For millions of Americans, buying a home no longer feels like a goal. It feels like a gamble they are destined to lose. Prices rise faster than savings. Mortgage payments outpace wages. Each rejected offer chips away at confidence.
Donald Trump says that cycle must stop.
His plan to ban large institutional investors from buying houses has struck a nerve across the US. It speaks directly to people who believe the housing market no longer serves them.
The message is blunt. Homes are for people, not corporations.
A Promise Built on Frustration
For many, housing affordability defines their daily lives. Their circumstances have changed; many young couples have delayed starting families, and many older adults continue living in their parents’ homes. Instead of allowing people to build wealth, rent often becomes a significant drain on income.
Trump’s proposal comes at a time when many feel angry and fatigued. He is positioning himself as a challenger to a system that many believe is rigged against the average homebuyer by targeting large investors.
Rather than being a technical policy laden with detailed data, Trump’s proposal is very much an emotional appeal. It aims to resonate with voters by framing the issue as a fight for ordinary Americans.
Why Corporate Buyers Became the Enemy
Numerous buyers now find themselves competing against anonymous corporate investors rather than fellow residents. These investment companies often present cash offers, bypass inspections, and close transactions quickly. As a result, families and individual buyers cannot compete on equal footing.
Trump has capitalised on this animosity by stating that banning corporate investors would reduce competition and enable first-time buyers to re-enter the market. This idea seems fair and necessary, especially after years of declining affordability and increasing corporate ownership of residential properties.
What the Evidence Shows
Housing is a vital part of daily life, yet a significant portion of the market is owned and financed by large institutional companies. Currently, about 1% of single-family homes are sold to institutional investors nationwide.
The extent of their activity varies by city. In markets such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, there is some concentration within specific neighbourhoods and price ranges. When multiple properties on the same street are purchased by one investor, it can have an immediate, unsettling impact on the community.
However, legislation that outright bans institutional investors will not instantly change market dynamics. The real crisis runs deeper.
Housing Supply and Costs Increase Prices
The core issue lies in supply. America has a chronic shortage of new homebuilding. Years of restrictions imposed by local zoning laws, combined with slow approval processes at the state and local levels, have limited new residential development. Rising construction costs have only worsened the problem.
To stabilise prices, millions more housing units need to be built. Until this supply shortfall is addressed, property prices are likely to continue rising, regardless of buyer eligibility.
The post-pandemic environment has also worsened affordability. Accelerated global inflation led to a sharp increase in mortgage interest rates, making monthly payments unaffordable for many households. As rates rose faster than incomes, many potential buyers found themselves unable to qualify for a mortgage.
A Political Balancing Act
Trump openly acknowledges the contradiction at the heart of housing policy: build more homes, and prices may fall, helping buyers but potentially hurting existing homeowners whose wealth is tied to property values. Protect prices, and younger generations remain locked out.
The proposed investor ban attempts to strike a balance. It signals action without flooding the market with new homes. It aims to prevent a sudden drop in property values while showing solidarity with frustrated buyers.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
