Trump vows to ban large corporations from buying residential homes

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump announced steps Wednesday to ban large institutional investors from purchasing additional single-family homes, citing record-high prices and growing concerns over housing affordability for American families.

In a social media post, Trump argued that corporate ownership of residential properties has pushed homeownership out of reach for many citizens. The proposed policy specifically targets "Sun Belt" cities like Atlanta and Jacksonville, where investor ownership rates far exceed the national average.

While institutional investors own approximately 2% of single-family rental homes nationwide, their presence is heavily concentrated in the Southeast. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, investors control about one-quarter of the rental market in Atlanta and more than one-fifth in Jacksonville. Similar trends have been observed in Charlotte and Tampa.

The Trump administration’s latest move to curb institutional investment in the residential market represents a direct populist intervention aimed at a primary grievance for middle- and working-class voters: the housing affordability crisis. By casting "Wall Street" as the chief antagonist, the policy creates a potent political narrative that pits the interests of ordinary citizens against large financial conglomerates. This strategy is vintage Trump—a calculated maneuver to solidify support among his core constituency by framing complex economic issues as a battle against corporate elites.

From an economic perspective, however, the long-term efficacy of such a ban remains contentious. In the short term, sidelining well-capitalized institutional buyers may reduce bidding competition, potentially offering individual homebuyers a cleaner path to entry. Yet, this could trigger significant unintended consequences. Institutional investors are major providers of professionally managed rental housing; restricting their participation could inadvertently choke the supply of quality rentals, disproportionately affecting those who are not yet positioned for homeownership.

Furthermore, the policy fails to address the structural drivers of the American housing crisis. The root causes—namely chronic undersupply, restrictive zoning regulations, and the prevailing interest rate environment—remain untouched. By targeting demand-side players without addressing the fundamental lack of inventory, the administration risks offering a temporary political palliative rather than a sustainable economic solution.

For the Vietnamese American community—particularly in Sun Belt states like Texas and Florida—this policy could have a direct and tangible impact. Many immigrant families and small business owners, from phở restaurant owners to those in the nail salon industry, often struggle to compete with institutional investors making all-cash offers on starter homes. By limiting these large-scale competitors, the policy could clear a path toward homeownership, which remains a vital milestone for building long-term wealth and stability in the U.S. However, there is a potential downside: families who are currently renting might face a tightening market if these large investment firms withdraw their inventory.