House Passes Bipartisan Housing Bill Targeting Corporate Homebuyers
The House delivered a massive bipartisan victory Wednesday, passing a housing bill designed to expand homeownership, lower costs, and limit institutional investors from snapping up single-family homes.
The amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act passed by a commanding 396-13 vote, sending the legislation to the Senate and giving Republicans a potential cost-of-living win heading into the midterm elections.
House leaders framed the bill as a direct response to the housing affordability crisis squeezing millions of Americans.
Speaker Mike Johnson argued the stakes could not be clearer.
“Increased housing costs and lack of quality supply are two issues that impact nearly every American family,” Johnson said.
He called the legislation a “strong bipartisan package that will put more American families into homes.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise made a similar argument.
“This is something that every American in this country is going to be happy to see, to have lower housing costs,” Scalise said.
At the center of the legislation is a provision aimed at institutional investors.
The House version preserves a ban on large corporate investors buying newly built single-family homes, a priority backed by the Trump administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill said the bill directly aligns with President Donald Trump’s housing agenda.
“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Hill said.
“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home.”
A White House official confirmed support.
“The White House supports the House’s housing bill thanks to the changes that were made,” the official said.
The House, however, rejected a tougher Senate-backed provision that would have forced large institutional landlords already holding single-family rental homes to sell them off within seven years.
That proposal had support from progressives, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but House lawmakers opted for a narrower approach that targets future purchases without forcing divestitures that could disrupt renters.
Polling suggests the political move may be popular.
A recent survey found seven in ten voters support banning major investors owning more than 350 homes from buying additional residential properties.
Despite the overwhelming margin, conservative opposition did emerge.
The 13 Republican “no” votes came largely from Freedom Caucus-aligned members objecting not to the housing provisions, but to language dealing with central bank digital currencies.
Rep. Warren Davidson explained his opposition in stark terms.
“A temporary ban is the worst of both worlds: political cover today, a clear runway tomorrow,” Davidson wrote.
“Make it permanent, or take it out.”
The provision temporarily blocks a government-backed digital currency through 2030, but some conservatives fear that simply delays rather than prevents future implementation.
Now the bill moves to the Senate, where its path becomes more uncertain.
Because the House amended the Senate’s earlier version instead of passing it unchanged, lawmakers in the upper chamber must now decide whether to accept the changes, negotiate further or stall the package entirely.
The biggest flashpoint could be the removal of the forced-sale requirement for institutional landlords.
The bill also faces the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, always a major obstacle.
Still, the lopsided House vote gives the legislation strong momentum.
For Republicans, the politics are straightforward.
Housing affordability remains a top concern for voters dealing with high mortgage rates, tight inventory and growing competition from deep-pocketed corporate buyers, Fox News reported.
For Democrats, opposing a bill aimed at limiting investor competition in the housing market could also carry political risk.
Whether the Senate quickly advances the legislation or lets it bog down in procedural fights could determine whether Congress delivers a tangible housing win before voters head to the polls.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
