The Trump administration is offering new details on its plans to restrict institutional investors from buying single-family homes, proposing to target companies that own as few as 100 houses.
Executives at the American Homes 4 Rent said they are “a key part of the housing solution” as the White House presses Congress to pass President Donald Trump’s proposed ban on investors buying homes.
American Homes 4 Rent, a Las Vegas‑based real estate investment trust that owns and manages more than 60,000 single‑family rental homes nationwide, has focused much of its growth on build‑to‑rent developments, constructing new homes specifically for rental use.
“There’s a lot still moving … in just how all this ultimately is going to shake out,” Bryan Smith, chief executive officer of American Homes 4 Rent, told investors and analysts on the company’s fourth‑quarter earnings call Friday.
The proposal has put large rental operators squarely in focus, even as companies like American Homes 4 Rent argue they are helping address the housing shortage by building new homes for rent — setting up a debate that could shape how much institutional capital remains in the housing market and how much competition buyers face in an already tight market.
Smith noted that the company has stepped up engagement with policymakers, arguing that institutional landlords can help address the housing shortage by adding new supply.
“The mechanics of how this affects small operators versus larger ones, and build‑to‑rent versus scattered‑site housing, are still unclear,” Smith said, adding that recent discussions suggest broad agreement among policymakers that housing supply has not kept pace with demand.
Industry executives react
"The problem is how the language could be interpreted,” said Samuel Landy, chief executive of UMH Properties, a real‑estate investment trust that owns and operates 145 manufactured homes. He argued that firms focused on adding affordable housing could still be blocked from buying properties that already contain even a small number of rentals.
Under the bill, a “large institutional investor” broadly encompasses REITs, investment funds, partnerships and other corporate entities engaged in owning or managing single‑family homes, a category that explicitly includes manufactured houses.
“What they mean to do is prevent institutional investors from coming into a town and reducing the supply of affordable housing,” Landy said. “But preventing us from buying communities where we would add new homes doesn’t achieve that purpose.”
Data from John Burns Research and Consulting shows that if the 100‑home threshold stands, only 6.3% of single‑family investors would be affected by the White House proposal, while 93.7% would remain untouched.
Landy added that the ambiguity gives him “a scary flashback” to the aftermath of the financial crisis, when manufactured housing was accidentally swept into provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act’s Safe Act and Truth in Lending rules, producing unintended consequences that adversely affected his business.
Investor ban exemptions
Still, the White House plan offered some relief for investors. The proposal would continue to allow build‑to‑rent developments, in which investors construct new single‑family homes specifically for rental use rather than bidding against families for existing homes.
It would also permit rent‑to‑own and other homeownership programs that help tenants build credit and save for down payments, along with purchases tied to foreclosures or other distressed properties, so long as they are not held as long‑term investments.
The ban would apply only to future purchases, meaning institutional landlords would not be forced to sell homes they already own and ownership changes involving homes bought before the law takes effect would still be allowed.
Government entities and community land trusts would be exempt altogether, and the Treasury Department would retain authority to approve other transactions it determines would expand homeownership opportunities, giving regulators flexibility to avoid unintended consequences for buyers and renters.
If enacted, the proposal would not take effect for 180 days after enactment, giving investors and regulators time to adjust.
White House seeks path forward
The White House has spent weeks urging lawmakers to fold Trump’s proposed investor ban into major housing legislation, but that effort has been stalled. House Republicans passed a housing bill last week without the ban, while the Senate is reworking its own package ahead of negotiations with the House.
“The effort to ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes has strong support among the American public, as well as Republicans and Democrats, enough for it to easily become law,” Davis Ingle, a White House spokesman, told Homes.com in a statement.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump officials are now looking at the Senate bill as a vehicle for the investor ban. The proposal has been a core element of Trump’s housing policy, and he is expected to address it further at Tuesday’s State of the Union address.
“The President has made it clear that he is committed to signing legislation that truly makes purchasing a home affordable again, and a key ingredient is his popular proposal to ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes,” Ingle added.
Sharon Cornelissen, director of housing at Consumer Federation of America, said that to meaningfully limit investors’ activity in housing markets, Congress would need to pass legislation, including provisions addressing how existing investor‑owned homes would be treated.
For now, Republican support appears limited. A recent bill introduced by Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois, for example, would apply only to companies with more than $100 billion in assets — a threshold that would not affect any major single‑family rental operator.
Trump officials have asked lawmakers to review the proposed language and provide feedback, but the Senate must still pass a revised bill before reconciling it with the House measure.