Month: March 2026

From Executive Order to Bipartisan Compromise: The 21st Century ROAD To Housing Act

This is part two of a two part series on the 2026 Executive Order related to housing and institutional investors.

The January 2026 Executive Order targeting institutional investors set the tone for a renewed federal focus on housing affordability. This second part of the series discusses how Congress’s first major response to the Executive Order has taken a different, more measured path.

On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Senate voted 84–6 to advance the 21st Century ROAD To Housing Act, a bipartisan package combining the Senate’s ROAD to Housing Act with the House’s 21st Century Housing Act. Rather than centering on investor restrictions alone, the legislation prioritizes regulatory reform and housing supply expansion as the primary tools for addressing affordability.

A Supply-First Legislative Strategy

The bill seeks to accelerate housing construction by reducing regulatory barriers that slow development and increase costs. Lawmakers supporting the legislation have emphasized zoning, permitting delays, and environmental review requirements as structural constraints on production.

In addition to fast-tracking construction, the bill increases oversight of federal housing programs and includes targeted limitations on institutional investors purchasing single-family homes. However, those restrictions are narrower than what the January Executive Order appeared to contemplate.

Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott described the legislation as a way to cut regulatory red tape, lower costs, and expand housing supply without new federal spending. Senator Elizabeth Warren, while continuing to advocate for stronger limits on corporate landlords, characterized the package as a meaningful first step rather than a comprehensive solution.

Investor Restrictions With Built-In Flexibility

Market analysts have noted that the 21st Century ROAD To Housing Act preserves significant room for institutional landlords to continue operating. The bill includes exceptions and technical provisions, including changes affecting manufactured housing requirements, that may allow large owners to expand without directly competing with individual buyers for traditional single-family homes.

According to Piper Sandler a leading investment bank, the legislation reflects an effort to balance affordability with the economic reality that large landlords remain part of the housing ecosystem. Rather than forcing institutional capital out of the market, Congress appears to be attempting to recalibrate competition while avoiding disruption to the rental market.

Reconciling Federal Policy Tensions

Viewed alongside the January Executive Order and the American Homeownership Act, the bipartisan bill illustrates an emerging tension in federal housing policy. One track emphasizes antitrust scrutiny, tax policy, and limits on investor behavior. The other focuses on increasing overall supply by reducing regulatory friction.

The 21st Century ROAD To Housing Act aligns firmly with the latter approach. It implicitly accepts that institutional ownership is not, by itself, the root cause of the housing shortage, and that meaningful affordability gains will require sustained increases in production.

Why This Matters Going Forward

The advancement of the bipartisan housing bill confirms that the executive order was not an endpoint, but a catalyst. Federal housing policy is now moving on multiple tracks, combining executive enforcement priorities with legislative efforts that emphasize supply-side reform.

Whether Congress ultimately reconciles these approaches, or allows them to proceed in parallel, remains an open question. What is clear is that institutional participation in the single-family housing market has become a permanent subject of federal regulation, scrutiny, and debate.

For industry participants, the path forward will depend less on political rhetoric and more on how definitions are finalized, agencies implement guidance, and Congress determines the final balance between investor restraint and housing production.

Wall Street vs. Main Street: The Executive Order That Reshaped the Housing Debate

This article is a two-part series detailing the most recent executive order signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2026 entitled “Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers.”

For years, first-time homebuyers have argued that they are not only competing with other families, but with hedge funds, private equity firms, and institutional landlords capable of deploying capital at scale. That concern moved from political rhetoric to formal federal policy  when the President signed the above referenced executive order.

Although the order was initially described as symbolic, subsequent developments suggest it may have recalibrated the federal government’s role in the single-family housing market and served as a foundation for broader legislative and regulatory action.

The Core of the Executive Order

The administration frames the executive order as a response to declining housing affordability and the increasing concentration of single-family homes in institutional portfolios. According to the White House, large investors have purchased a growing share of homes that would otherwise be available to individual buyers, particularly first-time purchasers, thereby tightening supply and inflating home prices in various local markets.

The executive order does not impose a total ban on institutional ownership of single-family homes, nor does it require divestment of existing portfolios. Instead, it focuses on the federal government’s role in facilitating future acquisitions.

