A Bill Built to Be Bipartisan
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act was not a party-line product. It was developed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican, and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat.[2] The two occupy opposite ends of the committee and much of the political spectrum. Their joint authorship is the clearest available signal that housing supply and investor conduct are no longer coded as one party's issue.
The House moved first, passing its housing package, H.R. 6644, on February 9, 2026.[1] The Senate then took up a combined version. Before final passage, senators added a provision barring institutional investors that control 350 or more single-family homes from purchasing additional homes.[2] The amended package passed on March 12, 2026, by a vote of 89 to 10.[2]
What the Margin Means
Neither party holds 89 seats in the Senate. A vote of that size is only possible when large numbers of members from both caucuses agree. The investor-purchase ban, the provision most directly aligned with Policy 1, was not a narrow partisan win. It cleared the chamber with room to spare.[2]
Where Each Reform Already Has Support
Three of the Act's five policies can point to concrete, enacted or near-enacted precedent. Each precedent crosses party lines. The table below maps the reform to the evidence.
| Policy | Concrete Precedent | Where |
|---|---|---|
Policy 1 End corporate ownership of single-family homes | Senate added a ban barring institutional investors that control 350 or more single-family homes from buying additional homes; combined package passed 89-10.[2] | Federal (U.S. Senate) |
Policy 4 End foreign ownership of residential property | More than 20 states have enacted laws restricting foreign real estate or farmland purchases, with Florida's SB 264 among the first.[3] | State legislatures (20+) |
Policy 5 Increase housing construction | Minneapolis ended single-family-only zoning (effective Jan. 1, 2020); Montana legalized duplexes and accessory dwelling units statewide (2023).[4] | Democratic city + Republican state |
Sources: Congress.gov[1]; Senate Banking Committee[2]; National Agricultural Law Center[3]; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis[4]; Montana 2023 housing legislation[5]
Foreign Ownership: A State-Led Wave
Policy 4 restricts foreign purchase of residential property. At the state level, that principle is already law across much of the country. More than 20 states have enacted measures restricting foreign real estate or farmland purchases, with Florida's SB 264 among the first.[3] These laws passed under Republican and Democratic majorities alike.
States Restricting Foreign Real Estate or Farmland Purchases
More than 20 states, each square one state, with additional legislatures continuing to act. A restriction that clears this many statehouses across the partisan divide is not a fringe position.
Source: National Agricultural Law Center, state real property law tracker[3]
The state record demonstrates two things at once. First, the underlying policy commands broad support. Second, a patchwork of state laws cannot fully address a national housing market, which is the case for a single federal standard rather than fifty separate ones.
Zoning Reform Crosses the Aisle
Policy 5 calls for increased housing construction, which depends on loosening the local zoning rules that block it. Here too the precedent spans the political divide. Minneapolis, a Democratic-led city, eliminated single-family-only zoning effective January 1, 2020.[4] Montana, a Republican-led state, legalized duplexes and accessory dwelling units statewide in 2023.[5]
The two are separated by geography, population, and party. What they share is a policy conclusion: allowing more housing types on existing land is a supply reform that governing coalitions of both parties have been willing to enact. That convergence is the strongest kind of evidence that Policy 5 sits inside the achievable range.
The Honest Caveats
Demonstrated support is not the same as enacted law, and the precedent stops short of what the Act proposes. Two points deserve to be stated plainly.
The Federal Bill Is Not Yet Law
Because the Senate amended the House package, the combined bill returned to the House for concurrence. As of this writing it has not been signed into law.[1][2] A 89-10 vote is a strong signal, but it is a step in the process, not the finish line.
It Stops Short of Policy 1
The Senate provision bars large institutional investors from buying additional single-family homes. It does not require them to divest the homes they already own. Policy 1 of the Act goes further, calling for a two-year divestment of the roughly 450,000 corporate-owned single-family homes to owner-occupants.[1] The bipartisan measure narrows the on-ramp. It does not reverse the accumulation.
Policy Connection
The legislative record answers the objection that the Act's reforms are politically unreachable. For three of the five policies, the coalition already exists:
- -Policy 1 (Corporate ownership): A bipartisan Senate passed a ban on additional purchases by institutional investors controlling 350 or more single-family homes, 89-10. The Act extends the same logic to divestment.
- -Policy 4 (Foreign ownership): More than 20 states already restrict foreign real estate or farmland purchases through bipartisan votes. The Act supplies the single federal standard a state patchwork cannot.
- -Policy 5 (Housing construction): Zoning reform has been enacted in both a Democratic city and a Republican state, showing that supply reform is achievable across the partisan divide.
The evidence raises a straightforward question for policymakers. If each of these reforms already commands cross-party support in isolation, the case for assembling them into a single, coherent framework is stronger, not weaker.