hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Creates designation for localities reducing housing regulations.
Senator Hagerty (R-TN)
Introduced in the Senate, awaiting committee action.
Senator Hagerty (R-TN) introduced the "Freedom to Build Act." This bill proposes a voluntary "Freedom to Build" designation for cities and counties that ease housing construction regulations or show significant housing growth. These designated localities would receive priority for certain federal grants, aiming to increase housing supply and lower costs. It is currently awaiting review by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced Mar 26, 2026
This bill was introduced in the Senate on March 26, 2026, by Senator Hagerty. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for review. For it to become law, it must pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives and then be signed by the President. No votes have been taken yet.
If this bill passes, your city or county might be encouraged to streamline its building permit process, allow for more innovative construction methods, or reduce certain local housing regulations to qualify for federal grants. This could lead to more housing being built, potentially affecting local housing costs and availability. You might also see changes in local rules regarding rent control or energy mandates for new construction, as localities might remove them to gain the "Freedom to Build" designation.
Supporters Say
Argue it reduces regulatory barriers, increases housing supply, and lowers costs, making federal investments more effective.
Critics Say
Might argue it diminishes local control over development, could compromise safety standards, or lead to unwanted development.
Supporters believe this bill would tackle the housing affordability crisis by cutting down on regulations that drive up construction costs and limit supply. They point to the "Findings" section, which states that local regulatory barriers are a significant contributor to housing-supply constraints and that federal investments are more effective in pro-building environments. Critics might raise concerns that removing local mandates could lead to less thoughtful development, potentially sacrificing local character, environmental protections, or tenant protections like rent control, if localities choose to remove those to qualify.