POTUS Trump Declines Signing Housing Bill UNLESS… 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act Passed by Congress Reveal Sobering Affordable Housing Seekers Realities. Plus, Sunday Headlines Recap-FEA

“President Trump on Wednesday canceled plans to sign a major new bipartisan housing bill that aims to lower costs for homebuyers and renters,” according to an article on left-leaning Yahoo. That article ran under the headline: “A bipartisan housing bill could lower costs for renters and buyers. Trump is refusing to sign it.” Curiously, a different article from left-leaning Fortune published on Yahoo Finance said: “Congress’s landmark housing bill could backfire on millions of renters.” So, from the same source – Yahoo – there are articles that cut on both sides of the debate if the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will actually accomplish what it claims. Within the first Yahoo article is this: “On Wednesday, Trump dismissed the ROAD to Housing Act as being of “minor importance compared to lower interest rates,” and to a degree, he’s right: Nothing would lower costs for homebuyers faster or more dramatically than, say, the return of the sub-3% 30-year mortgage.” MHProNews observes that the president is saying he won’t sign the bill as leverage over the Senate, in order to make Senate Republicans fall in line and support the federal election integrity bill known as the SAVE America Act, which POTUS Trump has made clear he wants enacted as a priority greater than the housing bill. While someone can debate the pros and cons of this approach by Trump, it is what it is.  That noted, one of several things can happen. A) The housing bill can automatically go into effect if POTUS fails to sign it within ten days (not counting Sundays) of presentment to the president, which reportedly has occurred. B) The president could in theory veto the ROAD Act, to maintain his leverage using a housing bill that now Trump himself said is of “minor importance compared to lower interest rates,” which lawmakers under the current financial structure can’t readily change. C) But if Trump vetoes the bill, IF all those who voted for it voted for it again, there are enough votes in Congress to override a presidential veto. D) However, it is not uncommon when a veto occurs that lawmakers in the executive’s own party will back off voting for it again, out of respect (and/or political fear?) for the consequences of going against a party leader. Meaning, if the POTUS Trump is looking for leverage, he may have some on the housing bill. So, what was seemingly unlikely a week ago – that the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would become law – is not quite as certain just days later.

That backdrop affords a fresh opportunity using the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) model of journalism to review insights since both houses of Congress passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing.  More review of some claims, pushback and concerns regarding the pending housing legislation follows. From the Postcript, further below.

The Illusion of Progress (Optics vs. Action): While mainstream trade bodies like the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) celebrate the bill’s advancement as “masterful,” independent analysts, including the Cato Institute, argue that it perpetuates a flawed status quo. By removing a minor technical barrier (the chassis) while ignoring major structural blockages (zoning and chattel lending), the bill acts as “optics” rather than a true systemic remedy.

The full context follows.

1. “I think absolutely it’s a big deal,” said Paul Aylesworth, director of affordable and sustainable housing development at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, on “Wisconsin Today” per left-leaning WPR.org. “This is a bill that’s trying to crack the big nut that is increasing housing supply in our state, which most folks agree is the main contributor to the high housing costs.” “Stimulating housing demand is a tricky thing, because it often takes a lot of small fixes, and often takes a lot of time, and this bill certainly is reflective of that,” Aylesworth added.

“Taken together cumulatively, if implemented, (it) could possibly bend the supply and cost curves in the long run. But no single provision in this bill is going to do too much on its own,” said Kurt Paulsen, who teaches and researches affordable housing finance and policy at UW-Madison. WPR said “just 32 representatives voted against the bill, all Republicans.” Stephen Malpezzi, a professor emeritus in the Department of Real Estate in the Wisconsin School of Business stated: “Most of the action in improving housing supply, and hence affordability, will remain at the local level.”

2. That WPR report also stated that: “Advocates say that the legislation does little for the lowest-income households, most of whom are renters and face increased barriers to housing stability.” The words “manufactured home” or “manufactured housing” don’t appear in the WPR.org article authored by Anya van Wagtendonk and published 6.26.2026. Yet, a prior WPR report unpacked by MHProNews here pointed out how reporting on MHI and an MHI affiliate by that outlet was arguably deficient.

