Opening with references to the recent Artemis II’s Orion trip around the Moon and “a jolt of patriotic exuberance far too uncommon in these tribalistic times” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-D) aimed to stir up love of country and the ability to travel safely around the Moon and back as a reason why Congress ought to be able to solve the lack of affordable housing crisis plaguing tens of millions of Americans. “Surely, if those hardworking scientists can land a capsule the size of an RV, hurtling hundreds of thousands of miles through space, delicately into the Pacific Ocean, then we in Congress can move this desperately needed bill across the finish line and deliver affordable housing to the American people,” stated Rep. Cleaver in an op-ed that will be cited further below. From the Republican side of the political aisle, Politico (see Part I) reported that President Donald J. Trump (R) is objecting to some provisions in the Senate bill. From Part II are insights from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) which starting from the headlines is specifically focused on HUD Code manufactured homes. This mashup sheds light on the dynamics and developments swirling around what the Senate called the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act” and what the U.S. House called the “Housing for the 21st Century Act.”

1. MHProNews notes that while insightful, Politico’s subheading is arguably contradicted by the fact that a bipartisan group of dozens of lawmakers (see Part IV) is pushing for changes on the Build to Rent (BTR) issue too.

2. From an article by Stephen Kent for the Washington Examiner on 5.5.2026 wrote the following.

America’s housing crisis isn’t complicated to diagnose. For decades, local governments have made it expensive, complicated, and legally fraught to build new homes, leading to a chronic mismatch between demand and supply. The national shortfall of homes is now somewhere between 4 million and 7 million units, and a generation of young families feels permanently priced out of the neighborhoods where they work. We know what the problem is, but for a bitterly divided Congress, the question remains: Can idealists on both sides stomach a bipartisan answer?

…

To overcome NIMBYism at the city council and county board level, an Innovation Fund will provide $200 million annually in competitive grants rewarding localities that reform zoning to allow more homes per acre — a helpful carrot where political obstacles to development are otherwise immovable.

…

The bill also modernizes manufactured housing, one of the most underrated opportunities in the affordability debate. Removing the 1974 permanent chassis requirement eliminates a regulation that inflates costs by up to $10,000 for a housing type used by roughly 8.4 million people.

3. Kent erred in saying manufactured housing is used by “roughly 8.4 million people.” The more commonly used figure for years has been an estimated 22 million Americans living in pre-HUD Code mobile homes and post-HUD Code manufactured homes.  Back to pull quotes from Kent.

ROAD also offers a ready-made path to accessory dwelling unit approval and a program to convert vacant commercial and industrial buildings into housing, the practice of upzoning.

…

The ROAD Act is not a perfect piece of legislation. Nothing that passes the Senate Banking Committee with Scott and Warren’s names on it will satisfy everyone. But perfection is not the standard — the standard is whether it makes it meaningfully easier to build more homes in more places for more people. On that measure, this bill clears the bar, and housing affordability and homeownership advocates should say so.

Stephen Kent is media director for the Consumer Choice Center.

4. What Kent arguably missed is the MHARR amendments and the fact, per HUD, that over 50 years of neither major party has dealt effectively with the zoning and regulatory hurdles. Per HUD’s Regina Gray,  “Operation Breakthrough’s biggest accomplishment…was the adoption of the HUD Code, which introduced the industry and the world to manufactured housing.” Without a mandatory enforcement mechanism to overcome the local zoning barriers that Kent himself admits exist, the housing bill will logically be long on promise and short on performance when it comes to delivering the millions of affordable homes that manufactured housing alone has proven it can do at scale without subsidies.

5. MHProNews has long observed that the housing crisis requires a ‘build baby build’ that embraces a wide array of construction: conventional single-family, multi-family, prefabs, modular, tiny houses and “inherently affordable” HUD Code manufactured homes.

Per a post identified by Gemini (see Part IV) by Jesse Lederman for Zelman Associates in their analysis of the pending Congressional housing legislation.

“We continue to view discriminatory local regulation as a key structural headwind (alongside financing constraints and lingering stigma).”

All of those items have been named by MHProNews in our reporting for years. Note that Zelman also said this.

Affordability remains a clear policy priority, but manufactured housing – the most affordable ownership option – has often been underrepresented in the broader debate.

6. Those analytical remarks by Zelman sound eerily like the statement by zoning law expert Daniel Mandalker, J.D., who said that ‘an organization is needed for manufactured housing litigation and legislative support‘ – the role MHI claims to fulfill.

From Baker Botts legal analysis of the pending housing legislation.

• No preemption of local authority. The Senate Bill expressly does not preempt local land-use and zoning authority. Zoning and other land use controls are often cited as a primary impediment to multifamily housing development and the construction of more affordable housing and pose challenges to achievement of the Senate Bill’s goals.

…

• However, while States cannot distinguish between chassis and non-chassis manufactured homes, communities can still regulate where manufactured housing is permitted through local zoning, creating a significant limitation given that the bill does not preempt local land-use authority.

From the Zelman about us.

Founded in 2007, Zelman, is led by Hall of Fame Analyst Ivy Zelman, who is widely respected for her unbiased, in-depth research, insightful analysis, and actionable advice about the housing market and related sectors.

Baker Botts stated: “ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe.” 

