President Donald Trump’s abrupt cancellation of an event supporting the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act on June 24, a bill that had garnered strong bipartisan backing in the Senate, has sparked debate. This legislation, addressing a critical issue for voters, was initially slated for presidential endorsement.
Trump cited his demand for the passage of the SAVE America Act, which proposes expanded proof of citizenship requirements for voting, as the reason for his decision. This act has drawn criticism from Democrats who argue it could suppress legitimate votes, and from Senate Republicans who doubt its passage.
Prior to the cancellation, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had lauded the housing bill on X, calling it a landmark achievement in housing affordability and a fulfillment of a Trump administration promise.
However, Senator Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., one of the five senators who voted against the bill, reaffirmed his opposition. He stated that the legislation primarily directs funds to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and would benefit individuals residing in the U.S. without legal status, suggesting it would fund housing for them.
Contrasting Tuberville’s view, his fellow Alabama senator, Republican Katie Britt, asserted on June 25 that the legislation allocates no new funds and explicitly excludes individuals without legal status from HUD housing assistance.
An examination of the bill reveals no provisions specifically intended to benefit individuals without legal status. Housing policy experts corroborate this, and existing federal law already bars such individuals from most HUD housing assistance programs. The primary objective of the legislation is to increase the availability of housing and reduce costs. While individuals without legal status might indirectly benefit from a broader housing market, this effect would extend to all market participants, irrespective of legal standing.
Professor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh of Columbia University explained that an increase in housing supply invariably impacts the entire real estate market, leading to cost reductions for all consumers due to fundamental economic principles. Senator Tuberville’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Key Provisions of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act:
The legislation includes several measures aimed at improving housing affordability and accessibility:
- Expanding access to mortgages under $100,000 through an FHA-backed pilot program.
- Increasing maximum loan limits for federal mortgage insurance programs.
- Streamlining homebuilding by expediting environmental review processes.
- Excluding veterans’ disability benefits from income calculations for a veterans’ housing program.
- Prohibiting large corporations and institutional investors from acquiring new single-family homes for anything other than rental purposes.
While the bill does not introduce new funding, it earmarks $200 million from HUD’s existing budget for a competitive grant program for local governments and tribes demonstrating increased housing supply. The bill’s text does not contain terms like "alien," "illegal immigrant," or "undocumented immigrant." Federal rental assistance programs have, since 1980, been ineligible for individuals without legal status or with temporary legal status, and the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act does not alter these regulations.
Potential Impact on the Housing Market:
Due to restrictions on federal housing assistance, many individuals without legal status rely on the private rental market. Federal law does not prohibit private landlords from renting to them, provided rent is paid, and landlords face no legal repercussions for doing so. However, offering free rent could be construed as harboring an individual without legal status. Landlords are permitted to consider various financial factors when evaluating rental applications, but they cannot deny a qualified applicant based solely on immigration status.
According to Vanderbilt University professor Warren Lowell, informal housing arrangements are common within this demographic, often involving shared resources to manage costs. An increase in affordable housing availability would benefit these individuals, much like any other resident.
Donald Haurin, an emeritus professor of economics at Ohio State University, noted that the law, if effective, could influence both the ownership and rental sectors, with price reductions eventually impacting the broader private market. Lowell added that increases in housing supply typically have widespread effects, benefiting low- and middle-income renters as well as first-time homebuyers.
Conclusion:
Senator Tuberville’s assertion that the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act’s benefits would extend to "a lot of people that are here illegally to build houses for them" is inaccurate. The legislation contains no provisions for building houses specifically for individuals without legal status. Furthermore, it does not alter existing laws that exclude them from federal rental assistance. The bill’s core objective is to expand the affordable housing supply, a benefit that would be shared by all market participants, including citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as individuals without legal status who rent or seek to purchase homes.