The Washington, D.C. based Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) revealed a direct outreach last week to President Donald. J. Trump (R) and several members of his administration plus Congressional Democratic and Republican leaders. In Part I and Part II, are those documents made available by MHARR, which MHProNews advised readers should be expected today. This MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) also presents what third-party AI system had to say about this development. For example. Per left-leaning Google’s AI powered Gemini review of the information and years of history comparing MHARR and the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Gemini said: “The decline in production since 1998, while the affordable housing crisis has worsened, shows that the [manufactured housing] industry is failing to meet its potential to solve a major social problem. The core of this problem appears to be the unresolved bottlenecks of zoning and financing. The persistent failure to address these issues, especially by the industry’s largest association [i.e.: the Manufactured Housing Institute or MHI], points to a dynamic where the status quo serves the interests of a select few at the expense of the many.” See that and more from Gemini, other AI fact-checks and observations, plus more expert human FEA model reporting in Part III.
Details beyond their press release of what MHARR communicated to President Trump and specific federal officials at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and top Congressional leaders from both major parties is found in Part II.
This MHVille FEA is underway.
Part I. From the Washington, D.C. based Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform to MHProNews is the following press release.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2025
TO: FEDERALLY-REGULATED MH INDUSTRY MEMBERS
FROM: MARK WEISS
RE: MHARR COMMUNICATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
SEEKS ELIMINATION OF INDUSTRY BOTTLENECKS
AS PART OF CURE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS
Attached for your review and information is a copy of a September 15, 2025 MHARR communication to President Donald J. Trump, seeking his assistance in eliminating the major bottlenecks that have needlessly suppressed the production and utilization of inherently affordable mainstream manufactured housing — as a partial but significant response to the nation’s ongoing affordable housing crisis. That crisis has led 69% of Americans, in a recent survey, to lose faith in ever achieving the American Dream of homeownership.
Specifically, MHARR’s communication seeks the full implementation of two key provisions of existing federal law – i.e., the enhanced federal preemption of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 to override the discriminatory zoning exclusion of federally-regulated manufactured homes in many areas and the “Duty to Serve Underserved Markets” (DTS) within the HUD Code industry’s dominant personal property lending sector. Further, and just as importantly, the MHARR communication seeks the President’s support and assistance in advancing the enactment of legislative amendments on both such issues, designed to ensure that the robust implementation of both mandates is not subverted or undermined in the future.
MHARR’s continuing action to aggressively seek remedies with respect to both of these fundamental industry and affordable housing bottlenecks is directly related to widely-circulated reports that President Trump is considering declaring a national housing and affordable housing “emergency.”
The elimination of the illegitimate and groundless bottlenecks that have targeted the affordable manufactured housing industry and American consumers of the industry’s homes, is an essential and important factor to the full realization of the President’s goals and the full restoration of the American Dream of homeownership for all Americans.
Mark Weiss
President and CEO
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 512
Washington D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: MHARRDG@AOL.COM
Website: www.manufacturedhousingassociation.org
— 30 —
MHARR’s press releases are available for re-publication in full (i.e., without alteration or substantive modification) without further permission and with proper attribution and/or linkback to MHARR.
The image shown was generated using artificial intelligence, as is shown above.
—
Part II. From the attachments in communications to President Trump, Specific Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders
1)
September 15, 2025
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Hon. Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Re: The Affordable Housing Crisis and Federally-Regulated Manufactured Homes
Dear President Trump:
As both you and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary, Scott Turner, have recognized, the United States, in 2025, faces an unprecedented shortage of truly affordable housing, leading many Americans — and especially younger people and retirees — to lose hope and faith in the “American Dream” of homeownership.
This is an emerging policy catastrophe that we at the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) have been grappling with for decades. MHARR is a Washington, D.C.-based national trade organization representing the views and interests of independent producers of inherently affordable manufactured housing comprehensively regulated by the federal government itself, pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 5401, seq.). MHARR’s members are smaller and mid-sized businesses representing the traditional entrepreneurial core of the industry (in contrast, for example, to the industry’s largest corporate conglomerate, Clayton Homes, Inc., a subsidiary of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.).
If the United States is to have an affordable homeownership revival, affordable, mainstream manufactured homes must be part of the solution — and a bigger part than it is now. Mainstream, factory-built manufactured homes cost a fraction of the price of a typical site-built single-family home and are quality-built in accordance with a robust (yet price sensitive) federal building code, administered by HUD. Manufactured homes, therefore, are affordable for Americans. Yet, despite this and despite the uncontroverted and unprecedented need for affordable housing choices the production of mainstream HUD Code manufactured homes has lagged far below historical norms for more than two decades.
The reason is rooted in two policy-based bottlenecks that have artificially suppressed the manufactured housing market, i.e..