Federal agencies including HUD, USDA, VA, GSA, and FHFA are directed to issue guidance preventing federal programs from approving, insuring, guaranteeing, securitizing, or otherwise facilitating institutional purchases of single-family homes when those homes could be sold to individual buyers. The order also promotes “first look” policies, which give owner occupants, public entities, and nonprofits exclusive ability to buy real estate properties before they are available for investor purchase and anticircumvention measures for federally owned or backed housing assets.

Build-to-rent developments remain expressly exempt, reinforcing that the administration’s concern is competition for existing homes traditionally marketed to owner-occupants, rather than rental housing as a category.

Antitrust Enforcement Takes Center Stage

One of the most consequential aspects of the order is its antitrust directive. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are instructed to review substantial acquisitions, including multiple acquisitions, by large institutional investors in local single-family housing markets.

The emphasis is not on individual transactions in isolation, but on cumulative acquisition strategies, coordinated pricing behavior, and vacancy practices. While the order does not create new antitrust law, it signals enforcement priorities that lower the practical threshold for investigation. For institutional landlords operating in markets with high investor concentration, this shift increases regulatory risk even where individual acquisitions may appear lawful on their own.

Key Definitions Remain Unresolved

The scope of the executive order will ultimately depend on how terms such as “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” are defined. Responsibility for those definitions has been assigned to the Treasury Department, in consultation with the White House economic policy team. As of late February 2026, those definitions had not yet been formally issued.

This lack of clarity has introduced uncertainty across the market. A narrow definition could limit the order’s impact to a relatively small group of large funds, while a broader definition could pull in a much wider range of ownership structures and investment vehicles.

California’s Existing Framework Provides a Preview

For California practitioners, the executive order reflects a regulatory approach that is already familiar. State law has previously tested mechanisms designed to limit the competitive advantages of large investors without banning institutional ownership outright.

Most notably, California Senate Bill 1079, enacted in 2020, created a post-foreclosure “first” process that prioritizes owner-occupants, tenants, nonprofits, and certain public entities. Rather than excluding institutional capital from the market, SB 1079 targeted process advantages by prohibiting bundled sales of one-to-four-unit residential properties and giving non-investor buyers an opportunity to match investor bids.

That framework closely mirrors the federal order’s emphasis on first-look policies and structural market mechanics, rather than direct ownership prohibitions.

San Diego’s Incremental Local Response

At the local level, the City of San Diego has not enacted legislation that directly restricts or prohibits institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes. There is no city-level analogue to SB 1079 outside the foreclosure context, nor has the City adopted acquisition-based restrictions comparable to those now under discussion at the federal level.

That absence does not reflect a lack of engagement with affordability concerns. Instead, San Diego has focused on regulating landlord conduct where it intersects with competition and pricing. Most recently, the San Diego City Council adopted  the Prohibition of Anti-Competitive Automated Rent Price-Fixing Ordinance, prohibiting the use of certain algorithm-driven rent-setting tools that rely on nonpublic competitor data. The measure was framed explicitly around concerns of coordinated pricing and market distortion, invoking antitrust principles similar to those emphasized in the executive order.

At the county level, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors has taken a more exploratory approach. In 2024, the County okayed a proposal called Transformative Housing Solutions that Advance Equity, Sustainability, and Affordability for All to analyze the scope and concentration of corporate and institutional ownership of single-family homes using property tax and sales data, and to evaluate potential policy tools. While no categorical restrictions have been adopted, institutional acquisition activity has been formally identified as a subject of regulatory concern.

Congress Begins to Move

The executive order has not remained an isolated executive action. In the weeks following its issuance, congressional activity around housing affordability and institutional ownership accelerated. Senate Democrats introduced the American Homeownership Act, which would eliminate certain tax advantages associated with large corporate ownership of single-family homes and reinvest the resulting savings into housing supply.

At the same time, bipartisan lawmakers began advancing a parallel legislative effort focused less on investor behavior and more on increasing housing production through regulatory reform.

In our next part of this series, we will discuss the 21st Century ROAD To Housing Act. This act sets the stage for a broader debate over whether housing affordability is best addressed through ownership restrictions, supply expansion, or a combination of both.