Trump signs order to limit Wall Street investors in single-family housing

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Remember, kids. It’s only socialism when the other guy does it. Fortunately, Trump is not, in fact, a king and cannot unilaterally write the law so this is more or less symbolic.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-signs-order-restrict-wall-street-firms-buying-single-family-homes-2026-01-21/

 

[progressive hunter]

Remember, kids. It’s only socialism when the other guy does it. Fortunately, Trump is not, in fact, a king and cannot unilaterally write the law so this is more or less symbolic.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-signs-order-restrict-wall-street-firms-buying-single-family-homes-2026-01-21/

protecting families and theirs homes is the job of government,,

 

[Lockback]

I applaud Trump for this.

 

[drudge X]

Remember, kids. It’s only socialism when the other guy does it. Fortunately, Trump is not, in fact, a king and cannot unilaterally write the law so this is more or less symbolic.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-signs-order-restrict-wall-street-firms-buying-single-family-homes-2026-01-21/

Are Democrats gonna obey their Chinese master and oppose this? I’d love to hear them making the case why average Americans need to compete with Blackrock just to buy a house.

 

[Concerned American]

I applaud Trump for this.

IDK, I, like Taz, think its bluster. Unenforceable and frankly stupid. What is he going to do with investors that build subdivisions? Not well thought out.

 

[Lockback]

IDK, I, like Taz, think its bluster. Unenforceable and frankly stupid. What is he going to do with investors that build subdivisions? Not well thought out.

Perhaps not.
But giant companies like Blackrock and Vanguard have bought up a lot of single family homes and are renting them. The American dream of owning a home is dying and it needs to be fixed. We need people to have a stake in the country.
I was on the HOA Board where I live and we passed a resolution that doesn't allow anybody to buy here unless they live here. I was proud to be a part of that.

 

[Dekster]

I am fine with the change not that I expect it to ever make a difference. Not everyone should be homeowners though. If you can't come up with a down payment, how you gonna pay for that new roof? The 50 year shingles do last awhile but the new HVAC's need to be replaced about every 10-12 years now and that is a chunk of cash. Insurance and taxes escrowed are going to be jacking up your payment every year. If you are lucky, you can get 5-6 years out of the crap riding mowers they make now. Houses truly vacuum up cash once your name is on the deed.

 

[Concerned American]

Perhaps not.
But giant companies like Blackrock and Vanguard have bought up a lot of single family homes and are renting them. The American dream of owning a home is dying and it needs to be fixed. We need people to have a stake in the country.
I was on the HOA Board where I live and we passed a resolution that doesn't allow anybody to buy here unless they live here. I was proud to be a part of that.

Sticky wicket. I don't much care for HOAs. I know there are good reasons, but I can cite a bundle of bad as well. Re: your HOA's rule about residency--what happens if a military guy gets orders and has to move to another location. Would you deny him the right to rent out his property during his reassignment or deployment? I agree that it isn't right for someone like Blackrock to employ those tactics, but what's next--no apartment complexes that are solely owned? Maybe limits on the number of units that can be held in any single geographical area? IDK, just kinda seems contrary to free trade within the country.

 

[shockedcanadian]

protecting families and theirs homes is the job of government,,

Indeed. Govt have interferred in railroad.monopoliges, oil etc. Where the public good and.interestdd is.jeoparized, govt can play a role and step in.

 

[toomuchtime_]

IDK, I, like Taz, think its bluster. Unenforceable and frankly stupid. What is he going to do with investors that build subdivisions? Not well thought out.

The order is not directed at builders but at corporate investors who buy up single homes to control the available inventory of single homes with the aim of controlling prices to sell at a profit or turn them into rentals, mostly effecting low income first time home buyers. The order is mostly just an announcement of this policy, and the WH is preparing legislation to turn this into law.

One could argue this is government overreach or one could argue it is similar to anti trust laws that aim to prevent one company or a group of companies from controlling the market to raise prices.

 

[Concerned American]

The order is not directed at builders but at corporate investors who buy up single homes to control the available inventory of single homes with the aim of controlling prices to sell at a profit or turn them into rentals, mostly effecting low income first time home buyers. The order is mostly just an announcement of this policy, and the WH is preparing legislation to turn this into law.

One could argue this is government overreach or one could argue it is similar to anti trust laws that aim to prevent one company or a group of companies from controlling the market to raise prices.

If they want to tie it to anti trust--ok with me. The proposal, as it is, is too broad and not specific enough. You cited restrictions and your opinion about what the memo said, but that isn't the way that laws work. I can understand what you BELIEVE is the intent, but again, that isn't how law works. You claimed that it is aimed at corporate investors, but developers are often corporate investors and at some point they own ALL of the houses. How do you differentiate. I am not trolling, I am just trying to present some valid points.

 

[progressive hunter]

IDK, I, like Taz, think its bluster. Unenforceable and frankly stupid. What is he going to do with investors that build subdivisions? Not well thought out.

building subdivisions for sale is a world of difference than one corporation buying up entire subdivisions,,

 

[egp320i]

Remember, kids. It’s only socialism when the other guy does it. Fortunately, Trump is not, in fact, a king and cannot unilaterally write the law so this is more or less symbolic.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-signs-order-restrict-wall-street-firms-buying-single-family-homes-2026-01-21/

I don't get it, if you have the money you can buy what you want.......who is to stay what you can buy?

This does not seem right from any standpoint to me unless I am missing something?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Remember, kids. It’s only socialism when the other guy does it. Fortunately, Trump is not, in fact, a king and cannot unilaterally write the law so this is more or less symbolic.

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-signs-order-restrict-wall-street-firms-buying-single-family-homes-2026-01-21/

More or less, these orders are forceful prompts to Congress to get their asses moving on meaningful legislation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

IDK, I, like Taz, think its bluster. Unenforceable and frankly stupid. What is he going to do with investors that build subdivisions? Not well thought out.

See previous post.

 

[Concerned American]

I don't get it, if you have the money you can buy what you want.......who is to stay what you can buy?

This does not seem right from any standpoint to me unless I am missing something?

The only possible way to accomplish this is to somehow hook it into the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Just too much gray area. I like the premise on its face, but I don't know how they would make it work and I don't know that it aligns with the freedoms that we're guaranteed as Americans.

 

[Concerned American]

See previous post.

I agree.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't get it, if you have the money you can buy what you want.......who is to stay what you can buy?

This does not seem right from any standpoint to me unless I am missing something?

you can,,

but big corp. using funny money shouldnt be allowed to control residential housing,,

trump is the first POTUS I have seen try and bust a monopoly,,

The only possible way to accomplish this is to somehow hook it into the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Just too much gray area. I like the premise on its face, but I don't know how they would make it work and I don't know that it aligns with the freedoms that we're guaranteed as Americans.

beings that corporations are a creation of government and exist under more regs that hairs on a goats ass I dont see why this cant be one more regulation,,

 

[egp320i]

you can,,

but big corp. using funny money shouldnt be allowed to control residential housing,,

trump is the first POTUS I have seen try and bust a monopoly,,

beings that corporations are a creation of government and exist under more regs that hairs on a goats ass I dont see why this cant be one more regulation,,

From what you stated this a good thing, dems will bash it like they always do even if it benefits everybody

 

[progressive hunter]

From what you stated this a s good thing, dems will bash it like they always do even if it benefits everybody

they have never been on the side of the people,,