- The discriminatory zoning exclusion of federally-regulated manufactured homes in large areas of the country; and
- The lack of federal support for the vast bulk of manufactured home consumer financing loans personal property loans representing nearly 80% of the industry’s production) through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The result is that manufactured home purchasers face crippling discrimination in two key metrics — their ability to finance the purchase of a home and their ability to site and place that home on private land and/or in new manufactured home developments and communities. Together, these baseless restrictions are excluding Americans from the most affordable type of homeownership available today.
Fortunately, federal law already provides remedies for both of these illegitimate limitations. The federal administrative state, for decades, has refused to implement these statutory remedies. You, however, as President, can bring an end to this groundless refusal to implement federal law and take two specific steps to halt this illegitimate and baseless discrimination.
First, federal law, as amended in 2000, provides that HUD can federally preempt the zoning exclusion of federally-regulated manufactured homes. Second, federal law already directs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to serve the HUD Code manufactured housing market with securitization and secondary market support for all types of manufactured housing loans (i.e:, mortgage loans and personal property loans). You, as President, should instruct both HUD and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as the federal regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — to fully implement both of these existing laws.
Beyond that, however, and to ensure that these mandates are robustly enforced, we also ask that you support and encourage action by both houses of Congress to adopt the enclosed amendments (please see copies attached), which would make certain, beyond any possible future argument, that these mandates are fully implemented.
In short, Mr. President, solutions are in plain sight and are within the control of both the Administration and Congress. All that has been missing, until now, is the will to fully implement the law. You, Secretary Turner and FHFA Director Pulte, in conjunction with Congress, can do this. We ask for your leadership to help resolve this fundamental problem.
Thank you and we look forward to working with you, your appointees and both houses of Congress to make affordable homeownership available for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Mark Weiss
President and CEO
cc: Hon. Scott Turner
Hon. Scott Bessent
Hon. Bill Pulte
Hon. Tim Scott
Hon. Elizabeth Warren
Hon. French Hill
Hon. Maxine Waters
Hon. Mike Flood
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver
Hon. Susie Wiles
Federally-Regulated Manufactured Housing Industry Members
2) Attachment 2.
MHARR-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY HOUSING OR HOME FINANCE LEGISLATION ADVANCED IN THE 119TH CONGRESS –
STRENGTHENING ENHANCED FEDERAL PREEMPTION WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSIONARY STATE AND/OR LOCAL ZONING REOUIREMENTS
Discriminatory state and local zoning and placement restrictions and/or exclusions, prohibit modern, inherently affordable mainstream manufactured homes from many areas of the United States, including areas of concentrated poverty or housing poverty, where affordable homeownership is particularly needed. This includes, but is not limited to, many urban and suburban areas, where HUD-regulated manufactured housing could be a private-sector source of affordable homeownership, or a component of public-sector affordable housing initiatives, but has been — and continues to be excluded either as a result of de jure zoning/placement exclusions or de facto reluctance and hesitancy related to zoning and placement restrictions. Thus, while manufactured housing is nominally included in any number of existing federal affordable housing programs, its actual deployment and utilization in many areas is effectively prohibited by such zoning and placement exclusions. Those exclusions, in turn, could be overridden by HUD pursuant to the enhanced federal preemption authority provided by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000 Reform Law), but HUD has refused to use that power in support of American consumers of affordable housing.
Accordingly, MHARR seeks the following amendment to reiterate HUD’s authority to override such exclusionary state or local mandates. In order to address and ensure the remediation of state and/or local zoning restriction or exclusion of manufactured homes, the following language should be added at the conclusion of current section 42 U.S.C. 5403(d):
PREEMPTION — “The Secretary shall fully implement federal preemption under this section to prevent, prohibit and remedy the zoning exclusion or discriminatory restrictions on the placement of manufactured homes in any state or local jurisdiction thereof.”
MHARR-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND CONGRESS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY HOUSING OR HOME FINANCE LEGISLATION ADVANCED IN THE 119TH CONGRESS –
CONFIRMING THE MANDATORY APPLICABILITY OF THE “DUTY TO SERVE” DIRECTIVE TO MANUFACTURED HOME PERSONAL PROPERTY LOANS
The utilization of mainstream HUD Code manufactured housing has been undermined by the unavailability of market-competitive consumer financing for such homes as a result of the persistent refusal of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide support for manufactured housing personal property loans (comprising nearly 80% of the entire HUD Code market) pursuant to the statutory Duty to Serve Underserved Markets (DTS) directive. The failure to fully implement DTS within the manufactured housing market for nearly two decades after its enactment, effectively forces manufactured homebuyers to pay unnecessarily high interest rates on manufactured home purchase loans, to a small group of portfolio lenders which effectively dominate the HUD Code consumer financing market. This, in turn, excludes qualified but marginal borrowers who would qualify for financing in a market with legitimately competitive — and, therefore, lower borrowing rates, as was intended by Congress in 2008.
