President Donald Trump just floated an idea that’s been quietly gaining traction on both sides of the political aisle: stopping massive institutional investors from buying up single family homes and turning them into rentals.

The announcement sent an immediate shock through the market. Shares tied to large housing investors dropped sharply, with Blackstone reportedly losing billions in market value in a single day. Another major landlord, American Homes for Rent, saw its stock slide hard enough that trading was temporarily paused on the New York Stock Exchange.

At the center of the proposal is a simple idea: homes are meant for people, not corporations. Over the last decade, large institutions like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have expanded their reach into residential neighborhoods, often outbidding families and first time buyers. The result, critics say, is fewer affordable homes and more renters locked into rising monthly payments.

Trump framed homeownership as a cornerstone of the American dream, arguing that it’s becoming harder to reach, especially for younger buyers. While turning this kind of policy into law would likely take years and require bipartisan support in Congress, there’s another path that could move faster. An executive order could instruct federal regulators to make institutional buying far less attractive by limiting access to federally backed mortgages, tax benefits and favorable financing.

That wouldn’t force these firms to sell what they already own, but it could slow or stop future purchases. In practical terms, it would tilt the playing field back toward everyday buyers competing for single family homes instead of battling Wall Street balance sheets.

Supporters see this as a rare moment of agreement across political lines. Critics warn it could have unintended consequences for housing supply and rental markets. Either way, the conversation has clearly shifted and it’s one many communities are watching closely, including some NRV property owners who’ve seen prices rise faster than expected in recent years.

In summary, I’d say this idea taps into a frustration that’s been building for a long time and I 100% absolutely support it. Whether it actually becomes policy or not, I believe it’s forcing a real discussion about who housing is for and how we got here.