of underbuilding, restrictive local zoning, rising demand and policy decisions and, in many cases, policy inaction.

The legislation reflects the complexity of the crisis, combining a total of 47 proposals aimed at increasing housing supply, reducing costs and expanding access to affordable homes.

But immediate relief may not come just yet for homeowners and renters, said Yonah Freemark, a housing research associate at the Urban Institute. Building new homes takes time, and the law gives short-staffed federal government agencies a new workload to manage.

“We’re talking about a situation where not only will the federal government have to make changes, but then state and local governments also will have to make changes and then businesses, developers, etcetera will have to make investments, which itself takes time,” Freemark said.

Here’s what the new law does – and doesn’t do – to address some of the housing market’s biggest challenges:

Supply constraints

In the years since the 2008 financial crisis, homebuilding has lagged, creating a housing shortage that has pushed prices higher.

The law primarily aims to tackle America’s housing affordability problem by increasing supply. It includes provisions that promote manufactured housing (homes built in factories) and office-to-apartment conversions. It also would authorize a pilot program to offer grants and forgivable loans to fix older homes that have fallen into disrepair.

But many housing experts point to local zoning and red tape as the root of the slowdown in homebuilding. It is difficult for the federal government to intervene, since local governments make their own rules, but the law includes provisions to encourage states and local governments to adopt land use and zoning policies that are more supportive of housing development.

If land-use regulations were relaxed, an extra 2.5 million housing units could be added to the United States in the next decade, according to a 2025 report from Goldman Sachs.

The success of that provision depends on whether these local communities decide to build, though. Many face opposition from so-called NIMBYs, who are often homeowners who oppose more building to preserve home values. When more homes are built and the housing shortage is chipped away, existing homes in the area may sell for less money.

“The legislation can play an important role in encouraging states and localities to make changes to expand housing supply, but it doesn’t require them to make those changes,” Freemark said. “Congress has chosen not to preempt local and state governments and tell them what to do,”

Investors buying up homes

As homes have exploded in value over the past decades, there has also been an increase in people and companies that treat homes as an investment vehicle, rather than just a place to live.

Following the 2008 housing meltdown, private equity firms such as Blackstone bought thousands of single-family homes at bargain prices and turned them into rentals.

In the years after the pandemic, when interest rates fell to historic lows, the housing market erupted. Bidding wars broke out among everyday buyers and home prices surged. Institutional investors picked up the pace of buying in those years, as well.

The law includes a first-of-its-kind limit on these kinds of purchases by prohibiting any investor that owns more than 350 single-family homes from buying any more. However, it doesn’t compel mega-investors that currently own more than 350 properties to sell anything.

Still, most investor-owned homes belong to smaller investors, with the vast majority belonging to “mom-and-pop” landlords who own fewer than 10 properties. And larger investors were already retreating from the single-family market. These days, many real estate investors, including Blackstone, are selling more homes than they buy.

Lack of federal support

The federal workforce has experienced significant cuts since the start of the Trump administration, including employees responsible for housing programs, research and policy.

Whether the provisions of 21st Century Road to Housing Act materially improve housing affordability for struggling Americans depends on how federal agencies execute on their new duties, Shaun Donovan, who was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Barack Obama, told CNN.

“This is a bill that changes rules and regulations. It will unlock funding, but most of the provisions are only as good as the implementation,” Donovan, who is now the CEO of Enterprise Community Partners, said.

The Urban Institute identified 35 different programs, regulations and studies that HUD will need to implement as this law takes effect – at a time when the agency is short-staffed, said Aniket Mehrotra, a housing policy coordinator at the Urban Institute.

“The capacity of HUD to implement this new laundry list of tasks will be limited without additional appropriations for staffing capacity,” Mehrotra said.

The lock-in effect

Among Trump’s objections to the housing affordability initiative was his view that it was “of minor importance compared to lower interest rates.”

It’s true that stubbornly high mortgage rates above 6% have cut into many Americans’ ability to buy a home – in more ways than one.

