BREAKING: Trump Signs Executive Order To LOWER Home Prices (Major Changes Explained)
Get free life insurance quotes from America's top insurers and start saving today with Policygenius: Thanks to Policygenius for sponsoring this video! | Let's discuss The Trump Housing Plan, Building on Federal Land, and Reducing Regulation To Lower The Cost Of Housing – Enjoy! Add me on Instagram: GPStephan
GET MY WEEKLY EMAIL MARKET RECAP NEWSLETTER:
The YouTube Creator Academy:
Learn EXACTLY how to get your first 1000 subscribers on YouTube, rank videos on the front page of searches, grow your following, and turn that into another income source: – $100 OFF WITH CODE 100OFF
HOW TRUMP PLANS TO LOWER HOUSING COSTS:
1. Building Codes
The Department of Housing and Urban Development implemented a policy that required all new homes meet a certain level of energy-efficiency, if they were to qualify for federally-backed mortgages. The National Association of Home Builders estimated that this could add up to $31,000 to the cost of a new home.
2. Less Regulation
According to a prior executive order, Trump wrote that: “Many Americans are unable to purchase homes due to historically high prices, in part due to regulatory requirements that alone account for 25 percent of the cost of constructing a new home” – and, according to several studies: on single family homes, government regulations account for 23.8% of the overall cost and on multifamily, it’s 40.6%.
3. Building On Federal Land
28% of all land in the United States is owned by the government (this includes national parks, areas with mineral rights, bases, and locations preserved for conservation) so as a way to help ‘spark’ economic growth, the Trump Administration is setting up a task force to “locate federal land that could potentially be used for affordable housing development…The goal is to open up large areas of federal land by transferring or leasing it to local governments.”
The American Enterprise Institute indicated that this “could result in the construction of three to four million new homes across western states like Nevada, Utah, California, and Arizona."
According to them: “This isn’t a free-for-all to build on federal lands, although we recognize that bad-faith critics will likely call it that. It’s a strategic effort to use our resources responsibly while preserving our most beautiful lands. For land use, all options are being explored, including transferring or leasing federal lands to public housing authorities, nonprofits, and local governments. However, lands within national parks, wildlife refuges, and other conservation areas will remain protected. Specifics will be announced as the task force completes its review and finalizes details."
My ENTIRE Camera and Recording Equipment:
For business inquiries, you can reach me at grahamstephanbusiness@gmail.com
*Some of the links and other products that appear on this video are from companies which Graham Stephan will earn an affiliate commission or referral bonus. Graham Stephan is part of an affiliate network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites. The content in this video is accurate as of the posting date. Some of the offers mentioned may no longer be available. This is not investment advice.
-Here is a link containing the source material for each piece of research cited. I do my best to make my videos as accurate as I can, and the additional resources should help anyone who wants to look into them further – enjoy! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pnM3M1bNfaVh8gQ7I7s1DwKql–orYpB3bHAX7-wp-Q/edit?usp=sharing
-Get free life insurance quotes from America’s top insurers and start saving today with Policygenius: https://policygenius.com/graham
The sources are important. thank you for providing them.
12:53 let me get this straight. Do you want people to tack on their existing mortgage to a new home purchase? It sounds like you want to buy these homes cheap because the people that do this will go into foreclosure from not being able to afford the old loan plus the new loan.
Make owning a home not an asset for tax write off and you’ll hopefully see less homelessness although I am stupid when it comes to this stuff so I may be wrong about my opinion so please correct me if I am horribly wrong
Hey @GrahamStephan just wanted to ask, what is your take about you being a leech on society and providing zero value by purchasing dozens of single family homes and taking them away from dozens of families to steal money from people who actually work? Do you think that someone like you who provides literally zero value to society yet leeches all of the revenue is sustainable? Do you think you will remain safe if this continues? Do you not fear for the consequences of forcing millions into desperate poverty so you don’t have to do any work ever? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I like these resources, I hope to see them every video! Keep up the good work
What about the embarrassingly bad build quality of many new homes?
