������Ƶ

This article is part of The Rooftop, a blog and multimedia series from ������Ƶ’s Future of Land and Housing program. Featuring insights from experts across diverse fields, the series is a home for bold ideas to improve housing in the United States and globally.

The consequences of the national are predictable: , , and the number of people experiencing . The Biden administration did not make a noticeable dent in this issue over the last four years, despite housing being the of the economy and inflation. Housing costs will continue to drive voters’ perceptions, and if the Trump administration and the Republican Congress also fail to deliver, they too will pay the price at the polls.

President Trump campaigned on a promise to bring down the cost of living, including record high home prices. In fact, one of his first-day directed federal agencies to “[pursue] appropriate actions to lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply.” If his administration wants to deliver on this promise, it should tie federal housing funding to housing construction.

Specifically, the president should restrict access to discretionary federal funding for states based on two sets of criteria: housing cost and housing supply. By making a portion of federal funding contingent on removing local housing supply constraints, the administration can allow developers and homeowners to increase housing supply in the places that need it the most, or at least not reward the states that let their housing red tape run wild.

The construction is nationwide; that’s why we are in a housing crisis. For the housing supply to catch up, the pace has to be considerably faster than average in places with excessive housing costs. Federal funding accounts for . A threat of even a relatively small drop in this revenue would be incredibly powerful, equipping many state and local leaders whose constituents are facing skyrocketing housing costs with the levers to actually address those costs. Federal agencies like the (DOT) or (HUD) allocate in grants each year , and are already using local zoning as one of the dozens of criteria for .

There are precedents for the federal government influencing local decisions when the stakes are sufficiently high. Both were brought about by the federal government tying DOT funding to states adhering to, for example, a minimum drinking age of 21. The stakes of the current housing crisis are high enough to merit a similar change to the status quo. The administration is already considering tying state and local fund availability to , and the cost of housing might be at least as important for voters in 2026 and 2028.

Local Regulations Restrict Housing Supply

, , and a agree that the to building more housing is excessive regulation. In a 2019 “Regulatory barriers” that hinder the development of housing “include: overly restrictive zoning and growth management controls; rent controls; cumbersome building and rehabilitation codes; excessive energy and water efficiency mandates; unreasonable maximum-density allowances; historic preservation requirements; overly burdensome wetland or environmental regulations; outdated manufactured-housing regulations and restrictions; undue parking requirements; cumbersome and time-consuming permitting and review procedures.”

States regulate housing, but they have increasingly delegated this power to local bureaucracies of cities and counties since . States can , and are to , but given the amount we need to build. houses, which are typically five to 12 unit buildings in walkable neighborhoods, higher-rise buildings in downtowns and near , and duplexes in backyards, manufactured housing—all of these are frequently impeded by local zoning restrictions, including complicated and long , , , , and .

Meanwhile, federal government spending does not differentiate between states that make it easy to build new housing everywhere, and states () where excessive regulation drives up housing costs. So federal taxpayers continue spending billions on infrastructure, , and supporting more expensive housing vouchers and homelessness initiatives in cities where new housing isn’t being built and land has become prohibitively expensive.

How a Federal Strategy Would Work

The current administration could require all federal agencies and departments to identify discretionary state and local funding (grants, loans, or otherwise) related to housing. Then it could issue a more detailed executive order that restricts access to discretionary federal funding from states that: (1) have multiple counties with very high housing costs, (2) do not create sufficient net new housing supply in these counties, and (3) have nonetheless allowed these high-priced counties to create additional red tape for homeowners and developers (over and above state or federal requirements).

States would not be eligible for such funding starting in 2026 if they meet all three criteria above. In response, a state could only for the handful of its counties where housing costs are and housing construction pace is , or incentivize more construction by, for example, banning laws that .

Only about a dozen states would be affected by these criteria; the majority of states wouldn’t need to change anything. All other state and federal rules would still apply, including the state building code, allowing for sufficient local control.

In determining whether housing costs are too high, the administration could use an existing definition—for example, counties that qualify for for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. Alternatively they could use a new definition, such as permitted units per capita or counties where house prices are 50 percent over median home (which would add up to around $650,000). By any reasonable definition, California will be affected, as will states around New York City, Washington DC, and Boston, and a few other states with expensive cities like Colorado, Hawaii, and Washington. While the administration should outline details, the states and counties listed above clearly do not produce right now.

Lifting local restrictions allows developers and homeowners to build, unshackling the housing market from excessive red tape, and enabling developers to compete nationally by making local connections less important than construction cost and quality, while enabling economies of scale. No developer wants to build a low-rent building on outrageously expensive land. Even if a developer builds a multifamily high-rise in a well-off neighborhood, a resulting luxury building would by freeing up units that the incoming residents will be vacating.

We should not let minor and often hypothetical inconveniences stand in the way of land development. That’s especially true in the cities that desperately need more housing, stop residents and developers from improving their own land, and receive disproportionately high federal funding despite (and frequently because of) this. We can develop and build, while steering from the major concerns that the former HUD Secretary Ben Carson and President Trump described in a 2020 We should not , just like we should not force communities to accept a coal plant or allow anything that goes against a state’s building code and could be unsafe.

Voters Overwhelmingly Back Removing Local Red Tape

In 2026 and beyond, voters will demand change yet again if there is no visible movement on house prices, rents, and homelessness. At the current pace, . of President ������Ƶ promises to lower prices, including housing costs. Meanwhile, local housing supply restrictions are unpopular nationally, with , in a bipartisan fashion across the income spectrum.

Now is the Trump administration’s chance to show that the market can provide enough housing. Carson and ������Ƶ 2020 op-ed states, “America was founded on liberty and independence, not government coercion, domination, and control.” What’s government coercion if not being forbidden from building in your own backyard?

Editor’s note: The views expressed in the articles on The Rooftop are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policy positions of ������Ƶ.