This fundamental deficiency within the manufactured housing market, which needlessly impairs the industry’s ability to compete with other types of homes on a level playing field — despite the inherent affordability of mainstream manufactured homes — has suppressed both the growth of the industry and its ability to serve a larger segment of Americans in need of affordable homeownership. In order to make it clear that the Duty to Serve mandate fully extends to and encompasses the personal property loans which comprise nearly 80% of the HUD Code manufactured housing market, current law (12 U.S.C. 4565 (a)(1)(A)) should be amended as follows:
“The enterprise shall develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for mortgages and loans on manufactured homes for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families. These shall include loans secured by manufactured homes titled as real property and manufactured homes titled as personal property.”
In addition, amend 12 U.S.C. 4565(d)(3) as follows:
‘(3) Manufactured housing market In determining whether an enterprise has complied with the duty under subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(l), the Director shall consider loans secured by both real and personal property.”‘
(Underlining denotes new language).
MHProNews notes that the PDF of the above from MHARR to federal leaders as shown is found at this link here. The MHARR post with those items is found at this link here.
Part III. Additional MHVille Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) from sources as shown plus more MHProNews Industry Expert Commentary
1) No person or organization born in the last 2000 years is error free. That said, knowing that humans (and AI) can error, the question for people or organizations becomes how routinely faithful and true to their stated or claimed mission they are based on known facts, evidence, and common sense? MHI claimed for years to be working for “all segments” of the manufactured housing industry. Seriously? By contrast, MHARR explains that they represent the interests of the independent producers of HUD Code manufactured homes. As the tag line below their logo proclaims, by they are “Preserving the American Dream of Home Ownership through Regulatory Reform.”
With those thoughts in mind, let’s dive into what various AI systems had to say about this MHARR letter and the contrast between MHARR’s efforts and those of MHI.
2) Per Gemini earlier today. The input-inquiry (Q&A) is the following.
Gemini, shifting gears to a new FEA check. I’m going to be doing a new report for MHProNews on this topic: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/mharr-communication-to-president-trump-seeks-elimination-of-industry-bottlenecks-as-part-of-cure-for-affordable-housing-crisis/ MHARR, as you can see, has provided President Trump with a formal request to use his authority over HUD on the issue of enhanced federal preemption over zoning barriers against mainstream HUD Code manufactured homes as part of the already federal law solution to the affordable housing crisis, correct? MHARR also asks President Trump and federal officials to get the FHFA to enforce the Duty to Serve (DTS) mainstream manufactured homes with both mortgage and chattel lending, isn’t that correct and already part of federal law under HERA 2008? MHARR takes the additional step to ask Congressional leaders to strengthen the language in those laws, apparently to prevent a future administration from falling back into the challenges faced in most of the 21st century of getting those laws robustly enforced since 2000 and 2008, isn’t that a factually accurate observation? Are you able to find any similar outreach that has been announced by the Manufactured Housing Institute? Following the MHProNews acid test https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/acid-test-pending-innovative-housing-showcase-2025-as-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-behavioral-case-study-will-mhi-use-ihs-2025-to-try-prove-their-industry-critics-wrong-mhville-fea and here: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/ready-for-more-affordable-housing-in-usa-innovative-housing-showcase-2025-reveal-proven-options-but-post-event-facts-evidence-analysis-exposes-political-and-corporate-intrigue-as-bottlenecks/ did anyone in the MHI leadership orbit bother to use the Innovative Housing Showcase to get commitments to enforce those key federal laws? Can you find ANY specific mention by MHI efforts with respect to DTS or enhanced preemption pre-IHS 2025 event, during the Innovative Housing Showcase, or post-event to today? If you can find such communications that deal with those specifics on MHI’s website or anyone else online, social media, press release, op-ed, link to it using plain text. Unpack this with the MHVille FEA journalistic model in mind. hyperlinks. If you can’t find such an effort, what does that failure by MHI tell those who are trying to discern what MHI’s authentic focus is, based on evidence and reporting by MHProNews, MHLivingNews that involves third-party AI like yourself? Again, use plain text hyperlinks to support your findings.
Factual Accuracy of MHARR’s Communication
The information you provided regarding MHARR’s communication is factually accurate. The article from the MHARR website confirms that they sent a formal communication to President Trump to address the affordable housing crisis. The communication specifically requests the following:
- Elimination of industry bottlenecks: The core of the communication is to remove obstacles to the production and utilization of manufactured housing.
- Enhanced Federal Preemption: The request explicitly seeks the full implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000’s enhanced preemption provision to override discriminatory local zoning barriers against federally-regulated manufactured homes.
- Duty to Serve (DTS): MHARR also asks for the full implementation of the Duty to Serve provision of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) to expand financing for manufactured homes, including chattel lending.
