SAVE Act? What SAVE Act?

Instead of prioritizing legislation to secure election integrity with voter ID requirements, rather than heeding President Donald Trump’s pledge not to sign any legislation until the Senate passes the SAVE Act, the Senate passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

The 303-page Senate bill was written by South Carolina Republican Tim Scott and Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, and Thursday’s vote was a whopping 89-10 — a rare show of bipartisanship these days. Obviously, both parties are highly motivated to show they care about affordability, and housing is arguably the biggest driving factor. The median sales price has increased by almost a third since the pandemic, vastly outpacing overall inflation.

Still, nine Republicans opposed the legislation for varying reasons, as did Democrat Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn missed the vote.

“What works in Washington may not work in Greenwood, South Carolina,” Scott posted on X. “The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act cuts red tape, increases housing supply, and lowers costs so more people can achieve their version of the American Dream.”

Warren boasted that “the biggest housing bill in more than 30 years” would “lower housing costs for families across the country.”

Will it, though?

According to The Daily Signal, “The Senate-passed package moves to the House and includes 18 bills already passed in the lower chamber’s original package.” Many of those provisions reduce regulations at the federal level and, as the Washington Examiner put it, “provide incentives for state and local governments to ease land-use regulations.”

That’s all well and good, but on the other hand, one of the bill’s provisions imposes a major regulation, essentially codifying Trump’s executive order banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes. The bill’s official summary, in a section titled “Homes Are For People, Not Corporations,” says it “prohibits large institutional investors from purchasing certain single-family homes” to “promote homeownership opportunities for American families, not corporations.”

As Warren put it, “It will mean, for the first time, that we’re moving housing prices in a better direction and beating private equity out of the system — making a very public statement that homes are for the families who live there, not for Wall Street investors who figured out another way to make a buck.”

Populists in both parties blame big investors for driving up housing prices — it’s a rare point on which Trump and Warren agree. It’s funny how those same populists never seem to think government “investment” (read: spending taxpayer money) drives up prices for anything.

Critics of Trump’s order point to statistics showing that institutional investors own just 2% of single-family rental homes in the U.S. Yes, that’s true when you cast a wide net, but consider Atlanta, for example, where large investors own 27% of single-family rental homes. Several other metro areas are in the 20% range.

In other words, there are reasons to dislike and oppose institutional investment, even if the problem is overblown and misunderstood.

That doesn’t mean a ban is the right thing to do. Heavy-handed regulations rarely make things cheaper, and that’s as true at the local level as it is at the federal level. Ask California.

Beyond banning investors from purchasing homes, the law includes a Warren-written provision requiring investors to sell homes built for rental after seven years. That will mean fewer investors build homes in the first place. Why invest if you can’t make your money back? And how does that help young families looking to enter the market?

Estimates suggest that the nation needs three to eight million more homes to normalize the market. Roughly 10% of current homes are built to rent, but the law will mean fewer homes being built. That’s the opposite of helpful.

“This is positively Soviet,” complained … [checks notes] … Democrat Senator Schatz of the provision, citing it as the reason for his “no” vote. Several Republicans agreed. Lamented North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, “When did conservative Republicans start carrying Elizabeth Warren’s banner on housing strategy?”

Its prospects in the House are uncertain. As Pennsylvania Republican Scott Perry noted, “I’m not thrilled about being asked to vote for a bunch of Elizabeth Warren rent control policies, pricing control, and rent policies that are downright socialist, if not outright communist.”

But assuming the House and Senate can agree on reconciliation with this will, what about Trump’s pledge not to sign any legislation until the SAVE Act passes?

“The Administration strongly supports passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” a letter from the White House said. “If the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6644 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign it into law.”

Oh.

Of course, in Trump’s State of the Union Address, he said something that was mostly overlooked: He wants high home prices. “We want to protect those values,” he said. “We want to keep those values up.”

Homeowners can hardly help but agree. The people who don’t are the people who can’t afford to buy a home. In 2025, the median age of first-time homebuyers reached a record high of 40, and the share of first-time buyers hit a record low of 21%. The Senate’s bill does little to help young, first-time buyers. In fact, it’s likely to make rent more expensive, to boot.

Gee, thanks.

Follow Nate Jackson on X.