Congress Just Voted 396-13 to Stop Wall Street From Buying Your Neighborhood. The Bill Isn’t Law Yet.

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2026 —

Key Takeaways:

• The House passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act Wednesday in a 396-13 bipartisan vote — the most lopsided housing bill passage in decades — targeting corporate landlords who own more than 350 single-family homes and banning them from purchasing additional properties
• The bill also expands federal construction loans, pushes local governments to loosen permitting rules, and promotes manufactured housing — measures economists say could add meaningful new supply to a market where inventory remains 7.1% below 2019 levels despite recent improvement
• The two chambers must now reconcile competing versions before the bill reaches Trump’s desk — the Senate wants a strict investor ban with a seven-year mandatory sell-off for build-to-rent homes; the House softened both provisions, and the gap between them is real

For years, first-time homebuyers across America have lost bidding wars not to other families but to companies with unlimited cash and no mortgage contingency. In 2025, first-time buyers accounted for just 21% of all home purchases — the lowest share ever recorded. Corporate landlords and institutional investors, who acquired hundreds of thousands of single-family homes across Sun Belt metros during and after the pandemic, have been the consistent counterpart to that shrinking share.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted 396-13 to do something about it.

What the Bill Actually Does — and What It No Longer Does

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as passed by the House on Wednesday, targets corporate landlords through a specific ownership threshold. Any investor or company that owns more than 350 single-family homes is prohibited from purchasing additional properties. Below that threshold, the bill imposes no restrictions.

That 350-home ceiling is a significant softening from the original Senate version. The Senate’s proposal, introduced after an executive order from Trump, would ban investors and companies from buying single-family homes if they already own 350 or more. The House version modified the ban’s enforcement mechanisms and carved out certain exceptions that the Senate had not included.

The most contested provision involves the build-to-rent industry. Build-to-rent homes have gone from a niche corner of the housing market to making up 7% of all single-family home construction over the last decade. These standalone houses are built specifically for renters. The Senate version of the bill required those large-scale landlords to sell off their build-to-rent homes to families after seven years. That provision drew fierce opposition from the homebuilding industry, which argued it would destroy the financial model that makes large-scale rental construction viable. The House included language to let build-to-rent investors continue purchasing homes to flip under certain conditions — a change the Senate must now accept, reject, or negotiate.

The Supply Side: Why the Build-to-Rent Fight Is Not Straightforward

The investor restriction debate has a genuine tension at its core that most coverage glosses over. Large institutional landlords have undeniably contributed to affordability pressure in specific markets — particularly in Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, and Jacksonville, where corporate buyers have concentrated purchases in working-class neighborhoods. The data on their displacement effect on first-time buyers in those markets is real.

But build-to-rent construction has simultaneously added rental housing supply that would not otherwise exist. Lawmakers argued that restricting big-money investors would inadvertently stifle new home building and construction. A developer who builds 300 homes specifically for rental occupancy and then must sell them all within seven years cannot underwrite that construction at the start. The Senate provision, taken literally, would make the build-to-rent model financially impossible for the largest operators — eliminating new supply at a moment when the country is building fewer homes than it needs.

The House’s compromise attempts to thread that needle. Whether it threads it well enough to survive Senate review is the next question.

The Permitting and Construction Provisions That Will Matter More Long-Term

The investor restrictions generate the most political heat. The construction provisions will matter more for actual housing affordability over the next decade.

The bill encourages homebuilding across the country and pushes local governments to loosen permitting rules. Zoning and permitting restrictions are the primary structural cause of housing undersupply in most expensive American markets. A federal bill that conditions any construction loan expansion on local permitting reform — essentially using federal dollars as leverage against exclusionary zoning — is a more durable fix than any investor restriction.

The bill also expands manufactured housing access. Manufactured homes — factory-built units that meet federal HUD standards — cost roughly 40% less per square foot than site-built homes and can be installed on existing residential lots in many jurisdictions. Expanding financing access for manufactured housing is one of the few policies that can put homeownership within reach for households earning between $40,000 and $65,000 annually — the income range most exposed to the affordability crisis.

What Happens Before This Becomes Law

The House on Wednesday passed an amended bipartisan housing package, kicking the bill back to the Senate. The two chambers must now agree on a single version. The primary sticking points are the build-to-rent sell-off requirement and the enforcement mechanism for the investor purchase ban.

The Senate can accept the House changes, reject them and request a formal conference committee, or pass its own version and force another House vote. Given the 396-13 margin in the House — which signals overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill’s core framework — both chambers have a strong incentive to resolve the differences rather than let the legislation collapse.

Together, the House and Senate proposals signal that Washington is treating America’s housing affordability crisis with new urgency. If enacted, the measures would amount to one of the most sweeping federal housing efforts in decades.

For the 43% of American households who rent rather than own, and for the first-time buyers who lost 79% of the 2025 purchase market to investors, repeat buyers, and cash purchasers, the bill represents the most serious federal response to the affordability crisis in a generation. It is not law. The Senate has not yet agreed. The differences between the two versions are real. But 396 members of Congress voted to say the status quo is no longer acceptable. That number alone carries its own message.