National Housing Emergency Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 8, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to rapidly increase housing supply by leveraging emergency powers, streamlining regulations, and incentivizing pro-growth local policies, but it faces potential challenges regarding federal overreach and environmental concerns.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the President to declare a national housing emergency and utilize the Defense Production Act (DPA) to boost the domestic production of residential construction materials. It also suspends several federal housing and environmental regulations, streamlines environmental reviews for housing projects, and establishes a "Pro-Growth Requirement" that conditions federal block grant funding for states and local governments on their efforts to increase housing supply and remove regulatory barriers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the severe national housing shortage, projected to worsen significantly, constitutes an emergency that demands aggressive federal intervention. They contend that current regulations and slow construction are stifling supply, driving up costs, and compromising economic and national security. This bill would unlock millions of jobs and billions in GDP by accelerating construction and rehabilitation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that declaring a national housing emergency and invoking the DPA for housing production is an overreach of executive power, potentially bypassing established legislative processes and environmental protections. They may also raise concerns that loosening environmental reviews and other regulations could lead to adverse community impacts or lower quality housing, while the "Pro-Growth Requirement" could infringe on local zoning authority.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick read, though understanding the implications of the DPA and regulatory changes requires some background knowledge.
Section 2
Presidential Declaration of National Housing Emergency and DPA Invocation
This section expresses Congress's view that the President should declare a national emergency concerning housing under the National Emergencies Act and then use the powers of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to increase the domestic supply of materials needed for housing construction and rehabilitation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the housing crisis is severe enough to warrant emergency action, and the DPA is a proven tool for mobilizing industrial capacity to meet national needs, in this case, housing materials.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that a "sense of Congress" is not legally binding and that invoking emergency powers for housing production could set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach into economic sectors not traditionally considered national defense.
Tradeoffs
Balances the urgency of the housing crisis with concerns about the scope of executive power and the appropriate use of emergency legislation.
Section 4
DPA Expansion for Residential Construction and Rehabilitation
This section explicitly amends the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include "residential construction and rehabilitation" alongside "domestic energy" as areas where DPA authorities can be used. It also adds "housing" to the list of programs for which the DPA's powers can be utilized. This would allow the President to prioritize contracts, allocate materials, and provide financial incentives for housing-related industries.
Section 5
Suspension of Housing and Environmental Regulations
This section suspends several federal regulations and guidance related to housing development, including specific sections of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994. It also exempts HUD-funded housing preservation or infill projects from federal environmental review, streamlines environmental reviews for projects using multiple federal programs, permits "choice limiting actions" for HUD-funded projects, and waives duplication of benefits rules for disaster recovery grants for housing. It also expedites Buy America Act waiver processes for HUD.
Section 6
Establishment of Minimum Residential Code Standard
This section mandates that during the national housing emergency, all newly constructed or rehabilitated housing must meet either the 2009 International Residential Code (or an equivalent, including state/local amendments) for site-built housing, or Part 3280 of Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, for manufactured housing. This sets a baseline standard for construction quality.
Section 7
Pro-Growth Requirement for Federal Block Grants
This section establishes a "Pro-Growth Requirement" as a condition for states and local governments to receive federal block grant funding (e.g., surface transportation block grants) during the national emergency. To comply, grantees must demonstrate positive housing growth, take actions to remove housing development barriers (e.g., reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing duplexes, streamlining permitting), and include clear housing growth objectives in their consolidated plans. An appeal process is provided for grantees demonstrating measurable actions.
Section 8
Prohibition on Substantial Burden Land-Use Regulations
This section prohibits any state or local government from imposing or implementing land-use regulations that create a "substantial burden" on the construction or rehabilitation of residential housing during the national emergency. This aims to prevent local governments from enacting new restrictive policies or enforcing existing ones in a way that significantly hinders housing development.
Section 9
Termination of National Emergency
This section specifies that the national housing emergency declared under this Act will terminate on the earlier of two conditions: either when 4,000,000 additional residential housing units have been constructed or rehabilitated in the United States compared to the date of enactment, or on October 1, 2031. This provides a clear sunset clause for the emergency powers.