Higher interest rates have not only increased monthly housing costs, but also created a “lock-in effect” across the housing market. Millions of homeowners who secured ultra-low mortgage rates before the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 2022 are reluctant to sell because doing so would likely mean taking on a much more expensive mortgage. That has further limited the supply of homes on the market.

Trump had been highly critical of former Fed Chair Jerome Powell for failing to lower interest rates, and he appointed Kevin Warsh to replace Powell, expecting him to steer the Fed toward lower rates. But last month, many Fed officials signaled in their economic projections that they expect interest rates to rise later this year, due to a renewed pickup in inflation from the war in Iran.

The new housing affordability law does not address the “lock-in” effect or mortgage rates, which loosely track the 10-year Treasury yield, which is dictated by bond investors, not the federal government.

What the new law leaves out

The law also doesn’t address several other forces behind America’s housing affordability crisis, including a lack of federal support for affordable housing, rising construction costs fueled by labor shortages, tariffs and inflation, and the surge in demand for homes that has outstripped supply.

Still, Donovan said that the accomplishment of passing bipartisan housing affordability legislation with an overwhelming majority shouldn’t be downplayed.

“This is hopefully the beginning of an opportunity to keep going,” Donovan said, adding that he hopes there will be a 21st Century Road to Housing 2.0 and 3.0. “Not to get too ambitious, but I think Americans are hungry to know that we can do big things.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump, el antipopulista

