Homes for American Families Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 26, 2026
Bottom line
The Homes for American Families Act aims to curb institutional ownership of residential properties, intending to reduce competition for individual homebuyers and potentially stabilize housing prices, while also enhancing antitrust enforcement in the housing market.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Sherman Act to prohibit certain large institutional investors, specifically real estate investment trusts (REITs), insurance companies, and investment funds with over $150 million in assets under management, from purchasing residential real estate. It defines residential real estate to include single-family homes, condominiums, townhouses, and land zoned for such development. The bill also directs the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division to prioritize scrutiny and enforcement against anti-competitive practices by covered entities in local residential real estate markets.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that institutional investors are driving up housing costs and making homeownership unattainable for many American families by outbidding individual buyers and converting homes into rental properties. They contend that this bill restores fairness to the housing market, ensures homes are primarily for families, not financial assets, and addresses a critical aspect of the national housing affordability crisis.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that restricting institutional investment could reduce liquidity in the housing market, potentially harming property values for existing homeowners. They may also contend that institutional investors provide necessary rental housing stock and that the bill oversimplifies complex housing market dynamics, potentially leading to unintended negative consequences for housing supply or investment in new developments.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 9(b)(1) to the Sherman Act.
Prohibiting Covered Entities from Purchasing Residential Real Estate
This provision makes it illegal for specific large financial entities—such as real estate investment trusts, insurance companies, and investment funds managing over $150 million—to buy single-family homes, condos, townhouses, or land zoned for such housing. Violations are treated as civil antitrust offenses, meaning no criminal penalties apply. This aims to reduce competition for individual homebuyers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this directly addresses the issue of institutional investors outcompeting individual families, thereby making homeownership more accessible and affordable. They believe it will rebalance the market towards owner-occupancy.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could reduce overall demand, potentially lowering property values for existing homeowners, and might also limit the supply of rental properties, exacerbating rental affordability issues. They may also raise concerns about government intervention in free markets.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between promoting individual homeownership and potentially impacting market liquidity, property values, and the supply of institutional rental housing.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 9(b)(2) to the Sherman Act.
Exemption for Housing Construction and Development
This provision clarifies that the prohibition does not apply to homebuilders, developers, or redevelopers who are constructing new residential units or redeveloping existing ones, provided these units are intended for sale to individuals or entities not prohibited from purchasing residential real estate. This ensures that new housing supply can still be created without being subject to the ban.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 9(c) to the Sherman Act.
Enhanced Antitrust Enforcement in Residential Real Estate
This provision directs the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to prioritize investigating purchases of residential real estate by covered entities for any anti-competitive effects. It also mandates prioritizing enforcement against practices like coordinated vacancies, price manipulation, and other anti-competitive behaviors by these entities in local housing markets.
This sub-provision specifies how assets under management are calculated for investment companies and private funds to determine if they meet the $150,000,000 threshold. It states that all persons treated as a single employer under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 414(b) or (c)) shall be treated as one entity, and modifies how Section 414(b) is applied.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 9(a)(1)(B) to the Sherman Act.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining complex thresholds and preventing circumvention. It's necessary technical language to ensure the intent of the asset threshold is met and cannot be easily avoided by structuring entities.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these aggregation rules are essential to prevent large investment firms from circumventing the $150 million asset threshold by splitting their assets across multiple smaller, related funds. Without these rules, the core prohibition could be rendered ineffective.
Case against: Critics might argue that such complex aggregation rules could inadvertently capture smaller, independent funds or create undue compliance burdens for legitimate investment structures that are not intended to be covered by the prohibition.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the $150 million asset threshold for "covered entities" is applied broadly to related investment vehicles, preventing large financial groups from sidestepping the prohibition.