By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a significant bipartisan housing reform aimed at increasing supply and lowering costs, automatically became law due to President Trump’s inaction. The president declined to sign the bill in protest of the Senate’s failure to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation focused on election reform. Despite the president’s personal disinterest in the housing bill, it passed both houses with wide margins and enacts numerous provisions, including limiting institutional investors’ purchase of single-family homes and facilitating the conversion of commercial buildings into affordable housing.
Read the original article here
It’s quite interesting how a bipartisan housing bill, designed with the best intentions to help a significant portion of the population, has now become law without the President’s signature. This situation highlights a peculiar aspect of our legislative process: when a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and sent to the President, if they don’t sign it within a specified timeframe, and Congress isn’t in recess, the bill automatically becomes law. This mechanism, while perhaps not as dramatic as a signing ceremony, serves as a check and balance, ensuring that legislative progress isn’t unilaterally halted by presidential inaction.
In this particular instance, the President has indicated his refusal to sign the housing bill, not due to any fundamental disagreement with its provisions concerning affordable housing or streamlining development, but rather as a protest. His stated reason for this protest is the Senate’s failure to pass another piece of legislation he champions, the “SAVE AMERICA ACT,” which he claims has overwhelming support. This act, as he outlines it, focuses on voter identification requirements and the elimination of mail-in ballots, with specific exceptions. He frames the non-passage of this act as a grave threat and expresses strong disapproval of any politician who opposes it, even going so far as to threaten the termination of the filibuster if his demands are not met.
This stance is, frankly, quite perplexing when viewed against the backdrop of the housing bill itself. The legislation appears to be a genuinely constructive effort, aiming to increase the development of affordable housing by cutting through regulatory red tape and speeding up environmental reviews. It proposes practical solutions, such as a pilot program to help convert underutilized commercial spaces into homes, boosting the availability of factory-built housing, and even removing an outdated rule related to home construction. Furthermore, it introduces an innovation fund to encourage communities to expand their housing supply, supports housing for veterans, and seeks to curb the practice of large institutional investors buying up single-family homes, which often drives up competition for individual buyers.
The disconnect between the President’s stated priorities and the impact of his refusal to sign a bill that addresses a pressing national issue like housing affordability is stark. It’s been noted that this bill could have represented a significant opportunity for him to demonstrate a commitment to improving the lives of ordinary citizens and potentially garnering positive public perception. Instead, his decision seems to be driven by a refusal to acknowledge or move forward with legislation that doesn’t align with his more contentious political agenda, even if it means foregoing a chance to achieve a tangible, positive outcome.
The details of the housing law reveal its focus on practical measures. For example, the provisions aimed at limiting institutional investors’ purchases of single-family homes are specifically designed to reduce competition and make homeownership more accessible for individuals. It’s noteworthy that these limitations are applied to existing homes rather than new construction, thereby preserving incentives for financial firms to invest in building new housing, a crucial aspect of increasing overall supply.
The reaction to this situation, as seen in various discussions, is varied but often centers on the President’s perceived priorities. Many express frustration that he would let a bill with clear benefits for citizens languish over a political dispute concerning a separate, highly debated issue. The sentiment is that this is a missed opportunity for bipartisan cooperation and for the President to actively contribute to solving a real-world problem. The automatic enactment of the bill is seen by some as a win for the people, albeit one achieved despite, rather than because of, presidential engagement.
There’s a palpable sense of irony in the fact that the bill is now law precisely because of the President’s inaction. It’s as if the legislative process, in its inherent checks and balances, has outmaneuvered a refusal to engage. This raises questions about the effectiveness of such protests when the legislative outcome remains unchanged. Some commentators have even suggested that the President may not have fully understood or anticipated that his non-signature would lead to the bill automatically becoming law, a possibility that adds another layer to the narrative of missed opportunities and political posturing.
The implications of this are not lost on those who follow politics closely. The frustration stems from the belief that the President’s actions are more about personal grievances and political theater than about the tangible welfare of the nation. The housing bill, with its bipartisan support, represented a chance to demonstrate leadership and deliver for constituents. His choice to prioritize a protest over this opportunity has led to a situation where his own party members in Congress are reportedly displeased, recognizing the political fallout of not addressing the affordability crisis, especially with upcoming elections.
It’s also worth noting the potential for future narrative manipulation. There’s an expectation that despite his refusal to sign, the President might still attempt to claim credit for any positive outcomes of the housing law. This aligns with a perceived pattern of taking credit for successes while avoiding blame for failures. The situation underscores a broader concern about whether presidential actions are guided by a genuine desire to govern and improve the country or by a more self-serving political calculus.
The mechanics of how this bill became law are quite straightforward in this context. When a bill is presented to the President, he has ten days to act. If he signs it, it becomes law. If he vetoes it, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority. However, if he does nothing and Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law after those ten days expire. This is distinct from a “pocket veto,” which occurs if the President does not sign a bill and Congress adjourns within the ten-day period, effectively killing the bill without a formal veto. In this case, the President’s refusal to sign, coupled with Congress remaining in session, meant the bill was destined to become law regardless. This outcome, while perhaps a victory for the proponents of the housing bill, also highlights a moment where presidential prerogative, in its exercise of inaction, paradoxically facilitated legislative progress that he publicly opposed.