Housing affordability: White House unveils plan to lower rents and home prices

Show summary Hide summary

• What the report highlights
• Policy measures the report says matter
• Why this matters now

The Council of Economic Advisers’ latest Annual Report frames the housing crisis as largely a supply problem compounded by regulation, and argues that recent federal policy shifts are beginning to ease pressure on prices and borrowing costs. If its findings hold, the report suggests changes at the state and local level — along with federal steps already taken — could reshape affordability for renters and prospective buyers.

The advisers estimate that cumulative administrative and regulatory requirements have added a six-figure premium to new homes and slowed construction, constraining the nation’s ability to match housing supply with demand. Their analysis points to a longer-term shortfall in the single-family stock that helps explain why so few new homes are affordable for typical buyers today.

What the report highlights

Key figures and claims in the report include data reaching through 2024 and comparisons to construction trends before the 2008 downturn. The authors say:

• The combined effect of regulations and permitting delays has increased the price of a new single-family home by more than $100,000, according to the report’s calculations.
• Had single-family construction continued at its historical pace after 2008, the United States could have roughly 10 million more such homes than it does now.
• The share of new homes priced under $300,000 fell sharply — from nearly half of new listings in 2019 to about one in six by 2024.

The report frames these trends as the product of both supply constraints and demand factors. It attributes part of the recent easing in mortgage rates to shifts in macroeconomic and policy conditions, including lower yields on 10‑year Treasury bonds and a federal program of mortgage bond purchases under the current administration.

Policy measures the report says matter

Rather than prescribing a single solution, the report emphasizes a mix of approaches. At the federal level it credits regulatory relief and actions intended to reduce demand pressures; at state and local levels it calls for zoning and permitting reform to speed construction.

• Reduce regulatory costs: Streamline permitting and environmental reviews to lower development expenses and shorten project timelines.
• Increase housing supply: Encourage construction of missing middle and single-family units to rebuild the housing stock lost to low post‑2008 starts.
• Limit concentrated investor purchases: Policies aimed at restricting large-scale institutional buying of single-family homes are presented as a way to free homes for owner-occupiers.
• Address demand-side drivers: Border enforcement and immigration policy are cited by the report as factors that affect local housing demand in some markets.
• Support mortgage-market interventions: Targeted purchases of mortgage-backed securities, the report says, have helped push mortgage rates lower and reduce monthly costs for borrowers.

Those recommendations carry different trade-offs for communities. Easing local land-use rules can accelerate building but often encounters opposition from residents concerned about neighborhood character. Restrictions on institutional buyers aim to keep homes available for families, yet they raise questions about market impacts and legal complexity.

Why this matters now

For consumers, the report’s combination of slower price growth and lower mortgage rates could translate into smaller monthly payments — but only if more homes are built in price ranges accessible to first-time buyers. Without faster construction and targeted policy changes at the municipal level, affordability gains from lower interest rates may prove temporary.

Market watchers will be watching two signals closely: whether state and local governments adopt the zoning and permitting reforms the report recommends, and whether federal measures to limit investor purchases and support mortgage liquidity persist. Together, those actions will determine whether the supply shortfall narrows or endures.

Below is a concise view of the report’s most consequential claims and what they imply for households and policymakers.

• Claim: Regulatory and administrative costs add >$100,000 to new-home prices. Implication: Permit and code reform could lower construction costs and prices.
• Claim: Roughly 10 million single-family homes are “missing” relative to historical building rates. Implication: Substantial new construction is needed to rebalance supply and demand.
• Claim: Share of new homes below $300,000 collapsed from ~50% (2019) to ~17% (2024). Implication: Entry-level affordability has deteriorated sharply in recent years.
• Claim: Federal actions — from mortgage bond purchases to limits on investor purchases — have helped reduce mortgage rates. Implication: Borrowing costs can be influenced by policy, but price relief depends on complementary supply-side changes.

The report is a policy blueprint more than a prediction: it makes the case that a combination of deregulatory steps, targeted federal support, and local zoning reform could widen options for buyers and renters. Whether state and municipal governments take up that call will determine the pace at which the nation’s housing crunch eases.