Trump’s approach to solving America’s housing issues.

On Friday, as a White House official told the press “the Administration continues to support the 21st Century Road to Housing Act that just passed the Senate,” President Trump issued two executive orders related to housing. The Removing Regulatory Barriers To Affordable Home Construction order aims to “reduce regulatory barriers to building homes and to steward taxpayer dollars in a manner that promotes housing affordability.”

One dimensional framing, lack of evidence

The preamble frames “regulatory barriers” as the central cause of high housing costs. This oversimplifies the issue. While regulations do contribute to costs, factors such as land scarcity, labor shortages, materials inflation, local zoning, and market demand play equally significant roles. Effective policy should acknowledge this complexity.

Lack of Evidence: The text does not cite studies or data substantiating claims about the magnitude of regulatory costs versus other drivers of housing unaffordability.

Leading research (Urban Institute, Harvard JCHS) shows a multifactorial landscape.

Creates jurisdictional ambiguity and likely exceeds authority

Housing policy is primarily governed at the state and local level—federal intervention, especially through mandates or incentives, may be perceived as overreach. The order proposes “best practices” for state and local governments, but threatens to tie federal grants to adoption. This could provoke political backlash and even legal challenges over federalism.

Directing federal agencies to review or revise standards (e.g., local building codes, permitting processes) may exceed federal statutory authority, especially if it implies interference beyond federal lands or programs.

Unintended consequences, weakens environmental protections

Section 2(a) directs the Army Corps and EPA to “review and revise” stormwater, wetlands, and Clean Water Act requirements to reduce housing costs. This risks undermining essential environmental safeguards, potentially leading to long-term ecological damage, increased disaster risk (flooding), and public health consequences.

The Order conflicts with law: The Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have statutory mandates and judicial interpretations (e.g., Sackett v. EPA). Pushing agencies to “maximally exempt” housing may result in noncompliance or litigation.

Cost-benefit blind spots

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Costs: Section 2(c) targets energy efficiency and water-use standards as “unduly burdensome.” While these requirements do raise up-front costs, overwhelming evidence shows long-term savings for homeowners and climate resilience benefits. The order ignores these downstream benefits.

Market Distortion: Weakening efficiency standards could erode consumer protections and exacerbate energy poverty, especially for low-income households living in older, inefficient homes.

The order frames restrictions on manufactured/modular housing as “arbitrary,” but many localities impose these limits for valid reasons, such as fire safety, infrastructure, neighborhood character. Blanket removal of such restrictions may reduce housing quality and social acceptance.

The order prioritizes construction of “affordable single-family homes in suburban and exurban neighborhoods.” This runs counter to evidence that multifamily, higher-density housing (apartments, ADUs) is more effective in addressing affordability at scale, especially in high-demand urban cores (Wards 1, 2, and 6 in the District).

Potential Suburban Sprawl: By promoting development “beyond urban centers” and curtailing growth boundaries, the order risks incentivizing sprawl, increasing car dependence, and undermining climate and infrastructure goals. Urban sprawl costs the U.S. economy over $1 trillion annually. It is a massive drain that stems from increased infrastructure expenses, higher transportation costs, and environmental destruction.

Misalignment, Speculative Development Risk

Linking more housing incentives to Opportunity Zones and New Markets Tax Credits may drive speculative investment, which has not been proven to create more affordable or workforce housing.

Previous studies show Opportunity Zones often benefit developers rather than target populations.

Eligibility Confusion: Opportunity Zones and NMTC eligibility rules are complex; layering additional incentives may make program administration more challenging without clear affordability requirements.

The order lacks clear targets, reporting requirements, or timelines (other than the 60-day window for best practices).

Without metrics, it’s difficult to evaluate effectiveness or ensure accountability.

Vague “Best Practices”: Section 4(a) lists sweeping reforms such as by-right development, fee caps and third-party inspections without defining parameters or minimum standards. This could lead to arbitrary or inconsistent application.

Interagency Coordination Gaps: Multiple agencies are named (HUD, EPA, DOT, USDA, Treasury, FHFA, etc.), but there is little detail on coordination mechanisms or conflict resolution.

• Environmental Groups will strongly oppose any weakening of Clean Water Act/NEPA standards.
• Local Governments may see best practices as unfunded mandates or preemption of local authority.
• Consumer Advocates may oppose rollbacks on building safety, quality, or energy-efficiency standards.

Vague and Ambiguous Language: Frequent use of terms like “unduly burdensome,” “arbitrary,” “appropriate,” and “as needed” makes the order difficult to implement or evaluate.

Overlapping Directives: Several sections direct similar reviews or reforms, risking duplication or confusion.

Section 6(c) Disclaimer: The “not intended to create any right or benefit” clause is boilerplate, but may undermine stakeholder trust in the seriousness of the order.

This draft order reads like a wish list for large-scale deregulation of housing and environmental policy, with little regard for jurisdictional nuance, legal constraints, or the full array of factors that determine housing affordability.

It risks undermining core environmental and consumer protections in the name of affordability, but may fail to produce meaningful gains due to its narrow focus on single-family construction and lack of enforceable standards.

Read the “REMOVING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOME CONSTRUCTION” order here.

Read our evaluation of the second order PROMOTING ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT here.