...
By Sam Stevenson
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A bipartisan housing bill passed Congress with overwhelming support on Tuesday, but 32 House Republicans and five Senate Republicans voted against the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in June 2026.
The legislation cleared the Senate and House this week with strong cross-party backing, 358—32 in the House of Representatives and 85—5 in the Senate. The bill is aimed at tackling America’s housing shortage and rising costs and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.
Millions of homebuyers, renters, and local governments could be affected, as the bill seeks to boost supply, curb investor activity, and expand access to housing finance.
Read More on Politics
However, on Wednesday, Trump canceled plans to sign the bipartisan bill until Congress passes the SAVE America Act, a voting measure he has labeled a “national emergency.”
Key Points
- Congress passed the most significant housing package in decades with broad bipartisan backing
- All opposition came from Republicans, who had concerns about expanding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and distorting free-market home values; no Democrat voted against the final bill
- The legislation focuses on increasing housing supply and limiting large investors’ market share
- Lawmakers disagree over whether the bill goes far enough—or too far—in federal intervention
- The U.S. housing shortage remains severe, with estimates ranging from 3 million to more than 4.7 million homes
...
Why It Matters
Housing affordability has become one of the defining economic issues ahead of the midterms, with lawmakers under pressure to address rising prices and rents.
The bill reflects rare bipartisan agreement that increasing supply is essential, even as disagreements persist over how far federal policy should go.
America's Housing Shortage Didn't Start With the Pandemic
The legislation comes as the U.S. grapples with a prolonged housing shortage that predates the pandemic.
Estimates vary widely, from roughly 3 million to 4 million homes, according to Goldman Sachs, to more than 4.7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Years of underbuilding after the 2008 financial crisis, combined with population growth and rising construction costs, have driven up prices and rents nationwide.
...
What the Bill Does
At its core, the legislation is designed to increase housing supply and improve access to homeownership. It includes dozens of provisions, such as the $200 million annual zoning Innovation Fund, the 100,000-unit RAD cap expansion, and community banking relief.
A key measure restricts large institutional investors that own at least 350 homes from purchasing more single-family properties. Supporters argue this could reduce competition for first-time buyers.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of the bill’s architects, framed the provision as a turning point, telling Axios that it tells private equity firms: "Enough—you don’t get to move in to one neighborhood after another in America."
Other provisions aim to encourage local governments to build more housing, streamline regulation and expand access to manufactured housing, which is often cheaper to construct.
Still, lawmakers acknowledged limits. South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, a Republican co-author of the bill, said Congress cannot directly control interest rates, telling Axios: "We don’t control the interest rate environment," pointing instead to supply as the central issue.
...
The Compromises That Helped Secure Passage
The final version of the ROAD to Housing Act differs significantly from the package originally approved by the Senate, reflecting a series of negotiations that helped build support across both parties and between the two chambers.
One of the most notable additions was a provision temporarily barring the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) through 2030. The restriction was a priority for many conservatives who have argued that a government-backed digital dollar could create privacy concerns and expand federal oversight of financial transactions.
Supporters of the provision framed it as a safeguard against future government surveillance, while critics argued that the issue is largely unrelated to housing policy and should have been debated separately.
At the same time, House negotiators removed one of the Senate bill's most controversial housing provisions: a requirement that certain institutional investors sell off build-to-rent single-family homes after seven years.
That proposal had drawn opposition from real estate groups, investor organizations and some Republicans who argued it would interfere with private property rights and discourage housing investment.
Instead of forcing investors to divest properties on a fixed timeline, the final bill relies on narrower restrictions designed to limit future acquisitions by large institutional landlords while avoiding direct mandates to sell existing housing stock.
The changes illustrate the balancing act lawmakers faced in assembling a coalition large enough to pass the legislation. Conservatives secured limits on a potential digital dollar, while opponents of the investor sell-off mandate succeeded in removing one of the provisions viewed as most disruptive to the housing market.
Those compromises helped broaden support for the package, even as a bloc of Republicans ultimately continued to oppose the bill.
Why Some Republicans Opposed the Bill
Despite the bipartisan coalition behind the ROAD to Housing Act, opposition came entirely from Republicans.
Critics disagreed not only with specific provisions in the legislation, but also with the broader premise that the federal government should play a larger role in addressing housing affordability.
Some argued the bill represented unnecessary intervention in the housing market, while others contended it did not go far enough to reduce costs or increase supply.
