Trump's "Homes for People" Plan Distracts From Failing Policies, Experts Say

"That messaging, which resonated with swing voters frustrated with inflation, helped propel Trump back into the White House. Nearly a year into his term, Trump's approval ratings have hit new lows as he calls the continuing affordability crisis a "Democrat hoax." Now, as the president is attempting to deliver a positive economic message ahead of the midterms, he's turned his eye to the costliest necessity - and one of the most complicated: housing."

"In November, experts panned Trump's initial housing proposal for 50-year mortgages backed by the government as a policy " gimmick." In a social media post on January 7, Trump announced his latest idea, a vague proposal to prohibit wealthy corporations and other "institutional investors" from buying up more single-family homes in order to lower costs and free up supply for first-time buyers."

"Private equity firms and real estate corporations have increasingly invested in single-family homes over the past decade, particularly since 2020. They often use them as vehicles for rental income, which can reduce housing stock and increase prices for first-time homebuyers. Trump's plan comes with a nifty slogan - "People live in homes, not corporations" - but experts say the proposal would do little to bring down costs without additional reforms."

President Donald Trump pledged on the 2024 campaign trail to end inflation and halve the cost of a new home. Nearly a year into his term, approval ratings have fallen as he calls the affordability crisis a "Democrat hoax." After critics dismissed his 50-year government-backed mortgage proposal as a gimmick, he proposed prohibiting wealthy corporations and institutional investors from buying more single-family homes to lower costs and free supply for first-time buyers. Private equity and real estate firms have increasingly purchased single-family homes, often renting them, which reduces stock and raises prices. Experts say banning institutional purchases alone would not lower costs without broader reforms.

Read at Truthout