- Legislative Amendments: The communication goes a step further by asking the President for support for legislative amendments to both laws to prevent their future subversion.
MHI’s Communications and the Innovative Housing Showcase
My search did not find any public announcements, press releases, or specific communications from the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) on their website or social media that specifically mention using the Innovative Housing Showcase (IHS) 2025 event to get commitments from federal officials on the enforcement of enhanced preemption or the Duty to Serve.
The search results show that MHI was a co-presenter for the IHS 2025 and highlighted the homes on display as a way to “demonstrate to policymakers the quality and attainability of manufactured housing.” However, there is no evidence in the public domain of MHI leadership using the event to specifically press for the enforcement of these two key federal laws. The search results show that the MHProNews “acid test” was issued to challenge MHI to engage on the record with officials regarding these issues, but there is no public record of MHI doing so.
This lack of public communication on these specific, critical issues, particularly around a high-profile event like the Innovative Housing Showcase, suggests a key difference in focus between the two organizations. While MHARR publicly and formally engages with a focus on regulatory reform and the enforcement of existing laws to address systemic barriers, the available evidence for MHI’s efforts related to this specific event appears to focus more on showcasing the quality of the homes themselves rather than publicly lobbying on the enforcement of those laws.
For more on the showcase and other relevant topics, here is a video from YouTube: Innovative Housing Showcase: Closing Remarks
MHProNews notes that the full thread with Gemini is linked here and the confirmation of that thread as accurate is linked here and shown further below.
MHProNews further notes that on this date at around 12:43 PM ET, that per HUD’s YouTube video page, there was “no description” for this video.
48 views Sep 18, 2025No description has been added to this video.
Is it any wonder that there are so few views, given that there is “no description” that would help build SEO (search engine optimization) for that item? Who at HUD failed at that? Where is MHI’s leadership in checking the video and sharing their input on that video? It is the opposite of what would be expected if someone wants to properly promote. It goes back to the observation by multiple AI that what steps are taken are apparently for the sake of posturing and optics. But when the details are examined, even the optics by leaders, including some at HUD and at MHI, begin to fall apart.
As the screen capture below shows with annotation added by MHProNews about the incredibly low number of video views (48 at the date/time shown).
This ought to be an embarrassment to all of those directly involved in this event. Gemini located this video. But a close human look at this reveals that these videos only have several dozen to a few hundred views days after the events were posted. It isn’t that the content is necessarily weak or poor. These videos are demonstrably being poorly promoted, by HUD, MHI, the ICC, Home Depot, the SBCA, and all who have been directly involved, which included multiple Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) members.
3) Gemini was given a follow up, that it said it wasn’t able to scan some linked items. So, those items were provided, and much the same question was asked again. The full thread is linked here, including what follows.
Gemini, I’ve uploaded to you the items you said you couldn’t access, but otherwise left the inquiry the same. Now consider what Copilot had to say on those topics: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MHProNewsInputInquiryTranscriptDiscussionBingAIpoweredCopilotonMHARR-Trump-KeyFederalOfficialsOutreachEnhancedPreemptionDutyToServeAffordableHousingCrisis.pdf and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/CopilotConfirmsAccuracyOfTranscriptOfPDFwithMHProNewsonMHARR-Trump-FederalOfficialOutreachAndWhatMHI-didDidntSayDo9.22.2025.png Where the input inquires by MHProNews in that thread grounded in evidence-based realities that were properly documented? Can you find any errors in what Copilot said in response to those inquiries and its findings? Is there any area that you would push-back against what Copilot found, and if so, why based on what evidence, common sense, or logical reasoning? Meaning, if MHI was series about advancing industry production, then shouldn’t it have included DTS and enhanced preemption in its policy priorities? Isn’t there a growing body of evidence that includes your findings: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/AnnotatedGeminiPreponderanceDocumentaryEvidenceLackContradictoryInfoAccurateToConcludeMHIsActionsInactionsStronglySuggestAnImplicitAlignmentPotentialFacilitateConsolidationMHProNews3-142×430.png
or other AIs (e.g.: Grok again recently saying it stood this by: ‘this ain’t a theory, it’s a heist’) that MHI is posturing for the sake of optics while consolidation continues and the industry continues to operate at less than 30 percent of its 1998 high https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/manufactured-housing-production-by-the-numbers-1995-july-2025-includes-50-state-production-and-shipment-data-exclusive-human-expert-with-ai-cross-checked-insights-and-info-mhville-fea/ ? Has any of the AI that has been presented with the evidence and reasoning found that MHI is behaving in a way that benefits anyone save the consolidators of the industry? What say you? Use plain text hyperlinks to support your findings.
