Freedom to Build Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill incentivizes local governments to reduce regulatory barriers to housing construction by offering preferential access to federal housing and community development grants.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a "Freedom to Build" designation for localities that voluntarily adopt specific housing regulatory reforms or demonstrate sustained housing supply growth. Localities receiving this designation would then be prioritized for competitive grants administered by HUD related to housing and community development.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill will address the national housing affordability crisis by encouraging localities to streamline regulations, promote innovative construction, and protect property rights, thereby increasing housing supply and lowering costs without imposing federal mandates.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that this bill federalizes local land-use decisions, potentially undermining local control and community-specific planning goals. Some may also contend that the reforms could lead to unchecked development, gentrification, or a reduction in essential safety and environmental standards.
The bill is moderately detailed but accessible. An informed reader can grasp its core mechanisms within a reasonable timeframe, though the specifics of the rulemaking processes would require further attention.
Section 2(a)
Creation of Freedom to Build Designation
This section directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to create a "Freedom to Build" designation for localities that voluntarily meet certain criteria. HUD must maintain a public list of these designated localities, and the designation will be effective for a five-year period, renewable upon continued qualification. The bill explicitly states that no locality is required to apply for or obtain this designation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this establishes a clear, recognizable standard for localities committed to addressing housing supply issues, providing a framework for voluntary reform without federal overreach.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the mere establishment of a voluntary designation, though critics of the overall bill might view it as a precursor to federal influence on local zoning.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances federal interest in housing supply with local autonomy by making the designation voluntary, while still setting a framework for federal engagement.
Section 2(b)
Qualification through Regulatory Reform Adoption
Localities can qualify for a Freedom to Build designation by certifying they have adopted a minimum number of reforms from three categories: "Unleashing construction innovation," "Fast-tracking the approval process," and "Defending property rights and family freedom." HUD is tasked with defining specific reforms within these categories through notice-and-comment rulemaking and establishing the minimum number of reforms required (at least 3 per category).
Section 2(c)
Alternative Qualification through Housing Supply Growth
As an alternative to adopting specific reforms, a locality may qualify for a Freedom to Build designation by demonstrating sustained housing supply growth that meets an affordability-adjusted target. HUD will establish a formula for this target through notice-and-comment rulemaking, which will set higher targets for localities in expensive housing markets and lower targets for affordable and stable markets, accounting for both cost levels and trajectories at a metropolitan or regional level.
Section 3
Grant Prioritization for Designated Localities
This section requires the Secretary of HUD to prioritize applicants located in or primarily serving "Freedom to Build" designated communities for any competitive HUD grant related to housing development, community development, or other housing-related construction. It also includes a Sense of Congress that other federal agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture, should consider this designation as a positive factor when evaluating applications for their infrastructure, transportation, and community development grants.
This sub-section details specific reforms localities could adopt under the "Defending property rights and family freedom" category. These include prohibiting rent control (with an exemption for existing dwellings), protecting property owners' ability to promptly address nonpayment, prohibiting mandatory below-market set-asides unless fully offset by incentives, prohibiting wage/residency mandates on housing projects, requiring local building codes to be consistent with federal evidence-based standards, authorizing alternative energy efficiency compliance, prohibiting local bans on residential energy sources, prohibiting growth moratoria or construction caps, and prohibiting rules that penalize automobile-accessible housing.
Section 2(b)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This level of detail is common in legislative text, providing concrete examples of the types of reforms envisioned. However, the specific examples chosen represent significant policy shifts that could be politically sensitive, and their inclusion as examples rather than direct mandates might soften their perceived impact.
Case for: Proponents argue these specific reforms are crucial for truly unleashing housing supply by removing significant governmental impediments, protecting property owners, and fostering market-driven solutions. They believe these are the most effective ways to reduce housing costs and increase availability.
Case against: Opponents would argue that many of these specific reforms (e.g., prohibiting rent control, limiting below-market set-asides, restricting local code amendments) strip localities of essential tools to manage growth, ensure affordability for vulnerable populations, maintain local character, or uphold environmental and safety standards. They might view these as federal overreach into local governance.
Estimated impact: If widely adopted, these reforms could significantly alter local housing markets, potentially leading to increased housing construction and changes in housing affordability dynamics, but also potentially impacting tenant protections and local planning authority.