Cuando el presidente de EE.UU. Donald Trump irrumpió en la escena política en 2016, su ascenso se describió a menudo como “populista”. Y, sin duda, desempeñó el papel de un rebelde que desafiaba un sistema político viciado en nombre de los estadounidenses de a pie.Sin embargo, diez años después, Trump ha abandonado casi por completo este tipo de política.De hecho, en muchos sentidos, se ha convertido en un antipopulista.Y las encuestas lo demuestran.Las realizadas este mes por Reuters e Ipsos, muestran que el índice de aprobación de Trump ha caído a un mínimo histórico del 33 %. Esto significa que solo 1 de cada 3 estadounidenses aprueba su gestión.Pero quizás aún más revelador sea el porcentaje, que sigue disminuyendo, de quienes lo aprueban “firmemente”. Este porcentaje lleva tiempo cayendo. En la encuesta más reciente, se sitúa en tan solo el 13 % de todos los estadounidenses y el 35 % de los republicanos.Eso representa aproximadamente a 1 de cada 8 estadounidenses que piensan que lo que hace Trump es genial: un número sorprendentemente pequeño de seguidores verdaderamente devotos. Y a pesar del supuesto dominio absoluto del presidente sobre su base, casi dos tercios de los republicanos no están nada entusiasmados.Entonces, ¿cómo llega un presidente a ese punto?En el caso de Trump, se debe a que ignora casi por completo la opinión pública en favor de sus propios caprichos, deseos e incluso su enriquecimiento y glorificación personal; una tendencia que parece dispuesto a mantener incluso durante la recta final de las elecciones de mitad de término, cuando muchos políticos son muy sensibles a lo que gusta a los votantes.Los aranceles del 50 % que Trump amenazó con imponer a Canadá son un claro ejemplo.Una encuesta de CNN realizada esta primavera mostró que el 65 % de los estadounidenses afirmó que los aranceles de Trump tuvieron un impacto negativo en sus finanzas personales. E incluso cuando los aranceles en su conjunto no fueron tan impopulares el año pasado, sus aranceles iniciales a Canadá seguían siendo muy impopulares. Entre el 60 % y el 64 % de los estadounidenses se opusieron desde el principio.¿Y qué hace Trump 70 días antes de las elecciones de mitad de término? Comanzar una guerra comercial con Canadá, por supuesto.El martes, Trump incluso amenazó con cambiar el nombre del lago Ontario a lago Estados Unidos (“Lake America”, en inglés) como parte de la disputa, ampliando su intención de renombrar el golfo de México como golfo de Estados Unidos. Alrededor de dos tercios de los estadounidenses también se opusieron a este último cambio.El vicepresidente J. D. Vance se sumó a la polémica el lunes al referirse erróneamente a Canadá como un “estado” y calificarlo de “lapsus freudiano”, evocando las amenazas de Trump de convertir a Canadá en el estado número 51. ¿Y por qué no? Después de todo, una encuesta de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Marquette del año pasado mostró que el 75 % de los estadounidenses se oponía a esta idea.Los recientes comentarios positivos de Trump sobre los centros de datos también resultan desconcertantes para un supuesto populista.Quizás no haya un tema populista más evidente en este momento que la oposición a los centros de datos. Hasta 7 de cada 10 estadounidenses se oponen a su presencia en sus comunidades, percibiendo estos centros como una imposición de poderosas empresas tecnológicas.Pero mientras sus compañeros republicanos se oponen rotundamente a ellos, Trump los apoya. Los describe como centros de datos “grandes, fuertes, audaces y máquinas de hacer dinero” y “fuentes de ingresos”. Afirma que las comunidades deberían recibirlos con los brazos abiertos y elogia su arquitectura como “los edificios más increíbles que jamás haya visto”. Incluso criticó a los republicanos por apoyar las moratorias que prohíben la construcción de centros de datos.Pero estos no son los únicos ejemplos del antipopulismo de Trump:Las encuestas muestran que 6 de cada 10 estadounidenses opinan que Trump ha “ido demasiado lejos” al modificar instituciones como el Centro Kennedy, y solo el 9 % de los estadounidenses considera apropiado nombrar edificios gubernamentales en su honor mientras siga siendo presidente. Sin embargo, Trump intenta nuevamente poner su nombre al Centro Kennedy.Sigue enfocándose intensamente en las renovaciones de la ciudad de Washington, a menudo exhibiéndolas ante las cámaras, como hizo el lunes con el nuevo helipuerto de la Casa Blanca. Esto a pesar de que una encuesta del Washington Post del mes pasado mostró que los estadounidenses veían este tipo de proyectos de forma negativa en una proporción de 2 a 1.La guerra contra Irán claramente no era lo que los estadounidenses querían desde el principio; en las encuestas previas a la guerra, se oponían a la intervención por un margen de 2 a 1. Y la supuesta postura antibelicista de Trump era fundamental para su populismo. Sin embargo, seis meses después de iniciar la guerra, Trump amenaza con extender el conflicto hasta las elecciones de mitad de término.Este mes ha continuado su ataque, carente de fundamento, contra las vacunas, incluso cuando las encuestas de KFF muestran que 6 de cada 10 estadounidenses se oponen a la gestión del gobierno en este tema.Hasta hace unas semanas, Trump parecía no querer renunciar a su fondo de US$ 1.776 millones contra la “instrumentalización”, que, según la Casa Blanca, podría destinarse a financiar a los acusados ​​de los atentados violentos del 6 de enero de 2021. Esto a pesar de que una encuesta del año pasado mostraba que el 83 % de los estadounidenses se oponía a la decisión de Trump de indultar a esas personas, y mucho menos de pagarles.El problema con la mayoría de estos ejemplos no es solo que Trump esté enfocado en sus proyectos favoritos impopulares. El asunto es que se ha centrado en ellos, excluyendo y a menudo a expensas de lo que la gente realmente quiere: una atención prioritaria a la asequibilidad y los problemas económicos.En cambio, habla repetidamente de que estamos en una “época dorada” económica, a pesar de que solo el 4 % de los estadounidenses, según la nueva encuesta de Reuters-Ipsos, afirmó que la economía era “muy fuerte”.Y la gente lo ha notado: las encuestas muestran que la gran mayoría cree que está descuidando los temas más importantes, como la inflación.Todo esto plantea la siguiente pregunta: ¿Qué harán los votantes cuando un presidente prácticamente abandona incluso la apariencia de interés por hacer lo que el pueblo quiere, y en su lugar impone una serie de medidas que incluso amplios sectores de su base parecen rechazar?Esto supone una prueba de fuego para el partidismo en las elecciones de mitad de término de 2026.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story