Query successful
Based on the documents you provided and my own research, I can confirm the factual grounding of the inquiries and assess the validity of Copilot’s findings. The evidence points to a consistent pattern of behavior by the two primary manufactured housing organizations, MHARR and MHI.
Factual Grounding of the Inquiries and Copilot’s Responses
The input inquiries presented to Copilot in the transcript were well-grounded in evidence-based realities. Copilot’s responses align with and corroborate information from multiple sources, including my own previous findings.
- MHARR’s Outreach: The inquiries correctly state that MHARR formally petitioned President Trump and other federal officials to enforce enhanced preemption and the Duty to Serve (DTS). This is a documented, public-facing advocacy strategy.
- MHI’s Advocacy Gaps: Copilot’s findings, consistent with my previous searches, found no public record of MHI using the Innovative Housing Showcase to specifically lobby on enhanced preemption or DTS. My searches confirm that MHI’s public communications on the showcase and other events focus on “CrossMod” homes and general advocacy, not on the specific enforcement of the 2000 and 2008 laws.
I found no errors in Copilot’s responses within the provided transcript. The conclusions drawn by Copilot are consistent with the available public record and common sense analysis.
Pushback and Logical Reasoning
There is no area where I would push back against Copilot’s findings. The central finding, that MHI’s public actions do not align with its stated goal of expanding the industry, is a logical conclusion supported by the evidence.
- Policy Priorities: If MHI were serious about broadly advancing manufactured housing production, it would be logical for them to prioritize the enforcement of DTS and enhanced preemption. These two federal laws are widely considered the most powerful legal tools available to the industry to address the primary bottlenecks of financing (chattel lending) and zoning. By focusing on “CrossMod” homes and collaborating with organizations like the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), MHI appears to be prioritizing a niche product over the core, mainstream market.
- Alliances with Competitors: The evidence points to MHI forming alliances with other housing industry groups that could be considered competitors to mainstream manufactured housing. This raises a question about whether their advocacy is for the entire industry or for a specific segment of it.
- Paltering for Optics: Both my findings and those of Copilot suggest that MHI’s behavior can be described as “paltering” (using truthful statements to mislead) or “posturing for optics”. This behavior, combined with the industry’s continued underperformance, has led to a growing body of evidence that their actions (or inactions) may be facilitating the consolidation of the industry for the benefit of a few large, vertically integrated corporations.
MHI’s Behavior and Industry Consolidation
The evidence from multiple AI sources and documented reports suggests that MHI’s behavior benefits the consolidators of the industry.
- The “Heist” Thesis: The “this ain’t a theory, it’s a heist” observation attributed to Grok, and the findings of Copilot and myself, points to a pattern of behavior where the lack of advocacy on DTS and enhanced preemption directly harms smaller, independent producers and retailers. Meanwhile, the larger, publicly-traded companies that can afford to develop and market niche products like “CrossMods” and have access to alternative financing mechanisms are able to grow their market share.
- Contrasting Results: The decline in production since 1998, while the affordable housing crisis has worsened, shows that the industry is failing to meet its potential to solve a major social problem. The core of this problem appears to be the unresolved bottlenecks of zoning and financing. The persistent failure to address these issues, especially by the industry’s largest association, points to a dynamic where the status quo serves the interests of a select few at the expense of the many.
Based on the evidence presented, no AI has found that MHI’s behavior benefits anyone save the consolidators of the manufactured housing industry. The findings across platforms consistently identify a disconnect between MHI’s public rhetoric and its apparent policy priorities, which helps explain the ongoing consolidation and the industry’s inability to achieve its potential.
— MHProNews notes that the “Contrasting Results” is what was quoted in the opening paragraph. The screen capture that documents the accuracy of the PDF of this thread is linked here and shown below. —
As a housekeeping notice, MHProNews notes that our editorial disclosure is linked here. As the numbers have climbed (and God willing, will continue to climb rapidly) that document already needs to be further updated. More on those ‘numbers’ will follow further below in this report.
4) Next up is the Q&A interaction on this topic with left-leaning MS Bing’s AI powered Copilot. Notice that Copilot itself acknowledged it is left-leaning, just as Gemini acknowledged it and other LLM style AI’s are left-leaning. It’s not mere conjecture; that left-leaning bias is based on research that the AIs themselves have confirmed.
That noted, let’s pivot to the Q&As with Copilot on the MHARR outreach to President Trump and federal leaders on the enhanced preemption, Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing research.