It’s about to get much much worse.
Don’t buy those ones.
step into the ring and build something nice.
I don’t know how this works when we’re also facing surcharges on building materials.
@@julianpetty9016 Most likely not, more and more people are exposing those building companies.
As an agent in the Louisiana area, the reason they are losing value is all due to the massive increase in home owners insurance. Average insurance as at least doubled and sometimes tripled over the past 3 years. Little to no competition between insurance providers, some parishes (counties) only have one insurance provider that will insure homes in that area. That is not the way the free market should work, it’s basically a monopoly by circumstance. Not really the way our economy should be, but hey, that’s Louisiana. Might be a good video for you Graham to look into
“Free markets” naturally trend towards monopoly overtime so they are functioning as intended.
Honestly one of the many reasons I am looking to leave Louisiana. Wasn’t just my home insurance but my automotive as well. Insurance companies are just abandoning the state.
@@Gearbhall They’re doing that near all the coastal areas. Sucks, but yeah that was always bound to happen.
@@Gearbhall It’s not any better in the Midwest. Insurance companies have even pulled out of Iowa because the severe storms have become even more severe over the last 30 years.
Also, property taxes tend to go up a lot as well, since the services your tax dollars pay for are also becoming more expensive for your city to maintain and insure.
Not sure why the mortgage companies don’t just offer to insure the home for the life of the contract for a set added price. Same as buying a car you can add full coverage to the loan including GAP, but then get liability insurance standalone thru a provider for a much lesser price.
If you want homes to be affordable to more people we need to make it a less profitable investment for corporations and landlords who can price regular people out of the market. Make it more expensive to own multiple properties and make it cheaper to own your primary residence
2 easy solutions. Stop the rent subsidies and stop holding up development.
If you increase the number of homes for sale you will drive the price down.
If you take away the incentive of guaranteed money without the needs to compete in an open and free market then you’ll lower the rent cost.
yes, it’s all about wealth inequality. Everyone needs a home. Billionairs dont need 1000. That means 1000 people without a home and forced into slavery. Tax and regulate the rich so they cant do this anymore.
You wanna see house prices go up! Make it so people have no financial incentive to build YOU a house.
This is the only solution, and unsurprisingly, the one Kamala Harris campaigned on. I shouldn’t be paying the same taxes as somebody who owns 10 houses as an investment tool. An upper lower to middle class citizen should be encouraged to have a home at a fair price ,so they are encouraged to spend dollars at local businesses, supermarkets, and travel, instead of sending a million dollars to a corporation.
@@oe542lots of townspeople hate the idea of new developments. They don’t want their town bigger and busier. They don’t want their schools squeezed to fit more students. We can barely get any new developments unless they are single family homes and then the builder has to build more upper end homes to make the profit margin they are looking for to fund other projects.
They need to make it illegal for all these hedge funds to purchase single family homes. Just so they can rent them out. And controlling the rent pricing.
Amen, it’s modern day slavery, they use algorithms to determine how much money they can extract out of you, and make it nearly impossible for most people to own their own home by buying up all of the properties that are perfect starter homes.
Hedge funds own less than 3% of homes.
Don’t listen to the FUD.
I personally think this is the biggest housing issue of our time. There is no reason hedge funds should be able to purchase residential real estate.
You guys hate capitalism?
No way Donald is gonna sign this.
“Pass savings to the buyer.”
Haha. That’s cute.
No kidding.
The MARKET decides the cost of homes.
Every proposed change in law in this video seems to be off the assumption people with money and power will just “do the right thing” and well… no
Things that never happen for 1000
It’s been the game plan to dupe for deregulation for years.
Build lots of slapped together housing, turns developers and real estate agents into millionaires, sticks first time homeowners in houses that fall apart, community eyesores everywhere. Neighborhoods get bought buy rental agencies, community housing projects of the future.