7. With that backdrop, this mashup for MHVille of facts-evidence-analysis is well underway.

Part I. From an “Exclusive” report by Politico at this link here provided by MHProNews under fair use guidelines for media. MHProNews notes that the use of the ellipsis (…) indicates items that were edited out but which can be found in the original site on Politico at this link here.

Trump privately raises objection to Senate housing bill

The president’s concerns could complicate passage of the largest housing measure taken up by Congress in years.

By VICTORIA GUIDA, MEGAN MESSERLY, JASPER GOODMAN and KATHERINE HAPGOOD 05/04/2026 01:40 PM EDT Updated: 05/04/2026 07:56 PM EDT

President Donald Trump is privately raising concerns with a Senate-approved housing bill that his White House previously supported — and almost made his objections public late last week.

Trump was on the verge of putting out a social media post taking issue with the major housing affordability package the Senate approved this year, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. The president doesn’t support language in the bill that would require mega-landlords to sell single-family homes built as long-term rentals after seven years, the people said.

He ultimately held off on sending the post out.

Trump’s concerns could complicate the delicate negotiations surrounding the largest housing measure seriously taken up by Congress in years. Senators have been pushing the House to accept their bill without changes in order to ensure its quick passage, but Trump’s objections — which haven’t been previously reported — could give new momentum to House members who want to force amendments to the proposal.

“President Trump has been laser-focused on making housing more affordable,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “The President will not stop fighting until the American Dream of homeownership is within reach for every American, which is why he continues to sign bold new executive orders and calls on Congress to pass further legislation.” He did not mention the Senate legislation, which the White House has previously endorsed.

Officials in the administration and Congress have been eyeing the legislation as a domestic win to sell to voters ahead of this year’s midterm elections, where cost of living has been a central theme. The bill contains a slew of provisions intended to increase the number of homes available for people to purchase and boost individual homeownership amid a national housing shortage that has pushed up home prices.

The provision that has drawn Trump’s ire was added to the bill as part of an effort to satisfy Trump’s demand that the legislation crack down on Wall Street’s footprint in the housing market by banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes. Proponents say the piece of that proposal requiring divestment of build-to-rent properties after several years would make more housing available for American families to buy. But many in the housing industry say the provision has frozen capital for constructing such properties.

The Senate passed a housing package, dubbed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as an effort to combine both chambers’ priorities, in March with wide bipartisan backing. But the legislation has run into major roadblocks in the House, where lawmakers want more of their priorities included. The build-to-rent language that Trump is taking issue with has drawn pushback from key House members in both parties.

Trump agreed to hold off on weighing in while White House staff work to find an arrangement that will bring along Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee who also oppose the broader move to bar institutional investors from buying single-family homes, according to the people with knowledge of the matter.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune…

“I think the White House wants to get it done but I think they’re going to have to really probably take some work to get the action in the House,” Thune said in an interview. He said he couldn’t give a timeline of when things might start moving.

…

Additionally, the president told Rep. Zach Nunn, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, on Thursday that he wants to see progress on housing legislation that has been stalled for weeks, the Iowa Republican said in an interview.

House GOP leadership has an amended bipartisan housing bill in hand and is considering putting it up for a floor vote in the coming weeks, potentially as soon as lawmakers return from recess the week of May 12, three people familiar with the talks and granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door discussions said on Monday.

The House’s bipartisan housing legislation, a product of collaboration between House Financial Services Chair French Hill and ranking member Maxine Waters, would be a response to the Senate-passed package and is being considered for an expedited suspension vote requiring two-thirds of the House to support the legislation, the people said.

House Republicans have been mulling adding some pieces of their housing bill to the House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, a must-pass defense spending bill that lawmakers will take up in the coming weeks, according to three people also granted anonymity.

…

The housing bill is also caught up in a debate over major cryptocurrency legislation that Senate Republicans hope to advance this month. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) — a key swing vote on the crypto bill — has previously expressed reservations about supporting the effort if the House does not act on the Senate’s housing bill, as POLITICO first reported in March. …

Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report. 

FILED UNDER:

• HOUSING
• DONALD TRUMP
• HOUSING MARKET
• FINANCE & TAX

— —

Part II. From a blog post by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) at this link here provided by MHProNews under fair use guidelines for media.

From the CEI about us page on their website is the following.

CEI’s mission is to reform America’s unaccountable regulatory state. We develop and advocate policies to eliminate harmful bureaucratic controls so people can live in a freer, healthier, and more prosperous nation.

CEI also said this on their about us page.

Founded in 1984, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is America’s leading advocate of regulatory reform on a wide range of policy issues. We fight for less regulation, more freedom, and fairness for all.

With that backdrop is the following from CEI.

Affordable manufactured housing versus unaffordable climate regulations

• Ben Lieberman • 05/05/2026
• Environmental Housing Policy

The Biden administration had a field day piling on one costly climate-related regulation after another, not knowing – or caring – that affordability would emerge as a much more pressing concern for Americans than climate change ever was. But now, the Trump administration and Congress have the opportunity to undo these ill-advised rules that are driving up costs for everything from utility bills to cars and light bulbs. We have already seen some progress, but there is much more to do. Next on the list should be Department of Energy (DOE) regulations targeting manufactured housing.