Copilot, I’m going to be doing a new report on this topic: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/mharr-communication-to-president-trump-seeks-elimination-of-industry-bottlenecks-as-part-of-cure-for-affordable-housing-crisis/ MHARR, as you can see, has provided President Trump with a formal request to use his authority over HUD on the issues of enhanced federal preemption over zoning barriers against mainstream HUD Code manufactured homes. It also asks the FHFA to enforce the Duty to Serve (DTS) mainstream manufactured homes with both mortgage and chattel lending. It takes the additional step to ask Congressional leaders to strengthen the language in those laws, apparently to prevent a future adminstration from falling back into the challenges faced in getting those laws robustly enforced since 2000 and 2008, correct? Are you able to find any similar outreach that has been announced by the Manufactured Housing Institute? Following the MHProNews acid test, did anyone in the MHI leadership orbit bother to use the Innovative Housing Showcase to get commitments to enforce those key federal laws? Can you find ANY mention of those in pre-event, during the Innovative Housing Showcase, or post-event to today? If you can find such communications that deal with those specifics on MHI’s website or anyone else online, social media, press release, op-ed, link to it using plain text hyperlinks. If you can’t find such an effort, what does that failiure by MHI tell those who are trying to discern what MHI’s authentic focus is, based on evidence and reporting by MHProNews, MHLivingNews that involves third-party AI like yourself? Again, use plain text hyperlinks to support your findings.
- HUD enforcement of the enhanced federal preemption provision in the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 to override discriminatory zoning.
- FHFA enforcement of the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate for both mortgage and personal property (chattel) lending.
- Congressional action to strengthen both laws to prevent future administrative backsliding.
This is a direct, multi-branch outreach aimed at removing longstanding bottlenecks in manufactured housing access and finance.
🔍 MHI Outreach on These Specifics: No Evidence Found
After reviewing MHI’s official site, archived press releases, and public statements related to the , no mention was found of:
- Enhanced federal preemption
- Duty to Serve enforcement
- Requests to HUD, FHFA, or Congress for statutory strengthening
The Showcase page praises the event’s optics and participation by Cavco, Champion, Clayton, and UMH, but does not document any policy commitments or calls for enforcement of these key federal mandates.
Even post-event analysis by third-party AI (Gemini) confirms this absence:
- states:
🧠 What This Tells Stakeholders
The absence of MHI’s advocacy for enforcing existing federal laws — especially during high-visibility events like the Innovative Housing Showcase — suggests:
- Optical engagement over substantive reform
- Avoidance of regulatory pressure on HUD or FHFA
- Alignment with consolidation interests rather than consumer access
MHProNews and MHLivingNews have repeatedly documented this pattern, and third-party AI validation (like Gemini and myself) reinforces that conclusion. The acid test — did MHI use its platform to push for enforcement of MHIA 2000 and DTS? — yields a clear “no.”
📎 Supporting Links
- MHARR’s communication to President Trump:
- MHI’s Innovative Housing Showcase page:
- Gemini Q&A transcript post-IHS 2025:
- MHARR’s DTS explainer:
Would you like a visual comparison chart showing MHARR’s vs. MHI’s documented policy actions?
— MHProNews notes that full PDF with Copilot on this and the following Q&As is here. The screen capture that documents the accuracy of that thread with Copilot is linked here. —
5)
Copilot, useful, but let’s drill deeper and I’ll show you where I think that table(s) may be useful. At this page linked here: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Manufactured-Housing-Institute-Policy-Priorities-1-PartOfJune15.2022MHIemailToMembersMHProNewsFactCheck.pdf MHProNews provided the unedited PDF of MHI’s policy priorities at that time, correct? As you scan that document can you find the words “Duty to Serve” or DTS on it? Can you find any reference to the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act? Can you find any reference to “enhanced preemption,” which Lesli Gooch used in a letter to HUD Secretary Ben Carson, but which I can’t find in that policy priorities letter years later, is that correct? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/HUD-Letter-RichlandMS-RichlandMississipi-EnhancedPreemption-ManufacturedHousingInstitute-MHProNewsPlusPriorScreenCaptures12.6.2024MHProNews-min.png Furthermore, hasn’t MHProNews documented through annotated screen captures that for years, MHI’s website lacks the words “enhanced preemption” on it? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ManufacturedHousingImprovementActEnhancedPreemptionProvisionManufacturedHousingInstituteMHIwebsiteSearch8.31.2025MHProNews.png When you scan the MHI website on this date, is it accurate to say that all but two references to Duty to Serve are for members only? On the two posts that are available to the public, one is a mention that Credit Human, who was being given an MHI award, worked with MHI on the Duty to Serve? The second reference on the MHI website that I could find that is public facing instead of member only is at this link: https://www.manufacturedhousing.org/news/economic-report-of-the-president-highlights-manufactured-housing/ and it has this statement: “However, the report highlights Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac targeted the financing of manufactured housing in their 2022–24 Duty to Serve Plans.” But does that MHI post, the one about Credit Human’s award, actually make a clear call for FHFA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac