The Battle Over Corporate Home Ownership: Two Bills Aim to Give American Families a Fighting Chance

A Growing Crisis Demands Congressional Action

As Americans struggle with skyrocketing housing costs and dwindling opportunities for homeownership, Washington is taking notice. Lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle have introduced competing legislation aimed at addressing one piece of the housing affordability puzzle: the growing presence of large institutional investors in the single-family home market. These proposals come on the heels of President Trump’s State of the Union address, where he doubled down on his earlier call to ban corporations from purchasing single-family homes. In a social media post last month, the president made his position clear with a simple statement: “people live in homes, not corporations.” This sentiment has resonated with millions of Americans who find themselves competing against well-funded investment firms when trying to purchase their first home or upgrade to meet their family’s needs. While institutional investors currently own about 3.8% of single-family rental properties nationwide, this figure tells only part of the story. In cities like Atlanta and Jacksonville, Florida, these corporations control more than 20% of the single-family rental market, fundamentally changing the landscape for would-be homebuyers in these communities.

The Democratic Approach: Removing Financial Incentives

The American Homeownership Act, introduced by Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon along with sixteen other Democratic colleagues, takes a targeted financial approach to the problem. Rather than implementing an outright ban, this legislation seeks to eliminate the tax advantages that make single-family home investments so attractive to large corporations. Under this proposal, companies owning more than fifty single-family homes would lose their ability to deduct depreciation and mortgage interest payments—tax breaks that have historically made real estate investment highly profitable. Additionally, these large-scale investors would be blocked from accessing federally backed mortgages and prohibited from purchasing foreclosed homes sold by federal agencies. Senator Warren emphasized that the bill represents a comprehensive strategy, stating it would “take on predatory landlords while making investments to increase housing supply and boost homeownership for Americans.” The legislation carefully distinguishes between corporate giants and smaller landlords. Individual property owners with fewer than fifty homes—often referred to as mom-and-pop landlords—would retain their tax benefits. The lawmakers argue these smaller operators typically charge more affordable rents, maintain connections to their communities, and invest more directly in property maintenance and improvements. Importantly, the bill doesn’t just take away incentives; it redirects them. Tax savings generated by eliminating corporate deductions would be channeled into new home construction programs and initiatives designed to help ordinary Americans achieve homeownership. The proposal also includes provisions to extend tax credits for up to five years for those building new homes and offers tax breaks for rehabilitating previously uninhabitable properties.

The Bipartisan Alternative: A Complete Corporate Ban

Two days after the American Homeownership Act was introduced, Senators Merkley and Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, unveiled a more aggressive bipartisan approach. The Homes for American Families Act would fundamentally change the rules by amending the historic Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to create an absolute prohibition on large investment companies buying single-family homes, townhouses, and condominiums. Under this legislation, any investment firm with assets exceeding $150 million would be barred from purchasing residential properties meant for individual families. Importantly, the ban wouldn’t apply to homebuilders actively constructing units for sale, preserving the construction industry’s ability to operate. Enforcement would fall to the Justice Department’s antitrust division, giving the proposal serious teeth. Senator Hawley framed the issue in stark terms, arguing that “Wall Street has exploited the American housing crisis, turning the nation’s housing stock into a portfolio of rental properties.” He emphasized that families deserve the opportunity to achieve the American dream without facing competition from deep-pocketed investment companies that artificially drive up prices. This approach more closely aligns with President Trump’s executive order seeking to ban institutional home purchases, creating an unusual coalition of progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans united around protecting American homeownership from corporate encroachment.

The Real Problem: A Supply Shortage Years in the Making

Despite the political momentum behind these proposals, many housing experts caution that restricting institutional investors addresses only a symptom rather than the underlying disease afflicting America’s housing market. The fundamental problem, they argue, is years of chronic underbuilding that has left the nation millions of homes short of what’s needed to meet demand. Joe Gyourko, a nonresident senior fellow in economics at the Brookings Institution, put it plainly in a recent report: “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.” He noted that banning investors from single-family home purchases “fails to address that issue in a meaningful way.” These experts point out that in most American markets, where institutional investors own only a small percentage of single-family rentals, removing them from the equation wouldn’t significantly impact housing prices or availability. The more effective solution, they argue, would be spurring substantial new construction of both single-family homes and apartments to address the supply shortage directly. However, experts acknowledge that the impact of these bills could vary significantly by location. In markets like Atlanta, where institutional investors control 28% of single-family rental properties, restrictions on investment firms could provide meaningful relief for homebuyers competing in an already tight market.

Why the Problem Matters to American Families

The debate over institutional investment in housing touches on something fundamental to the American experience: the belief that hard work and responsible financial planning should lead to homeownership. For generations, buying a home represented not just shelter but a pathway to building wealth, establishing roots in a community, and achieving a measure of financial security. When families find themselves outbid by corporations with virtually unlimited resources, it undermines this foundational aspect of the American dream. The frustration is particularly acute for first-time homebuyers, who often discover that corporate investors can make all-cash offers, waive inspections, and close deals faster than individual buyers dependent on mortgage financing. This creates a two-tiered market where ordinary Americans simply cannot compete on equal footing. Beyond the immediate impact on individual families, the concentration of single-family homes in corporate hands has broader implications for communities. When homes become investment vehicles rather than family residences, neighborhoods can lose their character and stability. Corporate landlords, no matter how professional, typically lack the personal investment in community welfare that owner-occupants bring. Schools, local businesses, and civic institutions all benefit when residents have a long-term stake in their neighborhoods’ success.

Looking Ahead: Can Congress Find Common Ground?

The introduction of these two bills—one offering a financially focused approach removing tax incentives, the other proposing an outright ban—demonstrates both the urgency lawmakers feel about housing affordability and the challenge of finding the right solution. The fact that the more restrictive Homes for American Families Act enjoys bipartisan support suggests potential for legislative action, though significant hurdles remain. Any legislation limiting institutional investment will face strong opposition from the real estate industry and financial sector, which will argue that such restrictions interfere with free markets and property rights. These interests have considerable lobbying power and will make the case that institutional investors actually provide valuable services, offering rental housing to people who aren’t ready or able to buy. Proponents of reform will need to build public support and demonstrate that protecting American families’ access to homeownership justifies market intervention. The bills’ ultimate success may depend on whether lawmakers can combine investor restrictions with meaningful measures to increase housing supply—addressing both the symptom and the disease simultaneously. What remains clear is that housing affordability has emerged as a rare issue capable of generating bipartisan concern and, potentially, bipartisan action. Whether either of these bills becomes law, the conversation they’ve sparked reflects a growing recognition that when corporations and families compete for the same homes, the market isn’t working for ordinary Americans. As this debate continues, millions of families will be watching, hoping that Washington can deliver solutions that make the dream of homeownership achievable once again.