As cost of living and affordability issues have dominated much of the political discourse in the months leading up to this fall’s midterm elections, Congress may be on the verge of taking a substantive step to address them. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have this year considered bills geared toward increasing the supply of housing, and lawmakers are trying to agree on a final proposal.
The legislative interaction between the two chambers has resulted in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly earlier this month. Though it had widespread support in the upper chamber, the bill could face opposition in the House. Its mashup of traditionally conservative priorities like deregulation with traditionally liberal ones like targeted federal grant programs has appealed to both sides of the aisle, but a populist measure it would enact is testing members of both parties.
While the most substantive actions that could lower housing costs occur at the local level, such as revamping zoning laws to make it easier to build, the bill reflects some measures the federal government could take toward that goal. Many of the bill’s components have bipartisan appeal, but certain parts fit in better with policies usually pushed by one of the two parties. Republicans have praised how it would cut regulations on homebuilding by streamlining environmental review processes for certain housing units and removing the federal requirement that factory-made modular homes have a “permanent chassis.” At the same time, the bill also contains policies that Democrats have previously introduced, such as grants for affordable housing activities.
Before the Senate took it up, the House originally passed the bill in February under the name “Housing for the 21st Century Act.” With provisions offering something to almost everyone, the bill sailed through the House on a final vote of 390-9. The Senate then produced its own version, with Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top two senators from each party on the Senate Banking Committee, collaborating on it. They took elements of the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act of 2025, an earlier Senate bill, and combined them with the House’s bill to create the current legislation, which the Senate approved 89-10.
“I think there never would have been a bipartisan compromise on housing were it not for the Abundance movement and the energy it’s created around housing reform.”
Rep. Ritchie Torres
Though the bill’s current form includes many of the deregulatory and grant provisions that the House passed, the Senate also put in entirely new pieces that have proven to be the most controversial for market-minded members of both parties. A section of the bill titled “Homes Are For People, Not Corporations” would restrict large institutional investors, namely, those who already own 350 homes, from buying new single-family homes. There are exceptions for firms that hope to build or buy new homes to rent out, but the bill would require them to be sold to individual homeowners within seven years.
The prohibition reflects an earlier policy prescription President Donald Trump made this year after economic populists on both sides began criticizing large investors for their purchases a few years ago, arguing that their presence in the market increases the cost of rent or prices out would-be homebuyers who cannot compete with corporate buyers. But the institutional investors the bill targets do not own a significant share of homes in the United States. Entities already owning more than 350 homes possess less than 1 percent of all single family homes in the country. They also own just 5 percent of all rental homes and were the purchasers of just 1 percent of all homes sold last year. Plus, industry groups have warned that the seven-year sale requirement would “effectively eliminate” the build-to-rent industry, decreasing the supply of housing.
Republicans have traditionally been against such restrictions, and the party’s hardliners who often oppose government intervention into markets are not fans of the bill’s ban. “The government has to protect people against harm. You’re not harming people by renting them a house. I think that’s a ridiculous overreach of the government,” Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia told The Hill.
“Elizabeth Warren’s housing bill? I’m not keen on it,” Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania told The Dispatch.
But as Trump has moved the Republican Party in a more populist direction, it has grown to embrace policy solutions with a stronger governmental role. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri acknowledged that the restrictions on institutional investors would “probably not” have existed pre-Trump, and he argued that both GOP and independent voters have clamored for such legislation.
“They want policy in this town that reflects their needs and interests, not Wall Street’s, not the giant foreign nationals’,” he told The Dispatch. “They want policy that protects their pocketbooks and their families, and this is a perfect example where you have Wall Street firms that are buying up homes. I’m sure that’s very profitable for them. You know, it’s why they’re doing it. It’s also very harmful for families.”
The White House has supported the Senate’s version of the bill, but it is unclear if the House has the votes to pass it. Hardliners are likely to defect in part because of the large investor ban, and it is possible that some Democrats will withhold their votes for the same reason.
While the bill’s ban contradicts Republican free-market orthodoxy, it also tests the viability of a new movement among Democrats. Taking its name from a 2025 book by liberal writers Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein, the “Abundance” movement prioritizes housing policies that can increase supply to bring down costs. Part of that agenda includes cutting red tape to make it easier to build housing.
The movement has found sympathetic ears among some Democrats on Capitol Hill. Rep. Josh Harder of California started the bipartisan Build America Caucus last year, inspired by the Abundance movement. He has praised the deregulation and other components of the bill meant to increase the availability of housing, but he has expressed reservations about the investor restrictions, warning his fellow lawmakers not to “fumble on the five yard line.”
“I agree with a lot of what the Senate is trying to do here,” Harder told The Dispatch. “Some of it’s based on House bills—and some pieces of my own. I think what they tried to do on Section 901 could have really unintended consequences, and hopefully that’s something we can fix.”
Harder would not say whether he would vote for the bill in its current form, but he praised the bipartisan action that Congress has taken as lawmakers have crafted and considered the legislation.
Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York, a Democrat who is a member of the Build America Caucus, noted that this bill, like many pieces of legislation, is a compromise. “The nature of compromise is that not everyone’s going to get everything they want, right?” he told The Dispatch. “I’m of the view that some compromise is still better than not at all.”
How viable the Abundance movement is in Congress remains a question. Though parts of the bill are in line with its agenda, senators in both parties have agreed to include a populist provision that could decrease the supply of build-to-rent homes, a part of the housing market that appeals to families desiring an alternative to multifamily living.
“I think the reason we’re in this moment is not because of one book or one movement,” said Harder. “I think it’s because people are really frustrated that it’s too expensive to rent and buy a house, and if that’s going to be one of the most important issues to voters across the country—Republicans, Democrats, independents—then it’s about time Congress actually did something.”
But Torres gave more credit to the Abundance movement, saying it has been “extraordinarily effective” at bringing housing policy to the forefront of America’s political discourse, noting New York City’s Democratic Socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, recently called for expedited environmental review for the purpose of building more housing.
“I do attribute the triumph of a compromise to the Abundance zeitgeist,” Torres said. “I think there never would have been a bipartisan compromise on housing were it not for the Abundance movement and the energy it’s created around housing reform.”
