MoneyWatch
Updated on: February 27, 2026 / 1:15 PM EST
/ CBS News
Add CBS News on Google
With Americans facing a housing affordability crunch, lawmakers from both parties are advancing rival bills aimed at curbing institutional investors’ purchases of single-family homes. One proposal would eliminate tax advantages for large real estate investors, while the other would bar big firms from buying single-family properties altogether.
The two proposals come after President Trump reiterated his push to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes during Tuesday’s State of the Union address. Mr. Trump first proposed the idea last month, writing in a social media post that “people live in homes, not corporations.”
While the bills take sharply different approaches to reining in institutional investors, some housing experts say neither addresses a larger underlying problem — years of underbuilding that have left the nation short several million homes needed to meet demand.
But some lawmakers say pushing institutional investors from the housing market could help homebuyers by cutting out deep-pocketed competition. Investment firms own about 3.8% of single-family rental properties, although that share is above 20% in cities including Atlanta and Jacksonville, Florida, according to a 2023 Urban Institute analysis.
Here’s how the two bills, the American Homeownership Act and the Homes for American Families Act, compare.
The American Homeownership Act
The American Homeownership Act was introduced on Tuesday by Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, as well as 16 other Democratic senators.
The proposal would eliminate tax breaks for corporations that own more than 50 single-family homes, barring them from taking deductions for depreciation and mortgage interest payments. These investors would also be blocked from federally backed mortgages and buying foreclosed homes sold by federal agencies.
“This bill will take on predatory landlords while making investments to increase housing supply and boost homeownership for Americans,” Sen. Warren said in a Tuesday statement. She added that it is essential to tackle the housing crisis from “every angle.”
Tax savings from ending these deductions would be reinvested in new home construction and programs aimed at helping Americans buy homes, according to a fact sheet about the bill.
The bill would not eliminate tax breaks for what the lawmakers describe as mom-and-pop landlords, or individuals who own fewer than 50 properties, because they typically “charge affordable rents, live in the community and invest in the homes they own.”
The bill would also incentivize new home construction by extending tax credits for up to five years for people who build new homes, as well as providing tax breaks for those who rehabilitate properties that had been deemed uninhabitable.
Homes for American Families Act
On Thursday, Merkley and Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the Homes for American Families Act.
The bipartisan legislation would amend the landmark Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to create an outright ban on investment companies with assets of more than $150 million from buying single-family homes, townhouses and condominiums. It doesn’t apply to homebuilders that are constructing units for sale.
The proposal would also task the Justice Department’s antitrust division with enforcing the law.
“Wall Street has exploited the American housing crisis, turning the nation’s housing stock into a portfolio of rental properties,” Sen. Hawley said in a statement Thursday. “Families deserve to be able to buy their own homes and achieve the American dream without competing with big investment companies that irrevocably drive up housing prices.”
The bill more closely follows Mr. Trump’s executive order seeking to bar institutional home buying than the Democrats’ American Homeownership Act. During Tuesday’s State of the Union address, the president urged Congress to pass a permanent ban on institutional buyers of single-family homes.
Are institutional investors really the problem?
Some housing experts say that while they applaud efforts to try to make housing more affordable for Americans, placing restrictions on institutional investors isn’t likely to meaningfully bring down housing costs across much of the U.S.
However, in some markets — like Atlanta, where investors own 28% of single-family rental properties — a ban on investment firms could provide some relief for homebuyers, housing experts said.
A more effective approach would be to spur new construction of single-family homes and apartments, which would address the supply shortage and reduce costs, experts note.
“The primary cause of America’s growing housing affordability problem is a lack of sufficient new supply of housing, single-family owner-occupied units especially,” Joe Gyourko, a nonresident senior fellow in economics at Brookings, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said in a Feb. 23 report.
Banning investors from single-family home purchases “fails to address that issue in a meaningful way,” he added.
Edited by
In:
Real Estate
Housing Crisis
© 2026 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Home – CBSNews.com
About the Author