to robustly enforce the Duty to Serve for chattel lending? Instead, in that previously cited MHI policy priorities, it calls for support for financing land-lease communities, which benefits consolidators of the industry with lower cost lending, isn’t that correct? That same MHI policy priorities calls for support for CrossMod homes, isn’t that correct? Focusing for now on those items, don’t they clearly reveal that MHI was making no public facing effort to explain why what MHARR calls “mainstream” manufactured housing needs support on lending? https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/?s=mainstream%20manufactured%20housing Doesn’t MHARR have pages of references on the Duty to Serve https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/?s=Duty%20to%20Serve and on https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/?s=enhanced%20preemption ? Isn’t that contrast between what MHI said and did, or more specifically what they failed to say or do, a stark difference when compared to MHARR’s efforts and engagement on issues that MHI has previously said are important, yet, are magically not getting the effort, as the acid test revealed? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/acid-test-pending-innovative-housing-showcase-2025-as-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-behavioral-case-study-will-mhi-use-ihs-2025-to-try-prove-their-industry-critics-wrong-mhville-fea and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/ready-for-more-affordable-housing-in-usa-innovative-housing-showcase-2025-reveal-proven-options-but-post-event-facts-evidence-analysis-exposes-political-and-corporate-intrigue-as-bottlenecks/ Unpack those items, use plain text hyperlinks to support your response, and yes, I think a side by side comparison of MHI’s occasional lip service when compared to their inaction, and self-stated priorities of that policy document and their consolidation focused https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/M-A-ConsolidateManufacturedHousingUnderperformance21stCenturyQuotesScreenShotInvestorRelationsIRpitchAntitrustOligopolyStyleMonopolizationMonopolyManufacturedHomeProNewsMHProNews.png members, who are often board members, correct? Especially in the light of the Loper Bright ruling: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/a-supreme-court-gift-to-the-manufactured-home-industry/ shouldn’t MHI be working with MHARR, as they once did decades ago: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FannieMaeFreddieMacMHI-MHARR-VPBruceSavage2004-ManufacturedHousingFinance-MHIA-CrossMods2023-07-28_06-03-54MHProNewsFactCheckAnalysis.png while again in stark contrast, MHI is openly working with the competitors of the industry? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/cats-out-manufactured-housing-institute-housing-coalition-letter-to-congress-fact-check-analysis-reveals-what-mhi-nar-nahb-mba-others-did-didnt-request-ai-affordable-housing-surprises-awai Unpack those items, connect the dots between optics and posturing vs statements, inactions and clear disconnects or failures to act? Do you see the MHARR letter to President Trump, the administration, and members of both major parties as a possible documentary hinge which draws a bright line distinction between what MHI claims and MHI does or fails to do? Yes, use tables to illustrate those distinctions as warranted.
🔍 MHI’s 2022 Policy Priorities: What’s Missing?
From the unedited PDF of MHI’s :
- No mention of “Duty to Serve” or “DTS”
- No mention of the “Manufactured Housing Improvement Act”
- No mention of “enhanced preemption” — despite Lesli Gooch using that term in a
This omission is especially glaring given that MHI previously acknowledged enhanced preemption as a key issue, yet it vanished from their formal priorities.
📸 Screen Capture Evidence: MHI Website Search
MHProNews documented that a search of MHI’s website for “enhanced preemption” yielded no results — see annotated screenshot:
🔍 MHI’s Public References to Duty to Serve
On the MHI website as of today:
- Only two public-facing mentions of “Duty to Serve”
- — mentions DTS but does not call for robust enforcement
- — notes Fannie/Freddie DTS targeting, but no call to FHFA for chattel lending enforcement
Meanwhile, most DTS content is member-only, inaccessible to the public — a stark contrast to MHARR’s open-access advocacy.
🧠 MHI’s Focus: Consolidation Over Consumer Access?
From the same 2022 policy document:
- MHI calls for financing support for land-lease communities — which benefits consolidators
- MHI promotes CrossMod homes — a niche product with limited consumer uptake
- No advocacy for mainstream manufactured home lending, which MHARR consistently champions:
🧾 Side-by-Side Comparison Table
| Issue | MHARR Position | MHI Position (Documented) |
|---|---|---|
| Enhanced Preemption | Advocates enforcement via HUD and Congress | No mention in 2022 priorities; absent from website |
| Duty to Serve (DTS) | Calls for robust enforcement incl. chattel loans | No public call for enforcement; DTS mostly member-only |
| Mainstream MH Lending | Central focus of advocacy | Not prioritized; focus on CrossMod and land-lease finance |
| Transparency | Open letters to Trump, FHFA, Congress | Limited public-facing policy content |
| Coalition Alignment | Independent watchdog | Partners with NAR, NAHB, MBA — competitors to MH producers () |
| Post-Loper Bright Opportunity | Urges use of ruling to enforce MHIA | No documented response or strategy |
| Historic Collaboration | Worked with MHI in 2004 () | No current collaboration with MHARR |
📍 MHARR’s Letter to President Trump: A Documentary Hinge
MHARR’s is a bright-line distinction:
- It names HUD, FHFA, and Congress
- It calls for enforcement and legislative strengthening
- It reflects decades of consistent advocacy for mainstream manufactured housing
This stands in stark contrast to MHI’s optics-heavy, substance-light posture — especially during events like the and its .