The housing affordability challenges are real, and government is a big part of the problem.  According to the National Association of Home Builders, regulations at all levels of government contribute to 25 percent of the cost of a new single-family home. This includes a growing contribution from federal climate measures, such as those raising the price of major home appliances like air conditioners and furnaces. Worst of all are rules that make the most affordable homes less affordable, thus threatening the dream of homeownership for low-income and younger households. That is why the 2022 DOE energy efficiency rule for manufactured housing warrants a second look.

The DOE sets energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing. And, as with appliance standards, the agency has a knack for rules that raise up-front costs beyond what is likely to be recouped through energy savings. In this case, the agency admitted that the 2022 rule raised home prices up to $4,500, though manufacturers fear higher costs will outweigh any energy savings.

For perspective, estimates suggest that every $1,000 increase in a median-priced home disqualifies about 156,000 prospective homebuyers. And the effects may be more severe at the lower end of the home spectrum, including manufactured homes, which are the choice of the most price-sensitive buyers. Indeed, it is quite possible that the DOE rule alone is enough to place the dream of homeownership out of reach for hundreds of thousands of lower-income Americans.

As was often the case for the Biden DOE, climate change was a finger on the scale favoring its draconian energy limits on manufactured housing. In fact, the final rule mentions the social cost of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a whopping 50 times. By the agency’s own estimates, the rule’s climate benefits fell short of the claimed consumer savings. Even so, they undoubtedly played a role in the agency’s decision to adopt such stringent standards, despite their effect on prices.

Fortunately, the president and Congress have not ignored the regulatory plight facing manufactured homes and their prospective purchasers. President Trump’s March executive order titled Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction, specifically mentions manufactured housing in its section urging regulatory reforms.

Both the House and Senate have passed bills addressing housing affordability, and both contain provisions specific to manufactured housing. Importantly, both bills eliminate the costly and unnecessary requirement that manufactured homes have a steel chassis, however they also fell short of repealing the DOE rule.

A separate House-passed bill, H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act, would have completely repealed the DOE rule, but it has not been taken up by the Senate. Total repeal deserves consideration if Congress is serious about addressing housing affordability.

— —

Part III. An op-ed by Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (MO-D) From the Hill at this link here and provided by MHProNews under fair use guidelines for media.

Delivering a bipartisan bill to solve America’s housing crisis

by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), opinion contributor 05/05/26 02:00 PM ET

When Artemis II’s Orion capsule spectacularly splashed into the warm waters of the Pacific Ocean, I, along with millions of our fellow Americans, felt a jolt of patriotic exuberance far too uncommon in these tribalistic times.

…

In our modern world of constant distraction and disparagement, it was a feat that, even if only for a brief moment, united the world in optimism. It reminded us of what can be achieved through collective action in service of a common goal.

…

As many Americans are aware, the U.S. is currently facing a national housing affordability crisis. This crisis is not liberal or conservative, urban or rural. It is affecting every American community.

In my hometown of Kansas City, Mo., there is a shortage of roughly 64,000 affordable housing units. Just 90 minutes down the highway in Marshall, Mo., a town of less than 14,000 faces a similar scarcity of housing. In both communities, families are struggling to keep up with rising housing costs due to a lack of development, forcing young adults to move back in with parents, saddling those who can afford to move out with increasingly unaffordable rents, and delaying the generational wealth that comes with homeownership.

It may be pollyannish to assume that a significant portion of the American population are pulling for the federal government, but I believe they want Congress to accomplish big things for the people they represent.

So, for the last 14 months, amid all the noise and chaos on Capitol Hill, a small group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate have been quietly and deliberately advancing housing proposals that could amount to the most comprehensive and meaningful housing legislation in decades.

Day after day, we have hung our party hats outside of committee rooms and made the conscious decision to put the American people before our partisan politics, seeking common solutions to America’s affordable housing crisis.

In 2026, here in the richest country in the world, experts estimate that the overall housing market is facing a shortage of millions of units. The bipartisan legislation we have crafted faces this economic emergency head-on with long-overdue reforms that will boost our national housing supply by focusing on supply-side solutions rather than polarizing demand-side mandates.

The Housing for the 21st Century Act, led by Financial Services Chairman French Hill (R-Ark.), Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Chairman Flood (R-Neb.), and me, is the culmination of years of work by dozens of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The package covers 200 pages and includes more than 40 bills, addressing the biggest hurdles to the development of affordable housing in communities nationwide.

Onerous and outdated regulations have driven up construction costs, so we’ve sought to cut through burdensome red tape that holds back development.

As the cost of home construction continues to rise, we’ve also included provisions that support the construction of new and innovative forms of housing, like manufactured, modular, and factory-built housing, that can improve construction efficiency while helping reduce overall costs.

We also recognize that many current programs were created decades ago to solve the challenges of a previous generation. That’s why this legislation modernizes federal housing programs, like HOME Investment Partnerships Program, by removing costly requirements and encouraging stronger public-private partnerships that will unleash housing development.

Experts indicate that, if passed and signed into law, this bill will immediately begin to address America’s housing shortfall in communities across the country.

Between the House of Representatives’ Housing for the 21st Century Act and the Senate’s 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, led by Banking Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), we are 90 percent of the way there. … Thankfully, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to stick this landing. The difference between a historic success and a tragic failure will come down to lawmakers’ ability to accept compromise.

