U.S. home prices remain high despite recent easing, with the median sales price at $410,800 as of the second quarter of 2025—a significant jump from $327,100 a decade earlier. With President Trump prioritizing affordability, here’s a breakdown of potential shifts in housing policy if he secures a second term, focusing on changes expected in 2026.
Expanding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Role
One key proposal is to have government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds. This isn’t a new idea; the GSEs once held over $900 billion each in mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis.
Why this matters: Increased GSE purchases could free up lenders to issue more mortgages, but critics argue this won’t directly lower rates. The real driver of interest rates is the Treasury market, where the White House’s approach may be counterproductive.
Introducing 50-Year Mortgages
Trump has also floated the idea of extending mortgage terms to 50 years to reduce monthly payments.
The reality: While payments would be lower, this could trap borrowers in debt well into their retirement years. Many won’t live long enough to pay off the loans, and financial strain would likely increase as income declines in old age. Some experts even suggest that longer loan terms could increase prices by fueling demand without addressing the core supply shortage.
Restricting Institutional Investors
Another proposal is to ban large institutional investors from buying single-family homes, particularly those intended for rentals. The goal is to increase housing inventory and lower prices.
However: Analysts note that land-use restrictions, not institutional buyers, are the primary barrier to housing affordability. Even if the ban passes, it won’t solve the fundamental supply shortage—which requires building millions of additional homes beyond current construction levels.
Conclusion: Trump’s housing policies aim to address affordability, but their effectiveness is uncertain. The core issue isn’t just financing or investor activity; it’s a systemic lack of supply constrained by zoning and land-use regulations. The proposed measures may have limited impact without broader structural reforms.