3. Meanwhile, a multiyear Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) member, Marcus & Millichap (MMI) President and CEO Hessam Nadji, recently spoke to left-leaning CNBC’s ‘Squawk on the Street.’ Iranian-born Nadji said the: ‘Housing bill won’t have a significant impact on housing affordability.’

So, Yahoo and Fortune said on 6.24.2026: “Congress’s landmark housing bill could backfire on millions of renters.” MMI CEO Nadji said “Today, there are about 1 million fewer single-family rentals than a decade ago, and the share of single-family homes being rented has gradually decreased since 2014, according to a 2025 National Association of Realtors analysis.”

4. From left-leaning PBS on 6.25.2026 was the following: “The new housing bill is historic. Experts say it may fall short for renters most in need.” “Congress passed the first major housing bill in decades on Tuesday. While it might move the needle on affordability for some Americans, the landmark legislation does not provide enough relief to renters most in need, experts say.”

“Yet most of the provisions in the bipartisan bill “are not targeted at extremely low-income renters,” said Libby O’Neill, senior public policy analyst at the National Low Income Housing Coalition. The organization supports the bill overall, including many of its individual provisions, but “so much more investment is needed in programs” for the lowest-income renters, she added.”

“…according to a National Low Income Housing Coalition report released in March. Nationally, there are 11 million extremely low-income households competing for only 3.8 million rental homes that are available and affordable.”

“…The number of units available to rent for less than $1,000 per month, adjusted for inflation, dropped by more than 30% between 2014 and 2024. This meant the stock of low-rent homes was reduced by more than 7 million units, the report found.

Meanwhile, the supply of higher-rent units grew by 46% during that same period, especially homes renting for more than $2,000 per month.”

“…A recent poll from the Bipartisan Policy Center found that 79% of voters said housing was an “extremely or very important issue,” while 83% said they agreed that “Congress should take action now to make housing more affordable.”

“…Another provision that could reduce housing costs is the Housing Supply Expansion Act, Dworkin said, which removes a federal requirement that manufactured housing have a permanent chassis, or heavy frame that allows the home to be transportable. Removing the chassis requirement could reduce the cost of each manufactured home by $5,000 to $10,000, according to Niskanen Center, a Washington-based think tank.”

“…Each individual provision is important to the people’s specific situations, but the bill as a whole has a “fairly limited impact on affordability for the lowest-income folks in the country,” said Shamus Roller, CEO of the National Housing Law Project.”

5. So, there are those who think that the housing bill may help bring some new supply to market, but even supporters of the legislation say it is unlikely to meaningfully benefit lower income renters.

These examples tend to support what MHProNews has been reporting for months – citing sources such as CATO, AEI Housing Center, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board or the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) – each of which had their varied inputs often downplayed or ignored.

6. The headlines for the week in review follow. In today’s postscript are additional insights from third-party artificial intelligence (AI) platforms that shed additional light on the survey of headlines and topics above. Don’t miss it.

With no further adieu, here are the headlines for the week in review from to 6.21 to 6.28.2026.

 

What’s New, Recent and Select from MHLivingNews

 

 

 

 

From Tim Connors, CSP and his Words of Wisdom

 

 

3. Let us be clear and candid. MHProNews takes extra steps to document the accuracy of our reporting, steps that third-party AIs say others do not normally take. The reasons and purposes for that are nuanced. Certainly, among them is that readers are provided with ‘academic style rigor’ to increase the confidence and trust that MHProNews has earned with our readers. It is  likely among the reasons why MHProNews has a documented readership (visitors, traffic, etc.) about 101x the numbers the larger and better funded MHI does.

There is always more to know.

But that should be more than enough for now. Until next time… ##

 

L. A. “Tony” Kovach

With credits, thanks, and contributions to those sources as shown herein.

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427

— —

Invitation for Feedback

MHProNews welcomes evidence‑based feedback from:

• Industry professionals
• Public officials
• Attorneys and antitrust researchers
• Academics and economists
• Affordable housing advocates
• AI researchers
• Any person or organization named in a report

Submit comments or documentation via:

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427