The U.S. Senate passed a sweeping housing affordability bill on Thursday with an 89-10 vote, marking the largest legislation of its kind in 30 years and introducing a controversial ban on investors owning more than 350 single-family homes.
The restriction, championed by President Donald Trump, aims to curb institutional ownership of residential properties and prioritize homes for families. Under the Senate’s provision, companies that build or renovate housing can exceed the 350-home cap but must sell those properties within seven years. Trump has signaled he will not sign any bill without this investor limit, making it a central sticking point as the legislation moves forward.
However, the bill faces significant hurdles in the House, where GOP leaders have already indicated a need for further negotiation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told fellow Republicans in a closed-door meeting that differences between the Senate and House versions—passed in February with bipartisan support—will likely delay progress. The investor ban, absent from initial drafts of both chambers’ bills, has emerged as a key point of contention.
Industry groups, including the National Association of Home Builders and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have sharply criticized the seven-year ownership limit. They argue it would dismantle the build-to-rent housing model, potentially removing hundreds of thousands of units from the market over the next decade, many of which serve lower- and middle-income households.
Support for the ban isn’t universal even among Senate Democrats. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., backed the measure, emphasizing that private equity should not dominate the housing supply while still allowing institutional investment in apartments and multi-family units. In contrast, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, who voted against the bill, called the 350-home cap disastrous for rental housing supply, predicting severe disruptions to the single-family and duplex rental markets.
As the bill heads to the House for reconciliation, the debate over balancing affordability with housing supply remains heated. The final shape of the legislation could hinge on whether negotiators can reconcile Trump’s insistence on the investor ban with industry and bipartisan concerns over its economic fallout. A resolution is not expected before late spring, given the complexity of aligning the two chambers’ priorities.
Information for this story was found via the sources and companies mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to the organizations discussed. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