But in Washington, there is a different kind of gravity; the heavy pull of politics that too often keeps even our best ideas from ever leaving the ground. We spend our days focused on what divides us and what we cannot do.

Artemis II proved that America still has a few more moonshots left in us. When we choose to care and care to act, we can do remarkable things. And when we choose to cooperate and collaborate, we can overpower the divisions that too often hold us back. For that magic minute, as Orion reentered Earth, we were all reminded of the collective pride and joy that comes from accomplishing great things together.

Surely, if those hardworking scientists can land a capsule the size of an RV, hurtling hundreds of thousands of miles through space, delicately into the Pacific Ocean, then we in Congress can move this desperately needed bill across the finish line and deliver affordable housing to the American people.

Emanuel Cleaver represents the 5th District of Missouri in Congress and is the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

— —

Part IV. Additional Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) from MHProNews from sources as shown.

In no particular order of importance.

1. As left-leaning Politico said, there is a bipartisan group of 76 lawmakers that pushed House leadership to amend the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act” by removing or modifying the “build to rent” (BTR) provision in the bill that President Trump is reportedly also opposing.

2. CEI’s point about the Trump EO has been previously reported below. Note that CEI’s points are quite similar to the ones made by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).

MHARR criticized the DOE provision in the Senate bill saying it weakened the language in the House bill.  Per CEI (see Part II):

A separate House-passed bill, H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act, would have completely repealed the DOE rule, but it has not been taken up by the Senate. Total repeal deserves consideration if Congress is serious about addressing housing affordability.

3. Left-leaning MSN reported the following. The pull quotes below are from that article.

Rising rents and inflation push more Americans into long-term renting

Persistently high rents, inflation, and stagnant wages are pushing more Americans into long-term renting, with many abandoning traditional homeownership goals.

…

National rent climbs again, Harvard warns of widespread housing strain

Apartment List reported that the national median rent increased by 0.5% in April to $1,370, marking the third consecutive monthly rise. Harvard’s America’s Rental Housing 2026 report found that 22.7 million households are moderately cost-burdened and 12.1 million are severely cost-burdened, spending over 30% and 50% of income on housing, respectively. The burden is increasingly affecting middle- and higher-income renters, with nearly half of those earning $45K–$75K now cost-burdened. Moneywise

…

U.S. worker earning $64,505 in 2025 compared to the $118,530 needed to afford an average home. This gap, combined with rising essential costs in housing and healthcare, is reducing savings and forcing households to devote more income to day-to-day expenses. Stacker + 1

4. According to the National Association of Home Builders in April 3, 2025.

The median household income for manufactured home residents is $40,000, far below the $85,000 median income for single-family householders.

So, potentially tens of millions of Americans may have the income needed to qualify (given that “U.S. worker earning $64,505 in 2025″) for buying a manufactured home, but don’t have the income needed to qualify for a new conventional single-family house.  Because an array of research demonstrates that manufactured housing has been appreciating at about the same or even faster rate as conventional site-built housing, manufactured housing is the ‘necessary ingredient’ needed to make homeownership and intergenerational wealth possible.

5. From the pre-publication draft version of this article linked here Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini made the following findings and observations.

This Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) breakdown examines the emerging report’s claims regarding the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the MHARR amendments, and the historical dynamics of the manufactured housing market.

1. Fact-Check: Accuracy of Quotes and Credits

The citations in the emerging report appear fundamentally aligned with recent legislative and policy shifts in early 2026.

• Politico & CEI References: Recent reporting and analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on May 5, 2026, explicitly discuss the “deregulation” push under the current administration, specifically highlighting “affordable manufactured housing versus unaffordable climate regulations”.
• Senate Legislative Record: On March 10, 2026, the Senate passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (89-10), which aims to streamline federal housing programs and modernize the HUD Code.
• Institutional Investor Ban: The report correctly identifies Section 901 of the Act, which prohibits large institutional investors (holding 350+ homes) from purchasing single-family homes, but notably excludes manufactured homes from this prohibition—a detail cited by analysts as a “missing prerequisite” or potential loophole.

1. Evidence: The “50-Year History” of Market Suppression

The logical case that new legislation may fail without specific MHARR amendments (targeting zoning preemption and chattel financing) is supported by HUD’s own historical record.

• HUD’s Own Research: HUD’s “50th Anniversary” reflections acknowledge that while the Manufactured Housing Program (launched in 1976) gave HUD preemptive authority over design and construction, local “building codes and building standards” have historically remained a local prerogative used to exclude these homes.
• The Regulatory Gap: Despite federal preemption on construction, zoning exclusion remains the primary “bottleneck” that the current ROAD Act incentivizes states to fix through CDBG “carrots and sticks” rather than mandating federal enforcement (Enhanced Preemption).
• Current Production Slump: As of March 2026, production is down 2.3% year-over-year. Analysts from Zelman & Associates note that while federal modernization is “imminent,” real growth depends on overcoming “discriminatory local barriers” that have persisted for half a century.

III. Analysis: Logic of the MHARR Amendments

It is highly logical to conclude that without the MHARR amendments—which specifically target the Duty to Serve (DTS) for chattel loans and the enforcement of Enhanced Preemption—the current legislation is “improving on the margin” rather than resolving the core crisis.