End corporate ownership of homes
Wont happened this term. Those are Donald Trumps best friends
Yup…. No one person should be allowed to own more than 2 or 3 homes. End landlords owning single family homes.
they would never do this. Even graham would be severely opposed to any law that would add even a small 4% incremental tax on every additional purchased property.
But that is the real problem. As long as you can hoard homes the same way you can hoard cash, if you’re rich enough it’s better to hoard homes than to hoard cash.
Really what they should do is tax “investment” properties that are unoccupied. It’s not an investment property if you don’t have a tenant, and haven’t had a tenant for who knows how long. It’s just a property you bought to avoid taxes, which too many rich and wealthy people are doing.
I agree!
I agree with this to a point…. maybe at the very least is create a cap? I have a business and have purchased properties to attract for top talent type stuff.
Let’s stop pitching the low interest rate story. Prices need to come down or incomes double while prices stay put.
Granted, we do need to build more to lower the price of homes with that said, interest rates play a very big part in this. The price may get lower but yeah, enjoy borrowing at 7 to 10 percent buddy.
A lot of people who had the money to buy in this economy opted out because of the interest rates. You can fix the housing market, but if the fed is not satisfied with the overall health of the economy, they’re not going to lower interest rates.
@bishop51807 lowering interest rates on construction loans is an approach that will be far more productive. Mortgage interest rates in the 6-10% is good not a problem. Interest is tax deductible, huge principle payment is not.
considering he is putting tariff’s on lumber and drywall it’ll go up in price
Yea honestly screw the interest rate. I will not buy a home even at a 0% interest rate. It’s an awful investment, and they are all way overpriced, and they deserve to crash to the ground. I would just end up putting my money towards a house and It’ll just go down in value… A fair price for homes should be no more than $50,000 for a nice home, $500,000 for some insanely luxurious home.
@scurvysailor165 Don’t crash them until after me and my gal get married, and we sell her condo in August, please. 😂
Yea, cause loosening regulation on already shoddy builders is gonna make everyones life better….. Said no one ever
I built my own house and I have to say the latest regulations that lobbiest groups put in make zero sense. The structural integrity of buildings haven’t changed since the early 2000 but the latest energy changes make little financial sense. ARC circuits add thousands, air exchange systems are stupid expensive and the Air testing requirement might help seal up leaks but trap bad air inside long term. There are so many unnecessary regulations that people got stupid rich on.
@@dlove118 Energy efficiency eventually pays for itself over time.
said the people who make money by building houses and renting them for exorbitant rates
oh, conservatives have been hooting that lie for decades. Capitalism requires good regulation to even exist. without it you get a fucked up form of socialism, only for the rich. we are there.
You ever build a house? I guess no.
While I appreciate the breakdown, this plan feels like it caters more to developers and investors than everyday Americans. “Less regulation” often just means cutting safety and sustainability standards so builders can maximize profits—not lower prices. And building on federal land sounds flashy but doesn’t address real affordability, especially when most of that land is remote or costly to develop.
What we actually need are policies that disincentivize corporate hoarding of single-family homes, tax long-term vacancies, and regulate short-term rentals like Airbnb that eat up local housing. Until those issues are addressed, we’re just making it easier for the wealthy to get wealthier while working-class people remain locked out.
Exactly!! 🙂👍 🙂👍
Totally agreed…while looking for my house in 2010…I got out bidded by cash only offers at least 6 times…that should never be. Unless the house has been on the market for 60 days or more…for example I will bid on a house that was on the market for 1 day and the next day they have accepted a cash offer..so we talking less then 3 days….thats just 2 fast…and if you dont have cash …forget about it
Basically another trickle down grift from the grifter party.
I’m starting to think that electing a real estate developer might have some potential downsides.
Less regulation only hurts the workers and consumers.
End residential property tax and corporate ownership of residential homes!
By end residential property tax, do you mean altogether or for a homestead?