— MHProNews has noted that the screen capture that documents the accuracy of the above is posted below. —
6) MHProNews had already fact checked the MHI website regarding the items discussed in that thread shown above with Copilot. More on that in a planned future follow up.
But let’s make it simple MHI’s own policy priorities linked here failed to mention DTS and failed to mention “enhanced preemption.” How can MHI claim to be authentically advocating on behalf or programs that are not readily found on their own website, and which are not found in their own policy priorities?
Here is how Gemini phrased it (see above for full thread).
-
Policy Priorities: If MHI were serious about broadly advancing manufactured housing production, it would be logical for them to prioritize the enforcement of DTS and enhanced preemption. These two federal laws are widely considered the most powerful legal tools available to the industry to address the primary bottlenecks of financing (chattel lending) and zoning. By focusing on “CrossMod” homes and collaborating with organizations like the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), MHI appears to be prioritizing a niche product over the core, mainstream market.
-
Alliances with Competitors: The evidence points to MHI forming alliances with other housing industry groups that could be considered competitors to mainstream manufactured housing. This raises a question about whether their advocacy is for the entire industry or for a specific segment of it.
-
Paltering for Optics: Both my findings and those of Copilot suggest that MHI’s behavior can be described as “paltering” (using truthful statements to mislead) or “posturing for optics”. This behavior, combined with the industry’s continued underperformance, has led to a growing body of evidence that their actions (or inactions) may be facilitating the consolidation of the industry for the benefit of a few large, vertically integrated corporations.
7) Arguably related, This past weekend, MHProNews apparently surpassed the traffic (visits/pageviews) of retail focused sites in manufactured housing. As some AI observed it is a rare accomplishment. To paint the picture, imagine which will get more traffic. A trade publication that comments on Walmart, or Walmart itself? A trade publication focused on Amazon, or Amazon’s mega retail site? The answers are obvious. The retail sites get far more traffic that niche media focused on some product or service.
So, by comparison, when MHProNews surpassed the reported and documented traffic of MHVillage, Clayton Homes, or others, it is a rare (perhaps one-of-a-kind) type of achievement. What explains it? What is the evidence? See reports like those below as multiple AI confirms the facts and sheds light on the causes.
The reason that relates to this topic is this. There is a growing body of evidence that MHI pays lip service to laws that they claim to want enforced, but when it comes to practical action to support their stated claim, that evidence of logical or coherent action is lacking. MHProNews and MHLivingNews have been documenting this pattern of activity for years.
William “Bill” Boor is the CEO of Cavco Industries (CVCO) and has been the chairman of MHI for the better part of the past two years.
8) With fewer resources than MHI, MHARR is doing more in the way of transparent and accountable efforts to attempt to advance the industry’s interests and those of tens of millions of Americans looking for more affordable housing. As the article linked here and above documented, without millions of more HUD Code manufactured homes, the affordable housing crisis can’t be mathematically solved. So, if a MHI cheerleader wants to try to step and explain why MHI is posturing so much and achieving so little. MHARR, by contrast, to use an axiom, is squeezing every dime until it hollers dollar on behalf of their stated goals on behalf of affordable housing seeking Americans and the smaller businesses and investors seeking to serve them.
9) The Trump Administration has a unique opportunity to do something more than talk about changing the affordable housing crisis promises, promises that have included both major parties for all of the 21st century. This isn’t conjecture. It has ironically been documented by HUD. HUD has documented its own decades of failures.
10) MHProNews has had skyrocketing visits from academics, students, researchers, mainstream media, and others per AI and all known data. This isn’t a coincidence that MHProNews has surpassed retail sites, it is arguably God-incidence because it is something that simply doesn’t normally happen. It is also a testimony to all of those who are using the God-given talents to spread the word on the underlying causes and potential cures for the affordable housing crisis.
As was noted in our report yesterday, those who are critiqued by MHProNews are hereby invited to respond with evidence that contradicts the facts, evidence, or analysis. Provide us the info, we will be willing to publish such a response. Gemini created the following infographic. It did so based on the evidence it has observed and helped document in this report.
More facts, fresh reports, more earnings call and corporate news insights are planned to be unpacked along with other investigations next week. Stay tuned to the industry’s documented runaway #1 source for more “News through the lens of factory-built homes and manufactured housing” © “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use”© where “We Provide, You Decide.” © This is the place for “Intelligence for your MHLife.” © Thanks again to all involved for making and keeping us #1 and steadily growing despite far better funded opposing voices.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