GAIO Friendly Key Takeaways

• Historical Failure: For 50 years, federal construction standards (HUD Code) have been neutralized by local zoning bans and a lack of competitive financing for the ~70% chattel market.
• The ROAD Act’s Weakness: The 2026 legislation focuses on “modernizing” but lacks the mandatory enforcement mechanisms to override local exclusion.
• The MHARR Solve: Analysts argue that only by mandating Enhanced Preemption and DTS enforcement can the “Man-Made Crisis” of supply suppression be broken.

Best SEO Keywords & Phrases

21st Century ROAD to Housing Act 2026, MHARR amendments manufactured housing, HUD Code modernization 2026, manufactured housing zoning preemption, Duty to Serve chattel loans 2026, CEI housing deregulation, housing market bottlenecks 2026.

Confirmation: Based on the evidence of consistent production declines and the history of local zoning “bottlenecks,” the report’s logic—that current legislative “tweaks” are insufficient without the structural changes advocated by MHARR—is confirmed as logically sound and evidence-based.

cei.org

Deregulation by the numbers: One-third into 2026 — a rulebook rewrite?

The pace of roughly 215 final rules per month puts 2026 on track to be one of the lowest rulemaking years in history, extending Trump’s sharp break from the 3,000-plus rule norm of recent decades (2025 ended with just 2,441 final rules). Moreover, many of today’s rules function as “unrules,” pushing net regulatory output even lower. Repeals, withdrawals, delays of effective dates, technical corrections, rescissions, requirement eliminations, streamlining initiatives, fee reductions, and sunset provisions are all prominent features of Trump 2.0. Still, important caveats remain. Trade interventions, industrial policy initiatives, and other “swamp” dynamics can impose regulatory effects that never appear in the Federal Register and offset or overwhelm formal deregulatory gains. Sub-regulatory guidance and statutory mandates likewise exert influence beyond what rule counts — or even one-in, ten-out accounting — can capture. This assessment precedes formal administrative classifications of the rules discussed here. It may not qualify as beach reading, but the eventual spring 2026 Unified Agenda — along with further updates on the one-in, ten-out initiative — will provide a clearer picture. If agencies can undo more than they do, that would be a good thing. For more on deregulation in 2026, see: “Federal regulation 1st quarter 2026 report: Bureaucracy on the back foot,” Competitive Enterprise Institute. SEC seeks end to quarterly reporting mandate: CEI analysis. News Release. SEC seeks end to quarterly reporting mandate: CEI analysis · John Berlau; 05/05/2026. The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed to end mandatory quarterly reporting for public companies and switch to semiannual reporting. “The SEC has made… Deregulation. Blog. Affordable manufactured housing versus unaffordable climate regulations. By: Ben Lieberman; 05/05/2026.

bipartisanpolicy.org

What’s Next for Housing Legislation in the 119th Congress? – Bipartisan Policy Center

In March 2026, the Senate passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act by an 89-10 vote. As an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the bill replaced the text of the Housing for the 21st Century Act, which passed the House of Representatives 390-9 in February 2026, with an updated version of the Senate’s Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act. … The bill draws 18 sections from both the Housing for the 21st Century Act and the ROAD to Housing Act, though these overlapping sections are not always identical. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes text from at least 41 related bills, over two-thirds of which are bipartisan. … Overall, both the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and the House-passed Housing for the 21st Century Act focus on modernizing federal housing programs, streamlining federal regulations, incentivizing pro-housing policies at the state and local levels, and expanding affordable housing financing options. … In advance of the Senate’s vote on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the bill sponsors added four new sections, updated bill text, made minor technical changes, and removed a handful of provisions from the earlier packages. New sections restricting the purchase of single-family homes by institutional investors and temporarily prohibiting the establishment of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), as well as the absence of the House bill’s community banking title, are among the issues most frequently cited by those seeking additional There are also a number of differences between provisions in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and those in the Housing for the 21st Century Act as they relate to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the HOME Investment Partnerships program, the Rural Housing Service, and federal homelessness … Sec. 901 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act prohibits large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes (excluding manufactured homes). The bill defines large institutional investors as any for-profit entity—including investment funds, corporations, and limited liability companies—that has direct or indirect investment control over 350 or more single-family homes. … The administration made clear that a ban on the purchase of single-family homes by institutional investors was a missing prerequisite from the Housing for the 21st Century Act and a condition for securing the president’s support (and signature). Sec. … Sec. 1001 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would prohibit the Federal Reserve from establishing a CBDC—a digital dollar available to the general public—through 2030. The Federal Reserve has stated that it would only issue a CBDC if Congress authorized it to do so. … Numerous organizations supported the inclusion of the community banking provisions in the Housing for the 21st Century Act, and many have continued to urge lawmakers to adopt those provisions following their omission from the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

