Tangle Podcast Summary: “Trump’s Housing Affordability Proposals”

Host: Isaac Saul (with Ari Weitzman and John Law)
Date: January 15, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of Tangle dives deep into President Trump’s new proposals aimed at addressing housing affordability — an issue that has spanned multiple administrations and grown in urgency. The episode explores Trump’s plans to ban large institutional investors from buying single-family homes and direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to lower mortgage rates. True to the podcast's nonpartisan approach, the hosts present arguments from both the left and the right, then offer their own takes and suggested solutions.

Key Discussion Points & Analysis

1. A Recap of Trump’s Housing Proposals (04:45–07:49)

• Ban on Institutional Investors: President Trump proposed banning large investors (like real estate investment trusts, private equity firms) from purchasing additional single-family homes, blaming them for increased prices and lack of affordability.
• Government MBS Purchases: Trump directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds to help drive down mortgage rates for homebuyers.
• Contextual Background:
  • Institutional investors are currently estimated to own about 3% of U.S. single-family rentals, but their dominance is much higher in certain markets.
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already hold a large volume of MBS, with government-imposed caps due to the 2008–2009 financial crisis.

“The White House has unveiled a plan to make buying a house more affordable… President Trump revealed two policies. One is to ban large investors from buying single family homes… Another is for the federal government to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds in an effort to drive down mortgage rates.” — Isaac Saul (04:45)

2. What the Left is Saying (09:36–13:47)

• Root Cause is Lack of Supply: Multiple left-leaning voices argue the supply of housing—not landlords or investors—is the main issue.
  • NYT’s Benjamin Appelbaum: “The landlords are not the problem. President Trump relishes a handy scapegoat… The problem is that the United States does not have enough housing.”
• Institutional Investors’ Impact is Limited: Most investment properties, according to CNN’s Allison Morrow and others, are owned by “mom and pop” landlords, not large investors.
• MBS Purchases: A Band-Aid: While buying mortgage bonds might lower rates slightly, it does not create new homes or entice people to sell existing homes.
• Alternative Ideas: Fred P. Hochberg (LA Times) proposes expanding disaster loan programs to tackle affordability for more Americans, similar to how the 30-year mortgage increased homeownership last century.

3. What the Right is Saying (13:47–17:11)

• Trump’s Proposals: A Good Start, but Not Enough: Some on the right welcome Trump’s moves as steps in the right direction.
  • Peter St. Onge & E.J. Antoni, Daily Signal: “Banning institutional buyers will lower prices, but not by much ... What’s missing is the two biggest drivers of housing inflation, which is driven by federal deficits and mass deregulation in home building… For these, Trump needs Congress.”
• Defending Institutional Investment: Brad Hargreaves (City Journal) warns that institutional buyers, while depicted as “villains,” own less than 1% of single-family homes and serve public purposes (pension funds, etc.).
• Legislative Proposals: Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC) discusses the Families First Housing Act (bipartisan bill), which gives primary-residence buyers first dibs on Fed-backed homes and highlights the importance of supply and zoning reform.

“When Wall Street becomes your landlord, families lose. Housing has become unaffordable and Wall Street buying up neighborhoods is making it worse.” — Rep. Pat Harrigan (17:05)

4. Ari Weitzman’s Take (17:11–25:13)

Initial Enthusiasm → Reality Check

• Ari initially supports the idea of banning institutional buyers:

  “Banning institutional investors from owning homes. Yeah, hell yeah. … So this sounds like two birds with one stone.” (17:18)

• On review, he reverses course, emphasizing that institutional investors make up a negligible share of the market (~0.65%, per expert Jerusalem Dempsis), and banning them could inadvertently reduce affordable rentals, even pushing prices higher.
• Instead, Ari sides with experts on both left and right: the real solution is more housing, improved access to mortgages, regulatory reform, and wage increases.

Ari’s Own Policy Proposal

• Proposal: Increase local property taxes on second homes (especially vacant/investment properties) in high-demand areas.
  • Not a call for higher taxes on everyone: Only targets wealthy second-home owners in high-demand regions, not average homeowners.
  • Goal: Discourage vacant second homes, free up housing, and generate revenue for local services or offset primary residence taxes.
  • Reference: UK towns can double second-home tax rates; Ari suggests this as a local (not federal) option for U.S. towns.

"If owning that second property becomes more costly, then we encourage one of two behaviors: more local ownership… or more owners of second homes renting them out to recoup their costs." — Ari Weitzman (22:53)

5. Staff Dissent: Isaac Saul’s Response (27:03–28:39)

• Isaac sharply disagrees with Ari's plan for second-home tax hikes, arguing:
  • Second homes are often used or rented.
  • There's little guarantee increased taxes go to good use.
  • Second homes are only about 4% of the market—not enough to move the affordability needle.
• Isaac remains more sympathetic to restricting institutional investors, believing they more directly compete with homebuyers.

“Second homes make up about 4% of the US housing stock … I have a hard time believing that Ari's idea is a better solution than stopping deep-pocketed institutional investors from outbidding and overtaking housing supply from regular Americans.” — Isaac Saul (28:19)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Benjamin Appelbaum, NYT (09:55): “It is certainly easier and perhaps better politics to talk about barring investors … But none of that is going to do the trick. A ban might have some benefits … but it would punish renters.”
• Brad Hargreaves, City Journal (15:48): “Unlike small investors, institutions invest on behalf of pension funds, endowments, insurance companies and public retirement systems.”
• Ari Weitzman (17:18): “Banning institutional investors from owning homes. Yeah, hell yeah… So this sounds like two birds with one stone.”
• Ari Weitzman (21:44): “He's picked a real problem, but he's chosen a terrible tool for solving it, one that grabs headlines, but it leaves the root problem unsolved.”
• Isaac Saul (28:19): “Second homes make up about 4% of the US housing stock … I have a hard time believing that Ari’s idea is a better solution than stopping deep-pocketed institutional investors…”

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 04:45 — Intro to Trump’s housing policies explained
• 09:36 — Analysis: The Left’s perspective
• 13:47 — Analysis: The Right’s perspective
• 17:11 — Ari Weitzman’s personal policy analysis and alternative proposal
• 27:03 — Isaac Saul’s dissenting take on the second-home tax solution

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Consensus: Trump targeting institutional homebuyers is headline-worthy but not a root-cause solution.
• Bipartisan Skepticism: Both sides agree that increased supply and smarter housing policy are vital.
• Original Contributions: Ari proposes a local property tax policy on second homes; Isaac counters, defending the case against institutional investors and urging caution around taxation.

This episode thoughtfully dissects the U.S. housing crisis, offering listeners diverse perspectives and new policy ideas—with candid, intellectual disagreement that typifies Tangle’s approach to the news.