Trump pledges to ban institutional homebuyers. Is he bluffing?
Leigh Trail // Shutterstock
“People live in homes, not corporations,” perfectly summed up the tone for President Donald Trump’s attention-grabbing Truth Social post on Jan. 7. In a short, blunt message, Trump took aim at large investors buying up single-family homes at scale, framing the practice as a threat to affordability for everyday Americans and to homeownership itself.
“For a very long time, buying and owning a home was considered the pinnacle of the American Dream. It was the reward for working hard and doing the right thing.” Trump said. He then followed that statement with a crystal-clear declaration. “I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it.”
At its core, Trump’s post positions him as a staunch defender against rising housing costs while also allowing him to control the hot-button affordability narrative. While taking over the conversation is a smart move on Trump’s part, TurboTenant looks at what a ban like this would actually mean, and how realistic it is that his proposal will actually come to fruition.
First, what is an institutional investor?
Before exploring why Trump wants to ban institutional investors, let’s clarify exactly who they are and their influence on the housing market.
Institutional investors are large organizations that invest in rental property using pooled capital from investors or shareholders. They operate at scale, deploy large-scale property management systems, and follow formal investment strategies. Individual buyers (the majority of single-family homeowners that Trump says he wants to protect) typically purchase homes to live in or manage rental properties on a far smaller scale.
Private equity firms, real estate investment trusts, and asset managers (all types of institutional investors) can purchase dozens or even hundreds of homes in a single transaction, often with cash, allowing them to outbid individual buyers regularly, move faster than traditional landlords, and push home prices higher to stave off competition. The fear is that these large corporations make it very difficult for first-time homebuyers to live the “American Dream” and purchase their first properties.
Blackstone, one of the most widely known institutional investors, built one of the largest single-family rental portfolios in the country in the years following the 2008 housing crash. From 2012 to 2016, the firm strategically acquired 50,000 single-family homes across several fast-growing metro areas, thereby concentrating ownership and blindsiding mom-and-pop landlords looking to expand their portfolios one property at a time.
But despite their formidable buying power, institutional investors still hold only a minority share of the overall single-family housing stock. Estimates place institutional single-family homeownership at around 3% nationwide. Not to mention, the average American landlord only owns 1.38 properties. But while these figures may seem insignificant to some, they don’t accurately reflect the heavy concentration of institutional investors in some areas of the country.
For example, in some Sun Belt metros and suburban neighborhoods, institutional investors account for a large share of single-family rental homes, with these “mega investors” owning about 27% in the Atlanta metro area, 22% in Jacksonville, and 20% in Charlotte. In markets like these, that level of concentration gives large investors meaningful influence over pricing, availability, and competition, often leaving individual buyers with far fewer options.
Trump’s motivations for proposing this ban
Whether Trump’s ban on institutional investors ever comes to fruition remains to be seen, but the American president proposed it publicly for a few obvious reasons. Firstly, drastic declarations like this snatch attention and frame Trump as an active participant trying to fix the affordability problem. Not to mention, by targeting institutional investors, Trump shifts the conversation toward an easy-to-blame culprit and simplifies America’s multifaceted housing market woes in one fell swoop.
Considering high interest rates, low inventory, and rising construction costs, buying a home feels out of reach for the average American. And with Trump’s approval ratings sinking into uncharted territory, ignoring affordability won’t help his case with voters. With that in mind, taking on large, faceless institutional investing corporations is an entirely logical move for Trump to make.
Trump’s proposal also serves a media and positioning purpose. A bold statement like he made guarantees coverage across a wide range of political and financial outlets, even if his team hasn’t yet worked out the policy details. By forcing this conversation, Trump dominates the narrative, forces opponents to respond, and drums up engagement among frustrated voters.
Possible effects of banning institutional investors
A ban on institutional investors would not affect every corner of the housing market equally. Still, it would change who competes for homes, how sellers price properties, and the types of housing developers choose to build next. Here are a few possible outcomes of preventing institutional investors from buying single-family homes.
Individual buyers will face reduced competition
Even though institutional investors make up a relatively small share of single-family homeowners nationwide, their impact on the housing market, especially in regional areas, is profound. Removing mega-investors from the buying pool would give individual purchasers and small landlords a better chance to compete. Fewer cash offers and bulk deals would inevitably level the playing field, especially for cash-strapped first-time buyers.
With reduced competition, the broader real estate market would likely slow down and rebalance. Homes could sit on the market longer, bidding wars might ease, and sellers would be forced to take price-sensitive buyers more seriously. In some markets, a lack of institutional investors could reduce prices, while in others it would lower volatility.
Home prices could drop in some real estate markets
Specific markets have a noticeably higher share of institutional investor activity, which means fewer homes for local buyers and more upward pressure on prices. For example, in rental markets like Phoenix, where mega-investors own about 15% of single-family homes, removing institutional competition could soften bidding pressure and allow prices to drift back down to earth.
But this scenario doesn’t mean prices would drop in all markets. Many areas have little institutional investor presence, so a ban would barely register as a blip on the radar. Local supply constraints, construction costs, property tax laws, and job growth patterns will continue to be the dominant forces shaping real estate prices. In those markets, affordability would remain tied to fundamentals rather than institutional investor activity (or lack thereof).
Build-to-rent construction will slow down significantly
Build-to-rent (BTR) construction could slow down significantly under a ban. BTR builds, designed primarily for institutional buyers, currently account for roughly 8% to 9% of new single-family home construction. Without guaranteed bulk purchasers, builders would balk at starting new projects, especially in markets that once had high percentages of institutional investors.
This potential shift might force some builders to pivot toward smaller, individual-focused developments, while others might delay projects altogether or shift capital into multifamily construction. Ultimately, the outcome would vary by area and depend entirely on local demand, financing conditions, and whether individual buyers can replace institutional demand at scale.
What’s the likelihood that this ban ever comes to fruition?
Trump has a long history of proposing big ideas on social media, watching them dominate the headlines, and then letting them fade away.
That pattern is not an accident. Floating a proposal of this magnitude lets Trump stoke reactions, shape public opinion, and reposition himself without ever needing to implement an idea into policy. Past examples of social media promises that haven’t yet become policy include 50-year mortgages, a promise to eliminate the national debt, and replacing income taxes with tariffs.
However, there is a legitimate case for Trump’s ban on institutional investors actually becoming a reality. A successful push through Congress would give Republicans a notable win on affordability ahead of the high-stakes 2026 midterm elections. Voters would likely view the ban as a move that benefits everyday Americans and pushes back against corporations with impossible-to-match buying power. Even a semi-successful half-measure could help Trump claim victory over mega-investors and bring more of his party’s voters to the polls.
With all that in mind, Trump’s proposed ban never materializing is likely the more probable outcome. His Jan. 7 Truth Social post may already have served its political purpose and could fade into obscurity by design. By signaling concern about affordability, Trump sent a loud-and-clear message to voters that he understands their frustration and plans to act in their best interest. But now that his message has landed, Trump’s pressure to act has abated. Furthermore, complex legislation, deep-pocketed opposition, and legal hurdles would make follow-through difficult.
Trump said he plans to speak at length on housing affordability during his upcoming appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, which runs from Jan. 19-23. Affordability almost always plays well on a global stage, but as we’ve seen, Trump’s public statements and policy outcomes don’t always align. For now, the American people will have to wait and see if there’s any substance behind the rhetoric.
This story was produced by TurboTenant and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