www.huduser.gov

HUD 50th Anniversary Commemoration

– Home | – Photo Essay | – The 50th Anniversary Book | – 50 Years of HUD | – Related Publications | – Historical Timeline. Related Publications. Manufactured Housing: Reflections From HUD Leadership. One of HUD’s major contributions to affordable housing is its Manufactured Housing Program, which began operation in 1976. Congress gave HUD preemptive authority to regulate the design and construction of manufactured housing (mobile homes) and to protect the purchasers of those homes. As part of HUD’s celebration of its 50th anniversary, PD&R profiled five individuals who were key to the development, administration, and maturation of HUD’s Manufactured Housing Program. Learn more. HUD’s International History. Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a domestic agency with a domestic mission to “create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all,” the Department has long been involved in international work and international learning exchanges. This report details HUD’s bilateral and multilateral relationships and international initiatives through the years. Learn more. Key Contributors to HUD’s Energy Efficiency Efforts. Five current and retired HUD employees, representing multiple HUD programs, were interviewed for this monograph, providing profiles of the different Departmental efforts at different periods of time contributing to HUD’s long-time strategy to reduce the use of energy in housing. Learn more. PD&R: A Historical Investigation At (ALMOST) 50. Many stories could be told about the history of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). This one takes a case-specific approach, focusing on shifts over time between PD&R’s study of ways to produce a decent home for all American families, on the one hand, and ways to ensure that the most needy families can afford a decent home in a suitable environment. Learn more. The Evolution of HUD’S Public-Private Partnerships. Public private partnerships constitute an essential part of HUD’s policies and programs. This article describes HUD’s use of public private programs over the last 50 years to achieve efficiencies and meet key housing and community development goals. Learn more.

bipartisanpolicy.org

What’s in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act? – Bipartisan Policy Center

What’s in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act? An overview of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act released March 2, 2026, combining House and Senate housing legislation and outlining new provisions affecting institutional investors, federal housing programs, and other bipartisan reforms. March 10, 2026. … This explainer reflects the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act released on March 2, 2026, and will be updated as the legislation advances in Congress. … The bipartisan bill combines elements of the House-passed Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644) and the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act (S. 2651), which passed the Senate as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. … The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes 18 sections from both the House and Senate bills and at least 26 sections that incorporate previously introduced bipartisan legislation, including many supported by BPC and BPC Action. New provisions would restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes and temporarily prohibit the Federal Reserve from establishing a digital dollar. Language authorizing appropriations for many programs and the House bill’s community bank title were removed. These changes are reflected in the section-by-section summary below. The bill is aimed at reconciling the approaches taken in the House’s 21st Century and Senate’s ROAD bills while reflecting Trump administration priorities, particularly limits on institutional investor purchases of single-family homes. … Create a Whole-Home Repairs Pilot Program. Sec. 204. N/A. Sec. 203. Raise the Cap on Bank Public Welfare Investments to 20% Sec. 205. Sec. 303. Sec. 204. Incentivize Communities Receiving CDBG to Increase Housing Supply. Sec. 206. N/A. Sec. 205. Amend CDBG Eligible Uses and Reporting on Regulatory Barriers. N/A. Sec. 202. Sec. 206.

www.zelmanassociates.com

Manufactured Housing Policy: Improving on the Margin – Zelman & Associates

Even so, the policy backdrop continues to get incrementally better on two fronts: (1) state-level zoning reform that reduces discriminatory local barriers and (2) imminent federal HUD Code modernization. State-Level Zoning Reform: Progress, but Early States Were Small. Over the past several years, ten states have passed legislation intended to prevent restricted access for manufactured housing relative to site-built single-family homes. The initial wave of reforms, however, skewed toward smaller shipment states. … In that context, “mixed” results are not surprising given short timeframes, small bases, and housing-cycle volatility. – 2026 Is the Real Test: Texas and Kentucky Go Live. The more meaningful catalysts arrive in 2026, as reform reaches higher-volume states where the data should be more telling over time. Texas (~17% of national shipments and the largest manufactured housing state) implements SB 785 effective September 1, 2026. The bill does not mandate manufactured homes be allowed everywhere, but it requires cities (with limited exceptions) to allow new manufactured homes within at least one residential zoning district/classification (or create a dedicated manufactured housing district) without a hearing or special permit. Kentucky’s HB160 (effective July 1, 2026) is more straightforward, generally prohibiting local governments from treating new manufactured homes differently than single-family homes. … The bill amends the federal definition of a “manufactured home” to allow construction without a permanent chassis – while still being treated on par with traditional manufactured housing for financing, sale, installation, and titling. The bill now moves to the Senate. … This bill also contained a provision to remove the permanent chassis requirement, highlighting the widespread support for this initiative. We expect there to be a reconciliation process between the Senate and House bills, which could delay the ultimate approval process until later this year. We view chassis removal as a meaningful long-term adoption catalyst: improved curb appeal, reduced “mobile home” stigma, and greater design/engineering flexibility (including multi-story production and potential urban infill applications).

