In a bold move that sent ripples through the financial markets, President Donald Trump announced last Wednesday his intention to ban large institutional investors from purchasing additional single-family homes. “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. People live in homes, not corporations,” Trump stated in a social media post. This policy targets giants like Blackstone, JPMorgan Chase, and other investment firms that have increasingly dominated the housing market, often converting homes into rentals for profit. Shares of Blackstone plummeted by as much as 9% following the announcement, underscoring the immediate economic impact.
Trump’s plan comes amid a US housing market described as being in a “deep freeze.” Home prices have surged nearly 55% nationwide from early 2020 to the third quarter of 2025, according to the National Association of Home Builders. Factors like low inventory, mortgage rates above 6%, and homeowners reluctant to sell due to pandemic-era low-interest loans have exacerbated the crisis. Institutional investors entered the fray post-2008 Great Recession, snapping up foreclosed properties, especially in Sun Belt states. By 2015, they owned up to 300,000 single-family homes, per the Government Accountability Office. In cities like Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Charlotte, these investors controlled over 15% of the market by 2022.
Proponents of the ban, including bipartisan lawmakers, argue that corporate buying sprees drive up prices, making homeownership elusive for average Americans. By restricting institutions, the policy aims to prioritize individual buyers, potentially easing affordability and restoring the American dream of owning a family home. Trump hinted at more proposals during his upcoming speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, signaling a broader push on housing issues.
However, critics, including economists, warn that this could backfire. Jaret Seiberg, an analyst at TD Cowen, noted, “This will not fix housing affordability. It may boost single-family purchases, but it will come at the cost of reducing single-family rentals.” Removing institutional capital might stifle new construction or renovations, as these firms often invest in properties that individuals overlook. With no institutional ownership of 1,000+ homes before 2011, their rapid growth has added rental options, albeit at higher costs. Banning them might not address root causes like zoning restrictions or supply shortages, potentially leading to even tighter markets.
Across the border in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is pursuing a starkly contrasting strategy: actively courting institutional investors to boost housing supply. Facing a severe shortage, exacerbated by population growth and high immigration, Canada’s approach emphasizes mobilizing private capital to build more homes faster. At the heart of this is the newly created federal agency, Build Canada Homes (BCH), which acts as a developer and financier, partnering with private entities to catalyze construction.
Key initiatives include leveraging public lands for development, prioritizing innovative methods like factory-built and modular housing to cut costs and timelines. The government is deploying financial incentives, such as low-cost financing and a reintroduced Multiple Unit Rental Building (MURB) tax allowance, which historically spurred rental construction. Budget 2025 aims to unlock over $1 trillion in investments across sectors, with $130 billion earmarked for housing. The Canada Rental Protection Fund, at $1.5 billion, helps non-profits acquire at-risk rentals, often from private owners, to preserve affordability.
Carney’s administration is even exploring ways to attract foreign investors into purpose-built rentals, offering government-backed financing in exchange for long-term commitments (e.g., 25 years as rentals). By promoting mass timber and prefabricated technologies, the goal is to make large-scale projects more viable for institutions, drawing in capital that individual builders can’t access. This influx, proponents argue, will increase overall supply, eventually lowering prices and rents through economies of scale.
The contrast between the two nations couldn’t be sharper. Trump’s US policy views institutional investors as villains inflating prices and crowding out families, seeking to reclaim the market for individuals. It prioritizes ownership over rental expansion, betting that freeing up existing homes will improve affordability without new builds. In essence, it’s a protective, populist measure aimed at immediate relief for buyers, though it risks reducing rental availability in a market where many can’t afford to buy.
Canada’s strategy under Carney, however, sees these same investors as allies in solving the supply crunch. By incentivizing their participation, the government hopes to flood the market with new units, both rentals and ownership options, addressing the root issue of insufficient housing stock. This supply-side focus assumes that more capital equals more homes, leading to long-term affordability. Critics in Canada worry about over-reliance on corporations, potentially leading to higher rents or foreign control, but supporters point to past successes like the MURB incentive, which built thousands of units in the 1970s and 1980s.
These divergent paths highlight deeper philosophical differences. The US approach leans toward restricting market forces to protect consumers, reflecting Trump’s “America First” ethos. Canada’s embraces market integration, using government tools to amplify private investment, aligning with Carney’s background in finance and global economics. Both aim to tackle affordability, but their methods could yield vastly different outcomes. In the US, a ban might empower individual buyers but strain rentals; in Canada, institutional boosts could accelerate building but entrench corporate influence.
As global housing crises persist, these policies will be closely watched. Will Trump’s ban thaw the US market for families, or freeze investment? Can Carney’s incentives truly scale up supply without pricing out locals? The answers may shape cross-border real estate dynamics for years, especially as economic ties between the two nations remain strong. For now, homeowners and renters on both sides await the real-world impacts of these bold experiments.