Suspends HOME program matching contribution requirements (42 U.S.C. 12742(d)), property standards (42 U.S.C. 12748(g)), and tenant and participant protections (42 U.S.C. 12750).
Section 5(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to reference existing law, but the impact is significant and not immediately obvious to a casual reader.
Case for: Supporters argue that these requirements add costs and complexity, slowing down the development of affordable housing. Suspending them would accelerate production.
Case against: Opponents would argue that these provisions are crucial for ensuring local investment, maintaining quality, and protecting vulnerable tenants, and their suspension could lead to lower quality housing or exploitation.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant acceleration of HOME-funded projects and reduction in associated costs, but also potential reduction in quality or tenant protections.
Suspends section 108(e) of the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4707(e)) related to housing development. This section governs the CDFI Fund's authority to make equity investments and could relate to limitations or requirements for such investments in housing.
Section 5(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice, but the specific impact on CDFI housing investments is not immediately clear.
Case for: Proponents might argue that removing these restrictions allows Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) greater flexibility to deploy capital into housing development, accelerating projects.
Case against: Opponents might contend that these provisions ensure prudent use of public funds and protect against undue risk in housing investments, and their suspension could expose the CDFI Fund to greater financial risk.
Estimated impact: Potentially increased flexibility and speed for CDFI housing investments, with corresponding changes in risk profile.
Requires only one environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for housing projects funded by more than one Federal program or involving multiple Federal agency actions.
Section 5(4)
Why it matters:Part of a broader effort to reduce regulatory burden, but the specific mechanism for streamlining is technical.
Case for: Supporters argue that multiple environmental reviews for a single project are redundant and significantly delay housing construction, and this streamlining will accelerate development without compromising environmental protection.
Case against: Critics might argue that each federal agency has unique environmental responsibilities, and a single review might not adequately address all potential impacts, especially if agencies have differing mandates or expertise.
Estimated impact: Significant reduction in project timelines and administrative costs for multi-agency housing projects.
Allows "choice limiting actions" for HUD-funded housing projects, which typically refers to actions that would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives or commit HUD to a particular course of action before an environmental review is complete, as described in 24 CFR 58.22.
Section 5(5)
Why it matters:Technical regulatory language, but has significant implications for environmental review process integrity.
Case for: Proponents argue that this flexibility allows projects to move forward more quickly, especially in urgent situations, by allowing some preparatory steps before final environmental clearance.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this undermines the purpose of environmental review by allowing commitments to be made before potential impacts are fully assessed, potentially leading to suboptimal or environmentally damaging outcomes.
Estimated impact: Accelerated project timelines for HUD-funded housing, but with a potential reduction in the effectiveness of environmental impact mitigation.
Suspends "duplication of benefits" provisions, including Section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, for community development block grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds used for housing development or rehabilitation. This means individuals or entities could potentially receive federal assistance even if they have already received aid from other sources for the same purpose.
Section 5(6)
Why it matters:Technical regulatory change, but has significant implications for disaster recovery funding.
Case for: Supporters argue that in disaster recovery, strict adherence to duplication of benefits rules can significantly delay rebuilding efforts and leave vulnerable populations without adequate housing, and this suspension would accelerate recovery.
Case against: Opponents would contend that these rules are essential to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer funds, and their suspension could lead to individuals receiving excessive aid or double-dipping.
Estimated impact: Faster allocation of CDBG-DR funds for housing in disaster-stricken areas, but with increased risk of improper payments or inefficient resource allocation.
Requires the Secretary of HUD and the Director of OMB to expedite the waiver process under Section 70914 of the Build America, Buy America Act, mandating completion within 30 days of publishing a justification, or the waiver is deemed issued.
Section 5(7)
Why it matters:Technical procedural change, but has significant implications for domestic content requirements.
Case for: Proponents argue that strict Buy America requirements can slow down housing projects by making it difficult to source materials quickly or affordably, and expediting waivers will accelerate construction.
Case against: Opponents would contend that this undermines the intent of the Buy America Act to promote domestic manufacturing and jobs, potentially leading to increased reliance on foreign-produced materials for federally funded projects.
Estimated impact: Faster procurement of materials for housing projects, potentially increasing the use of foreign-sourced materials if domestic options are not readily available or cost-effective.