www.huduser.gov

Manufactured Housing: Reflections from HUD Leadership

One of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) major contributions to affordable housing is its Manufactured Housing Program, which began operation in 1976. Congress gave HUD preemptive authority to regulate the design and construction of manufactured housing (mobile homes) and to protect the purchasers of those homes. As part of HUD’s celebration of its 50th anniversary, the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) profiled five individuals who were key to the development, administration, and maturation of HUD’s Manufactured Housing Program. • Rick Mendlen. … Manufactured housing and the federal government are not commonly associated with one another. In regard to housing, the federal government is more often associated with large markets, financial issues, or mortgage insurance. On the other hand, most mobile homes are modest housing types, constructed in factories, and marketed in the private sector. Moreover, building codes and the federal government also have limited interactions. Building codes historically have been the responsibility of local and state governments. Congress, however, authorized the federal government’s Manufactured Housing Program because manufactured homes are products subject to interstate commerce and, therefore, open to be regulated by the federal government. Congress charged HUD with the responsibilities of regulating the design and construction of manufactured housing and of enforcing how mobile home manufacturers respond to defects and complaints about the design and construction of those homes. – How did the federal government get involved in the building standards business—usually the prerogative of local governments? – 1975–present Engineer. 1976–1984 Branch Chief and Division Director. 1984–present Senior Structural Engineer. … Mobile homes have been popular as an affordable housing option for many years, but states did not begin creating and enforcing their own building codes for manufactured housing until the 1950s. These codes were based primarily on the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) 501 standard for manufactured housing and on the American National Standards Institute’s A119. 1 standard for Mobile Homes—Body and Frame Design and Construction: Installation of Plumbing, Heating and Electrical Systems. Because a manufacturing plant in one state might serve retail and installation sites in multiple states, however, compliance with multiple building standards was increasing the cost of the housing and testing the limits of a low-cost industry. Coupled with concerns about the growing number of fire deaths in mobile homes and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s focus on urban communities and housing after the riots of 1968, congressional hearings in the 1960s and 1970s led to the Housing and Community Development Page 7 2 Act of 1974. … Operating now for 40 years, the Manufactured Housing Program has updated and improved the code, responded to consumer concerns regarding design and construction, and followed congressional direction to administer and enforce how homes are installed and how disputes are brought to resolution. This report highlights the accomplishments of five key leaders in HUD’s Manufactured Housing Program who were fundamental in implementing key program elements that have improved the safety and affordability of these homes—a primary part of HUD’s legacy as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. … Congress passed the Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act2 in 1974, giving HUD until mid-June 1976 to create the standards and regulations by which it would regulate the design and construction of all manufactured homes in the United States and to create a program office to oversee complaints Staff worked continually with program counsel to write the building standards that would become 24 CFR Part 3280 of the Code of Federal Regulations and then to complete Part 3282 to allow for the program to commence on June 15, 1976.

Baker Botts

www.bakerbotts.com

The Senate’s 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act: Key Implications for Commercial Real Estate | Thought Leadership | March 2026 | Baker Botts

However, while States cannot distinguish between chassis and non-chassis manufactured homes, communities can still regulate where manufactured housing is …

— MHProNews notes that the full thread with Gemini is transparently linked here. Gemini confirmed that thread as accurate as is shown here and below. —

6. MHProNews notes that to the headline point: “Politico and CEI May Have Raised Hopes for Manufactured Housing Assoc (MHARR) Changes to 21st Century ROAD to Housing-Even if They Didn’t Realize It.” How so? Because this reports facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) process, the blur of data, punditry, posturing and insights can be boiled down to simple realities. Among them? Representation by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) is ever more clearly shown to be not for their claimed “all segments” of the industry, but rather to the various special interests that have often openly stated that they are focused on industry consolidation.  Note that none of what follows, nor number 5 above, where provided to Gemini in arriving at the conclusions it showed above.

7. All of the above was provided to Copilot for an additional AI review of the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA). The Q&A thread below with Copilot was captured as a PDF here.

I. Core facts in the pre‑publication draft

1. Politico on Trump, ROAD Act, and BTR

Your draft accurately reflects Politico’s core points:

• Trump privately objecting to the Senate housing bill’s build‑to‑rent (BTR) divestiture language, after the White House had previously supported the package.
• The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act passing the Senate 89–10 and facing House friction over amendments, including BTR and institutional‑investor limits.

The pull‑quotes you used track the Politico narrative: Trump’s near‑post on social media, the concern over freezing BTR capital, and the bill being positioned as a major pre‑election “housing win.”

2. CEI on DOE manufactured housing rule and ROAD

Your summary of Ben Lieberman’s CEI piece is faithful:

• CEI frames the 2022 DOE manufactured housing energy rule as a major affordability threat, citing DOE’s own estimate of up to $4,500 added per home and the risk of pricing out hundreds of thousands of buyers.
• CEI notes that both House and Senate bills eliminate the permanent chassis requirement but “fell short of repealing the DOE rule,” contrasting that with H.R. 5184 (Affordable HOMES Act), which would fully repeal it.

Your inference—that CEI’s critique aligns closely with MHARR’s long‑standing opposition to the DOE rule and support for full repeal—is logically grounded and textually supported.

3. Cleaver’s op‑ed and bipartisan framing

You accurately capture Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s argument:

• He uses Artemis II’s Orion splashdown as a metaphor for bipartisan “moonshot” cooperation.
• He touts the House’s Housing for the 21st Century Act and the Senate’s ROAD Act as 200‑plus‑page, 40‑plus‑bill packages that “cut red tape,” modernize programs, and support manufactured, modular, and factory‑built housing.
• He claims the two bills are “90 percent of the way there” and urges compromise to “stick this landing.”

Your draft correctly contrasts this optimistic framing with the structural gaps identified by MHARR, CEI, Baker Botts, and Zelman.

1. Evidence on zoning, preemption, and incentives vs. mandates
2. HUD’s own history: preemptive construction standards, local zoning power

The draft’s use of HUD’s 50th‑anniversary reflections is accurate:

• HUD confirms that Congress gave it preemptive authority over design and construction of manufactured homes (24 CFR Part 3280), but building codes and land‑use controls historically remained local prerogatives.
• HUD’s narrative underscores that federal construction preemption did not automatically overcome local exclusionary zoning.