The Five Senate Republicans Who Voted No
- Tommy Tuberville—Alabama
- Mike Lee—Utah
- Rick Scott—Florida
- Ron Johnson—Wisconsin
- Rand Paul—Kentucky
Each raised different concerns on their official websites and social media accounts. Tuberville argued that "giving the federal government more control over housing is not the answer," saying in a written statement to TIME that the bill could expand the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and misdirect federal funds.
"We should be focused on getting government out of the way and allowing the free market to drive down costs through competition and a booming economy," he said.
Lee took a different tack, saying in a statement published on his website that the package "doesn’t do enough to provide" affordable housing, while criticizing what he described as continued federal overreach in the market.
"The process to fix this bill has been nonexistent, with no amendment votes in the Senate," he said. "We can do better."
Scott also voiced frustration that amendments were not considered and questioned whether the bill would truly lower costs, saying in a post on social platform X that lawmakers "should make sure it actually works."
A spokesperson for Johnson previously argued that the senator "does not like the government imposing itself into the marketplace," warning that restricting large investors could artificially reduce demand and limit the prices homeowners can achieve when selling.
Paul focused heavily on property rights and investor restrictions, having previously warned in a March post on X that they could distort the market.
Newsweek reached out to the offices of Rand Paul and Tommy Tuberville early Wednesday morning for comment on the voting.
House Opposition Was Larger—but Still a Minority
In the House, opposition was broader but still limited. Thirty-two Republicans voted against the bill, while every Democrat supported final passage.
The vote underscored a divide within the GOP between lawmakers willing to support a federal response to the housing shortage and those who viewed the legislation as excessive government intervention.
Full List of House Republicans Who Voted Against the ROAD to Housing Act
- Aaron Bean—Florida
- Andy Biggs—Arizona
- Sheri Biggs—South Carolina
- Lauren Boebert—Colorado
- Tim Burchett—Tennessee
- Eric Burlison—Missouri
- Kat Cammack—Florida
- Michael Cloud—Texas
- Andrew Clyde—Georgia
- Eli Crane—Arizona
- Warren Davidson—Ohio
- Byron Donalds—Florida
- Randy Fine—Florida
- Clay Fuller—Georgia
- Brandon Gill—Texas
- Andy Harris—Maryland
- Mark Harris—North Carolina
- Diana Harshbarger—Tennessee
- Clay Higgins—Louisiana
- Anna Paulina Luna—Florida
- Morgan Luttrell—Texas
- Thomas Massie—Kentucky
- Tom McClintock—California
- Mary Miller—Illinois
- Barry Moore—Alabama
- Ralph Norman—South Carolina
- Bob Onder—Missouri
- Scott Perry—Pennsylvania
- Chip Roy—Texas
- David Schweikert—Arizona
- Keith Self—Texas
- Greg Steube—Florida
The SAVE Act Debate and Trump's Decoupling
One of the most significant political fights surrounding the ROAD to Housing Act had little to do with housing itself.
Several House conservatives threatened to oppose the legislation unless it was linked to the SAVE America Act, a Republican-backed election bill that would require documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration. The proposal became a major point of contention within the GOP, with some lawmakers arguing that election-integrity legislation should take precedence over other bipartisan policy initiatives.
President Trump initially amplified those concerns, repeatedly urging Republicans to prioritize the SAVE Act and at times suggesting that it be paired with other major legislation moving through Congress.
As negotiations advanced, however, House and Senate leaders ultimately allowed the two measures to proceed on separate tracks. That decoupling proved crucial to the housing bill's prospects.
By separating the housing package from the more politically divisive election legislation, Republican leaders avoided forcing lawmakers to cast a single vote on two unrelated issues. The move helped preserve the broad bipartisan coalition behind the housing bill while limiting conservative defections.
Although 32 House Republicans ultimately voted against the ROAD to Housing Act, the vast majority of the conference supported the measure, allowing it to clear Congress with overwhelming bipartisan backing.
The episode underscored the competing priorities within the Republican Party: while some lawmakers sought to use the housing bill as leverage for election-related legislation, others favored advancing a bipartisan response to the nation's housing shortage on its own merits.
What Happens Next
Having cleared both chambers, the ROAD to Housing Act now awaits Trump's signature. The White House has indicated support for the legislation, making enactment likely.
Even supporters acknowledge the bill will not immediately solve the nation's housing affordability challenges.
Economists broadly agree that closing a housing deficit measured in the millions of homes will require years of sustained construction and policy reforms at the federal, state and local levels.
Still, the vote represents one of the clearest signs yet that housing has emerged as a top-tier national issue.
While lawmakers remain divided over the best solution, the overwhelming bipartisan margins suggest a growing consensus that the housing shortage can no longer be ignored.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Sam Stevenson and James Debens
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines