Congress is moving forward Housing act In 2025, the 325 -page bill was seen as the most broad federal housing package in a decade. This spreads 40 volumes – from zoning improvement to housing counseling. But below its bipartisan veneer, the conservative should look closely: the Road Act Republican runs a counter-local control, market-based solutions, fiscal discipline and counter to the homeowner.
To be fair, the Republican won some narrow win: aiming with environmental reviews, support for modular housing, and extended use of private capital in public housing. But these benefits are modest than Democrats.
Start with the budget. President’s fiscal 2026 proposal called to end correctly Home program And community development block grant – two disabled, poor targeted programs. Nevertheless, the road act expands both.
Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) Safe $ 1 billion for his long -sought innovation fundFirst proposed in his 2020 President’s campaign. Democrats moved out of billions more for “affordable housing” programs, which are expensive, complex and hostile to personal development. Bill also launched pilot programs for home repair and conversion that can be easily permanent.
Beyond the budget, the Roads Act deeply pushes the federal government into the decisions of local zoning and land use. The two sections instruct HUD to provide technical assistance to local governments and publish a set of “best practices” and a model state zoning code, which is designed by uneven policy experts. It is a modern echo of the first promoted zoning practices by Washington a century ago-stories that surrounded single-family zoning and racial separation.
Mainly, the bill promotes the staple of the progressive scheme, including public land control, mandate for bottom-market units and high-growing apartments near transit. Hud’s Pro Housing PilotShowWhere it is. Seattle was rewarded for the zoning mandate that cuts home-shaped houses, with the developers with a handful of subsidized fare by the developers. Miniapolis received federal dollars for reforms which looked bold but very few. The Road Act wants to scale these unsuccessful outlines across the country.
What the bill does not do is just as. No one knows how to build more entry-levels, owner-conscious houses in places where families want to live and grow. For a party that claims to support wealth and family formation, it is a great contradiction.
The Roads Act at the risk of strengthening a new generation of permanent tenants. It can be drawn into rented control and “social housing”. This is not a roadmap for American dreams – this is a dead end of dependence.
Meanwhile, the bill taxpayer directs the dollar to the progressive advocacy network. It expands housing counseling programs, run by most DI-operated non-profit institutions. Its evaluation correction provisions mandated bias training and reporting requirements – opening the door for cases, delays in transactions and additional costs for buyers, without addressing real drivers of all ineffectiveness.
The Road Act is not an agreement – it is a progressive housing agenda in bipartisan packaging. And it is unnecessary. When the solution is simple, we do not need to make the taxpayer dollar funnel in ideology and bureaucracy: allow the market to build more houses. 2000 to 2024, AmericacoupleMore than 12 million single-family houses-but zoning laws kept a lot of unnecessarily large. If the average size size was 5,500 instead of 8,000 square feet – and only 20 percent of new homes had townhouses – we will have 9 millionMoreHome today, about 15 percent less with prices. It is not speculation – this is mathematics.
The states are already a pioneer. In 2025, Texas Gave The builders have flexibility to use small lots in new subdivisions and at least commercial areas have been converted into housing – not the mandate, just the freedom to respond to the demand. Even California has created Progress By streamlining infill development and environmental reviews. When states work, the real improvement is as follows. A heavy federal approach-especially a tilted left-that risks, especially in red states.
Instead of supporting the Roads Act, the Republican should pursue a two-tier strategy contained in markets and local control. Federally, the President’s Executive Order should prioritize the sale of only 0.05 percent public land – enough for 1 million houses – while administratively implementing some useful elements of the road, implementing energy mandate, reducing housing rules, and giving exemption to major construction materials from tariffs.
At the state level, MPs should give flexibility to builders in small areas to use small lots. Texas has shown that pair improvement may pass with grassroots support and rural discounts. The President should use bullying to promote this model and follow other states.
The contrary may not be clear. The Roads Act is a dead end for the Republican – and for the country. The previous federal housing bills promised prosperity, but increased public housing failures, prices and dependence. This will do the same one who will enter the bureaucracy instead of expanding the opportunity.
Tobias Peter is co-director AEI Housing Center,
