Candidates pitch housing affordability fixes as a midterm gambit

On the campaign trail, candidates in tightly contested races for the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, highlight housing as a campaign platform priority, with dedicated policy sections, website pages or campaign ads focused on the issue.

Candidates for federal office focus on a range of housing issues, from cutting red tape and boosting construction to restricting institutional investors, expanding housing subsidies and down-payment assistance, and lowering material costs through tariff relief, among other proposals. 

Most candidates are eager to talk about housing, but far fewer are willing to move past broad campaign promises and lay out detailed policy specifics. That gap is worth watching for the homebuilding industry, with speculation growing about a “housing 2.0” bill following the passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in July.

Candidates pledge to cut red tape, but leave out specifics

While Democrats and Republicans remain divided on a host of contentious policy issues, housing stands out as an area of broad bipartisan agreement, known as a “horseshoe” issue for its appeal across party lines. Common ground agreement that the United States faces a housing shortage and that government needs to make it easier to build more homes lends itself to across-the-aisle policy work.

This agreement shows up in how candidates for federal office address housing on the campaign trail. However, when candidates discuss increasing housing supply, the language is typically somewhat broad and high-level. They often, but don’t always, highlight cutting red tape and regulations, streamlining production and improving permitting, without shedding light on exactly what that means. 

For his part, Rodgers, in a press release announcing his campaign’s “Builders” ad, pledged to “to tackle Michigan’s housing affordability crisis by making it easier to build more homes, cutting unnecessary government red tape and training the skilled workforce needed to get the job done.” 

Rodgers, vowing to get “government out of the way of builders,” offered a concrete proposal in his housing plan that would encourage new home construction by creating residential housing zones where 100% of new construction would be tax exempt. 

Rodgers’ Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, has similarly advocated for “a building boom” to address the nation’s housing crisis, and called out “unfair regulations that are making it way too hard to build affordable housing in America.” However, his campaign’s THRIVE Agenda focuses more narrowly on affordable, below-market housing, rather than addressing market-rate home prices and rents.

Roy Cooper, the Democratic Senate candidate in North Carolina, released a housing plan advocating for streamlining housing reviews, speeding up approvals, eliminating unnecessary rules and red tape, converting commercial properties to housing and incentivizing multifamily development.

“If we can cut back on the redundant steps in the review process and modernize outdated permitting systems, we can drive down costs for everyone,” the plan read. 

James Talarico, the Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, similarly called for repealing “outdated red tape that hinders the construction of housing”. While Talarico didn’t provide many specifics, like some other candidates, he proposed expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). 

In Iowa, Ashley Hinson, the Republican Senate candidate, also called for cutting red tape to spur housing production, while leaving specific proposals on the table. 

The bipartisan push to build more housing is clear, but many candidates have yet to bridge the chasm between vague calls to cut red tape and specific policies that would meaningfully boost housing production. 

However, a recently released document from the bipartisan Build America Caucus, which included several housing policy proposals, offers a window into what incumbent lawmakers are said to be considering. 

The populist pitch: ditch Wall Street, help buyers and renters

One of the clearest campaign housing-related appeals is to the claim that ordinary Americans are being priced out by Wall Street, a known electability tactic. Both Republicans and Democrats have embraced restrictions on institutional investors, while Democratic candidates tie housing affordability more pointedly to broader arguments about excessive institutional power and billionaire wealth.

That argument tends to hold appeal across party lines. 

In an ad, Republican Marty O’Donnell, running for Congress in a district in the Las Vegas area, pledged to ban corporations from buying single-family homes. 

“I approve this message because you shouldn’t have to compete with billionaires or corrupt politicians to buy a home,” O’Donnell said in the ad, voicing rhetoric similar to that of various other candidates. 

Most candidates who released housing proposals vow to ban Wall Street from buying up single-family homes, but stop short of clarifying measures that go beyond the institutional investor ban included in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. 

The populist angst targeting Wall Street also extends to the way large landlords set rents. Banning algorithmic rent-setting, the use of software and rental-market data to recommend or set apartment prices, is a common 2026 campaign promise. The practice, which critics argue can reduce competition and push rents higher, has already been banned in various states. 

Candidates, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, also call for restoring federal funding to expand affordable housing programs, through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Section 8 and other housing-assistance programs. The proposals reflect the idea that government needs to subsidize the production of homes that are affordable to lower- and middle-income households.

Broader bipartisan consensus surfaces around policy measures that would amplify down-payment assistance to homebuyers. Proposals range from expanding tax-advantaged savings for down payments to direct assistance and tax deductions. 

Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate Candidate in Texas, proposed a $50,000 tax deduction for first-time homebuyers and a $50,000 down payment deduction for homeowners moving to a new primary residence, while his opponent Talarico offered up a similar down payment assistance proposal. Rogers, for his part, wants to let families use 529 savings plans, typically reserved as a college savings plan, for first-time homebuyer down payments. 

The common thread is that, while candidates frequently nod broadly to the need to shred red tape and streamline regulations to add ground-up housing supply, they typically offer more specific proposals on populist issues, from targeting Wall Street investors to subsidizing rents and expanding down payment assistance.

The contrast suggests that candidates believe these tangible affordability measures will resonate more with voters. 

Tariffs and labor emerge as campaign issues

Earlier this year, seven Democratic members of the Senate introduced a bill, the Housing Tariff Exclusion Act, that would omit building materials from tariffs. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) threw its support behind the legislation, which has yet to go to the Senate floor for a vote.

However, signs of bipartisan opposition to building-material tariffs are emerging. Republican candidates Susan Collins of Maine, who is seeking reelection to the Senate, and Rodgers have both signaled opposition to tariffs on Canada. John Sununu, the Republican Senate candidate in New Hampshire, was even more explicit in an Oct. 1 interview with NHPR, when asked how he would make homeownership more attainable.

“First, get rid of tariffs on building materials, right? That’ll bring down the cost of construction right away,” Sununu said. 

Immigration enforcement is another contentious issue. Homebuilders in some markets have told HousingWire TBD that a surge in ICE arrests since the summer has left them struggling to find workers, as even legally authorized employees fear showing up to work.

NAHB also signaled its support for the bipartisan Dignity Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) that would allow certain undocumented workers to remain in the country legally without prospects of gaining citizenship.

While immigration remains top of mind for voters in many races this year, most candidates haven’t directly made a housing connection. However, Paxton, a close ally of the Trump administration, did so during a September interview with the United States Hispanic Business Council, noting that he has spoken with business owners, including homebuilders and ranchers, who rely on immigrant labor and have felt the effects of recent immigration enforcement.

Paxton said he believes American workers should be prioritized, but he also acknowledged that immigration is necessary in some cases, particularly given the nation’s declining birth rate.

“That likely means that we have to let people in that can fulfill some of these jobs that we don’t have enough people for. Our birth population isn’t keeping up with demand,” Paxton said.