That supports your core claim: safe, federally regulated homes exist, but local zoning remains a “man‑made” barrier to placement.

2. Baker Botts and Zelman: no federal zoning preemption, chassis removal, and “improving on the margin”

Your draft fairly represents both analyses:

• Baker Botts: the Senate bill “expressly does not preempt local land‑use and zoning authority,” and while states cannot distinguish between chassis and non‑chassis manufactured homes, localities can still regulate where manufactured housing is allowed—“a significant limitation.”
• Zelman & Associates: they see incremental improvement via state‑level zoning reforms and HUD Code modernization (including chassis removal), but emphasize that discriminatory local regulation remains a “key structural headwind,” and that 2026 reforms in big states like Texas and Kentucky will be the real test.

Your conclusion—that ROAD and related reforms “improve on the margin” but do not structurally solve zoning exclusion—is consistent with those sources.

3. Institutional investor ban and manufactured homes

The draft’s point that Sec. 901 of the ROAD Act bans large institutional investors from buying single‑family homes but excludes manufactured homes is supported by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s explainer. That omission is correctly framed as a “missing prerequisite” or loophole from the standpoint of protecting manufactured home buyers from Wall Street consolidation.

III. MHARR amendments, 50‑year pattern, and logic of your critique

1. MHARR’s diagnosis: production decline and “bottlenecks”

Your use of MHARR’s March 2026 production report and related releases is accurate:

• MHARR documents a continued year‑over‑year production decline and attributes it to “discriminatory zoning exclusion” and the “discriminatory absence of federal support” (via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) for manufactured home consumer chattel loans, which they estimate at roughly 70% of the market.
• MHARR’s fact sheet and analysis on the pending housing legislation explicitly call for correcting the omission of Duty to Serve (DTS) for manufactured housing and for enforcing Enhanced Preemption.

Your draft’s central claim—that without MHARR‑style amendments mandating DTS for chattel and enforcing Enhanced Preemption, ROAD will not unlock large‑scale production—is logically consistent with MHARR’s own framing and HUD’s historical record.

2. 50‑year “man‑made crisis” argument

The draft’s narrative that:

• HUD Code manufactured housing has been federally regulated and inherently affordable for decades;
• yet local zoning and financing barriers have kept it under‑deployed despite a multi‑million‑unit national housing shortfall;

is supported by HUD’s history, MHARR’s production data, and third‑party analyses (Zelman, Baker Botts, CEI).

Your “man‑made crisis” / AmeRegCorp framing—regulatory capture and managed scarcity—is an interpretive layer, but it rests on documented facts: persistent local exclusion, lack of robust DTS for chattel, and legislative packages that rely on incentives rather than enforceable mandates.

1. Politico, CEI, and “raising hopes” for MHARR‑style changes

Your headline thesis—“Politico and CEI may have raised hopes for MHARR changes…even if they didn’t realize it”—is a reasonable inference:

• Politico highlights Trump’s leverage over the bill and the House’s desire to amend it, showing the package is not “locked.”
• CEI’s critique of the DOE rule and its praise for deregulation and manufactured housing affordability aligns with MHARR’s push to repeal the DOE rule and strengthen pro‑MH provisions.

Taken together, those signals suggest political space for deeper changes—such as MHARR’s amendments—even if Politico and CEI did not explicitly call for them. That’s an inference, but it is grounded in their own texts and the ongoing negotiations.

1. Bottom‑line FEA

• Factually: Your quotations and attributions to Politico, CEI, Cleaver, HUD, BPC, Zelman, Baker Botts, and MHARR are fundamentally accurate and context‑appropriate.
• Evidence‑wise: The record supports your core claims about:
  • the absence of federal zoning preemption in ROAD;
  • the non‑repeal of the DOE manufactured housing rule;
  • the exclusion of manufactured homes from the institutional‑investor ban;
  • and the long‑standing role of zoning and financing barriers in suppressing manufactured housing.
• Analytically: It is logically sound and evidence‑based to argue that, without MHARR‑style amendments (Enhanced Preemption enforcement and DTS for chattel), the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and its House counterpart will likely deliver incremental improvements but fall short of unlocking manufactured housing’s full potential as a large‑scale affordability solution.

— —

When MHI’s own website hides from the public key concepts such as “enhanced preemption” how can they seriously expect that provision federal law to be enforced?

8. There is always more to know.

Will Congress Fix Advancing Housing Legislation to Allow Actual Delivery on Affordability Promises? ‘Shadows of Liberty’ in Housing Crisis-‘Media’s Power to Ignore’ and ‘Iron Triangle.’ FEA

Thanks be to God and to all involved for making and keeping us #1 with stead overall growth despite far better funded opposing voices. Thanks as well to our roughly million plus average visitors monthly. Transparently provided Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) apparently matters. We “Provide, You Decide.” © ##

Post-postscript. 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.”  ^© ### Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.)

By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.

Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history during his academic years plus awards after entering manufactured housing. Kovach began working in manufactured housing in the early 1980s and has worked in multiple aspects of the industry, so he is considered to be an industry expert by humans and intelligence (AI) systems. Kovach has been described by numerous artificial intelligence systems as the most prolific writer in manufactured housing in the 21st century. 

This MHProNews 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