@@trumpstertroller8426I think he means for primary residence
how do we pay for fire departments, police, roads, schools, etc? When I saw a receipt of what my property tax goes towards, I was totally fine paying it. Especially in my local smaller town.
spoken like a boomer
end property tax = “ive already reached my goals, I want to change the rules to pay less AND ensure no one else can reach the same goals”
All I’m hearing is companies cutting overhead, but still charging too much. They arent reducing their prices just because they can cut costs.
They’re doing just enough to be prices steady while they sell new homes above market.
every industry needs a profit margin cap.
And in the name of reducing safety as well. A lot of regulations (not all of them, but a lot) are there for the safety reasons, not just things like electrical but also structural. We see this time and time again, when the building industry takes short cuts in the name of saving a bit of money, it can be even more costly and/or dangerous down the track to maintain because proper precautions haven’t taken place first time around.
Look up Grenfell tower in the UK. Example of what happens when you cut costs and don’t have effective building regs.
Exactly. The prices of home did not go this high only cause of lumber. It went high cause it was a buyers market and people got greedy.
You’re forgetting Airbnb. I’m a real estate photographer. I photograph suburban single family homes every single day that should be used to house families and build memories. But they’re used as cash cows to make money instead of being lived in.
Yes, I’ve been screaming about this for years. I think there is a space for airbnb but it shouldn’t be taking large percentage of residential.
Most counties and cities already have Air BnB regulations in place to help with this.
@@USNEWS541 That isn’t even coming close to stopping the majority of hosts from buying and operating more and more. I know because they’re my clients and I have to photograph these houses daily. Sometimes just across the street from others I’ve shot.
Yea if you just got rid of Air BNB that would probably solve the problem
You want to tell people what they can do with their own homes?
I dunno who needs to hear this but.. AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AIN’T LOWERING HOUSING PRICES!
Yeah but Graham is MAGA.
EXACTLY.
Sounds more like an executive order to get all of the other BS passed just for him to say it’s going to lower housing prices.
Watch blackrock come in and just buy all those new homes on federal lands.
Yep, we need to address and end corporations owning houses or slumlords owning multiple houses. Once that is fixed then more houses will be available. The average Joe won’t be able to afford even if millions houses are built when we got greedy people owning them all to increase prices.
Too many people think of homes as a money-making venture rather than a home.
it shouldn’t even be possible to use for money making. if renting/hoarding was abolished, homes would cost 10k and every american would have one
Over here, the Australian market is shocking
companies, not people. a single person/family doesn’t screw the market by buying a house, living in it for a couple years then moving.
If someone wants to have a rental property they should be able to. Don’t cry about it. Get in on it.
@@ASMRyouVEGANyet That’s easier said than done most young people cant afford it. Not everyone is born with money.
I always felt that the fact companies can own homes and drive up prices to absurb numbers is criminal
3.8% of single family homes are owned by corporations
I think we need to leave federal lands alone. Stop allowing our land to be sold to large corporations and foreign investors who are hoarding it.
Trump’s gonna build a golf course on National park land. GUARANTEED.
@@Stathese1Lotta people on the right don’t want to acknowledge that the corporate wing of the GOP would gladly bulldoze Yellowstone for gated mansions and chalets for the rich.
@@Stathese1 He claims to want affordable housing, I’m guessing his condos start above $1.5 million
Building homes in the metro West, where lack of water is a real issue is just plain stupid.
Why would I want a less efficient house and appliances just to turn around and pay higher monthly bills to the electric, water and gas companies??? Stop hedge funds from owning massive amounts of residential homes.
Bravo!
It’s what “Drill Baby Drill” means. No competition, higher prices. Fewer homes, higher prices. Gold hoardng, higher price.
This is not a serious problem look at the numbers. The largest single family home owner that is corpo is blackstone which doesnt even own 1% of all homes on the market 😅
Well, because those “energy efficiency” homes are about 1% more efficient and will never, ever pay for themselves in evergreen savings. That’s why.
When I build my home the first contractor was pedaling a passive house it was 40k+ more I told him what if i get 25k solar power and get rid of the bill entirely almost all year he didn’t know what to say lol