Editor’s Note: The RISMedia series, Legislative Round-Up looks at pending and passed federal and state-level policy that impacts real estate professionals.
The 2024 U.S. election was a victory for the Republican party—they retained control of the House of Representatives and won control of the Senate and Presidency (winning the popular vote for the first time in 20 years).
The GOP will govern as a trifecta and party leaders have called the election results a mandate for their agenda.
How will the second Trump administration affect housing? The president-elect has made promises to bring down housing costs and end veteran homelessness.
Because the president has limited direct control over mortgage rates—and for a variety of other reasons—economists have been skeptical that rates will fall in line with Trump’s promises. NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun has also called this unlikely due to both Fed independence and ballooning U.S. debt that puts upward pressure on rates, specifically citing tax cuts under the first Trump term that are likely to be extended.
How will deportation affect housing?
Anti-immigration policy was once more a cornerstone of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Following his election, Trump and his inner circle have promised a policy of mass deportation. Trump seemed to confirm that he will declare a national emergency when in office and use the military to help facilitate his deportation plans.
Although these plans are somewhat unprecedented and there is significant uncertainty over how challenges or logistics would play out, Trump has indicated that he will be relying on executive action and previously passed laws rather than new legislation.
Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance have claimed that illegal immigration was one of the primary drivers of housing costs throughout the U.S. over the past few years. A study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard found this to be largely untrue; analysts say the numbers on immigration and housing demand do not line up in any fashion to suggest the former is driving the latter to its high levels.
Some in the housing industry have also suggested that Trump’s immigration policy could curb the country’s ability to add desperately needed homes.
Speaking to CNN, National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) CEO Jim Tobin noted that deportation could result in a construction worker deficit:
“Immigrant labor is really important for our ability to continue to build homes affordably,” Tobin said. “Anything that would have an impact on the labor supply and, in this case, the immigrant labor supply, does give us concern about our ability to meet the housing needs of the country.”
Federal lands may open up to housing developers
One segment of Trump’s deregulatory attitude toward housing is his promise to open up federal lands to property development. Certain segments of federal land would be opened up to auction by developers who would, in turn, have to provide assurance that the houses built on the newly-developed land would be kept affordable.
The idea comes with bipartisan support, with the Harris campaign having offered some support for the use of “certain federal lands” for housing.
Federal lands are primarily overseen by both the Department of Interior (via the Bureau of Land Management) and the Department of Agriculture (via the Forest Service). While the Constitution’s Property Clause gives Congress total authority over federal lands, the Bureau of Land Management does have the authority to sell off parcels of federal land to U.S. citizens and corporations, as determined on a case-by-case basis.
Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather told CNBC that this may not be the most effective path to cutting the inventory shortage. As many federal lands are in rural areas, “that doesn’t do anything for these densely populated blue cities that really need the most help.”
Trump has floated removing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac from conservatorship
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored mortgage lenders, have been under a conservatorship overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) since the 2008 financial crisis. If the president has his way, that conservatorship will end.
Since Trump’s first term in office, he has proposed returning the two lenders over to private ownership. He revived the proposal in his 2024 campaign, and his former FHFA Director Mark Calabria has said that this privatization will be a “top priority” of the new Trump administration.
Michael Fratantoni, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), has described the end of the conservatorship as inevitable. “It’s really a question, not so much of ‘whether,’ but ‘how,’” Fratantoni said to the Washington Post.
A 2023 bill, introduced by Rep. Andrew Ogles (R-TN) that would have eventually ended the conservatorship went nowhere after being introduced.
The SALT Cap may not be lifted under GOP government
In 2017, the first Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, overhauling the U.S. tax code. One of the provisions was a new cap on the State and Local Tax Deduction (SALT), which allows homeowners to deduct their local tax burden (including property taxes) from their federal taxes. The cap limits a possible deduction to $10,000.
The cap, which earned mixed responses—with some claiming it purposefully penalizes homeowners in states with higher local tax rates—is set to sunset on Dec. 31, 2025 unless it is renewed.
New York Senator and current Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has previously said: “As long as I’m majority leader, (the SALT cap) is going to expire. I’m not putting something on the floor that would reinstate it, because it hurts New York so badly.”
Barring extreme circumstances, Schumer will not be majority leader in December 2025, so the SALT Cap expiration is no longer assured. However, Trump has stated the legislation that the Republican congress originally implemented will expire. In a Sept. 17 Truth Social post, he pledged to “get SALT back.”
Senator John Thune (R-SD), recently elected Senate Majority Leader, said in 2021 that the SALT deduction amounts to “subsidizing millionaires who live in states like New York and California.”
In 2021, Thune had opposed Democratic plans to lift or raise the SALT cap. It remains to be seen if his opposition will continue when the time comes to debate the continuation of the cap.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has also said that one of his “top priorities” in 2025 is to “extend and build on” the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Congressman Pat Ryan (D-NY), representing the Hudson Valley, has written a letter to Trump asking him to follow through on his SALT pledge and sign a bill repealing the cap altogether.
The economic effects of the SALT Cap are complex. Because removing the cap only affects those who pay over $10,000 annually in property taxes, only relatively wealthy households (and people living in areas with extremely high property taxes) would benefit directly from removing the cap.
A 2021 study by the Department of Economic and Policy Analysis also found that the cap had a negative effect on home price appreciation in areas that it affected, while at the same time, a 2024 study by the Wharton School of Business estimated a Trump proposal to remove the cap would cost the federal government $1.1 trillion over the next nine years.
While previous efforts to change SALT since 2017 have fallen through, the December 2025 deadline creates an impetus. The burden of acting will ultimately fall on those who wish to extend the cap, as the original legislation was written to automatically expire next year.
NYC passes bill to remove broker fees
Despite the federal election changes, statewide and local government remains the primary field on which U.S. housing policy is set.
A recent example of this in practice came down in New York City. On November 13, the New York City Council passed the FARE Act, banning the longstanding practice where landlords can pass broker fees onto tenants. Though not signed yet by New York Mayor Eric Adams—a frequent recipient of donations from real estate industry professionals who has already said he has concerns about the legislation—the bill passed by a wide enough margin (42 for, 8 against) that a potential veto could be overridden.
Supporters of the act have criticized the “fairness” of asking tenants to pay a broker fee even if it was the landlord who hired the broker. Critics have in turn suggested that landlords will only pass the cost of the fees onto the renters into less direct ways.
The FARE Act was strongly opposed by the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), who had previously (and successfully) sued to block a separate attempt.
Senate looking to pass bill that would restrict mortgage trigger leads
The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act of 2024 is designed to do away with the process of “trigger leads,” where a credit bureau can sell a borrower’s credit data to third parties after pulling it to review a mortgage application.
This new bill would make the practice illegal unless the borrower gives documented consent or the third party is the mortgage originator.
The bill’s original sponsor is Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), chair of the Armed Services Committee—and he has attached it as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act.
It is uncertain if the amendment, as written, will be included in the final bill. The Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) has proposed a more limited regulation wherein third-party companies that receive a borrower’s data would only be prohibited from contacting them by phone. “Written offers,” such as emails or texts, would still be permitted.
While opposed by credit bureau lobbyists, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act of 2024 has bipartisan support within the Senate (43 cosponsors from all points on the political spectrum) and the support of the mortgage industry.
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) President and CEO Bob Broeksmit praised the bill as “carefully-calibrated consumer protection” and decried trigger leads as an “abusive” practice.
