The White House’s economics team says the United States faces a shortage of about 10 million homes, a conclusion it is putting forward in the annual Economic Report of the President as the Trump administration tries to keep housing affordability at the center of its political agenda.
In the housing chapter of the report, the White House Council of Economic Advisers argues that the gap reflects how homebuilding fell sharply after the 2008 global financial crisis and never returned to prior historical rates, saying the country would have had 10 million more homes if “homebuilding and the growth of the single-family housing stock had continued at their historical pace instead of falling dramatically.” The analysis ties that post-crisis slowdown to the housing market’s collapse in the late 2000s, which it describes as being driven in part by defaults and lending problems.
The White House also frames housing as an economic and voter-facing issue by pointing to widening pressure between incomes and home prices. It says home prices have risen 82% since 2000, while incomes are up 12%, and it argues that historically low mortgage rates for much of that period had masked the mismatch. When mortgage rates rose after inflation picked up following the pandemic, the administration said monthly mortgage costs also rose, making affordability a top concern for buyers—particularly those under 40.
To illustrate current affordability conditions, the report highlights the impact of higher borrowing costs on would-be buyers. The Associated Press reported that the average rate for 30-year mortgages has moved from just under 6% to 6.37%—a figure that matches the FRED vintage value for the article date, 6.37%.
The report’s policy approach centers on regulatory burdens that it characterizes as adding costs to construction. It says regulations on home construction create a “bureaucrat tax” that adds more than $100,000 in expenses, listing items such as changes to building codes over the past decade, compliance costs, and zoning approval fees. Based on that estimate, the White House says reducing regulatory costs could spur construction of as many as 13.2 million homes, adding an average 1.3 percentage points to annual economic growth over the next decade and supporting 2 million manufacturing and construction jobs, according to the report.
The report also places the housing push inside the politics of the administration’s midterm outlook. AP reported that the analysis identifies both a political risk and a messaging opportunity for President Donald Trump as his approval has declined amid concerns about tariffs, the Iran war and unmet promises to slash inflation and speed economic growth. It said Trump signed two executive orders in March to reduce housing regulatory burdens and make it easier for smaller banks to provide mortgages, but the report is framed as part of an effort to show housing is a top priority for the administration.
In addition to regulatory costs, the report calls attention to how the Iran war has contributed to higher costs for buying homes. It says the higher mortgage rates driven by the war have pushed up affordability pressure, and it positions that dynamic as part of why the housing issue has become more urgent for voters.
The White House chapter also argues that certain green building requirements introduced during the Biden administration have increased construction costs. AP reported that the report attacks those standards as raising costs, describing them as including preferences for more efficient air conditioning units and water heaters and higher duct-work standards. However, the report also says that removing some of those requirements could increase other homeowner costs over the long run, such as utility bills.
The report’s discussion references a 2021 analysis by the National Association of Home Builders, which it says estimated those standards could add up to $31,000 to the price of a new home and that it could take as long as 90 years for a homebuyer to “realize a payback” on added costs. The analysis also states that it is not clear how much savings would occur from rolling back the requirements because of existing legal challenges. It notes that in March, a federal judge in Texas agreed with 15 states led by Republicans that said the standards for federally backed housing were unlawful.
Finally, the White House’s housing plan is portrayed as tied to potential leverage over state and local governments. AP reported that an administration official said Trump could make federal funding to states and localities contingent on reducing some of the regulations, speaking on condition of anonymity before the report was released.