In a Truth Social post, US president Donald Trump says he’s “immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes,” and will call on Congress to legislate those steps. He promises more details in his coming address to the World Economic Forum.

Absent those details, it’s impossible to know if his proposal will make it past the courts, or whether Congress is likely to buy in.

But of course the biggest question is whether banning home purchases by the likes of Blackstone, American Homes 4 Rent, and Invitation Homes would truly make housing more affordable for Americans.

Short answer: It wouldn’t.

Why?

A lot of the negative response from economists (some of them admittedly affiliated with those institutional investors or related businesses) centers around the fact that large investors — those who own more than 100 homes — own only 2% of US housing inventory. The proposed ban just wouldn’t have much of an effect because that sector just isn’t very big.

Another piece of the consensus response is that institutional investors are better equipped to manage RENTAL property efficiently and uniformly on a large scale. No matter what the market in buying houses does, there will always be people with good reason to rent rather than buy — they expect to move in the near future, they haven’t yet socked away enough for a down payment, etc. Fewer homes available to rent means higher rents and thus less affordable housing.

For me, a lot of the problem comes down to what economists call “time preference,” though.

People with “high time preference” want the benefit of their work or investment quickly, even if that benefit may be smaller than they’d get from waiting.

People with “low time preference” are willing to wait.

In the housing market, contractors might be said to have “high time preference.” When they build a house, they want to sell that house (ideally, have already sold it prior to building it), bank the profits, and move on to the next house.

Institutional investors have deeper pockets, other profit centers, and an eye on long-term profit — “low time preference.” They can afford to pay the “high time preference” contractor to build 100 houses and not worry about going broke waiting on those houses to sell or rent out.

So, what happens when the institutional investors get shut out of the single-family residence market? Contractors have to either build “on spec” and hope the homes sell, or take single jobs versus large-scale projects, charging a higher price per home because they don’t enjoy economy of scale savings from ordering enough material for 100 homes at a time.

When government shoves its nose into markets, the supposed beneficiaries usually end up losing. Politically connected businesses pocket more money. Government bureaucrats enjoy more power. Everyone else pays through the nose. Politicians’ assertions of contrary motivation just add insult to injury.

To figure out who benefits from Trump’s proposal,  note that it targets SINGLE-family residences.

Institutional investors in MULTI-family residences would enjoy a windfall as shortages of single-family homes pushed disappointed home buyers and desperate tenants into apartments — and drove up rents to boot.

I can’t help but notice that one large institutional investor in multi-family residences — boasting “some of the most coveted residential properties in the world” — is called The Trump Organization. Go figure.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 7, gang members — gathered in Minneapolis for the purpose of abducting immigrants and cowing the state’s population — menaced motorist Renee Nicole Good, then murdered her when she attempted to flee.

This wasn’t the ICE gang’s first murder, and won’t likely be its last.

ICE, its allied gangs — “Homeland Security,” “Customs and Border Protection,” et al. — and its shot-callers (e.g. Kristi “Ice Barbie” Noem, Greg “Lying Poltroon” Bovino, and Tom “$50k Cash in a Paper Bag Isn’t a Bribe” Homan) are at war. They’re at war with America, and they’re waging that war on Americans. The presence of immigrants on US soil is the excuse, not the point.

How should Americans go about defeating this armed and dangerous domestic enemy?

The first thing to understand about the conflict is that it’s “asymmetric.”

The evildoers are a centrally commanded paramilitary force. Yes, they’re violent wannabes who are too lazy, incompetent, or evil to find real jobs, but their sociopath bosses give them effectively unlimited funding and access to advanced weaponry.

The forces of good, on the other hand, are everyday Americans (and immigrants) who’d really rather be left alone to make their livings doing productive work. No central command. No guaranteed paychecks courtesy of the nation’s tax slaves. Few automatic weapons.

Believe it or not, that asymmetry can actually work to the benefit of the good guys.

As satisfying — and as justified — as it would be to send these hoodlums home in body bags when they get violent, another recent incident in the Minneapolis area shows a more peaceful, and more effective, way forward.

“If you are with DHS or immigration, let us know as we will have to cancel your reservation,” read a January 2 email from Lakeville’s Hampton Inn Hilton (the ICE gang redacted the identity of the recipient in its whining post on X). “Please pass on this info to your coworkers that we are not allowing any immigration agents to house on our property.”

Unfortunately, the hotel’s owners, Everpeak Hospitality, backed down, and Hilton Hotels apologized, groveled, and canceled its franchise agreement with Everspeak.

As Hilton likes to tell us, “It Matters Where You Stay.” I can’t help but wonder if Renee Nicole Good’s murderer spent the night before his crime enjoying Hampton’s “light and warmth of hospitality.”

Setting this specific murder aside for a moment, given the high proportion of immigrants who work in the hospitality industry, why would ANY hotelier want to host a violent gang which focuses on targeting its employees? And why would any non-violent, non-gang-affiliated patron want to rent a room there?

Ostracism can be more effective than violence.

If ICE gang-bangers start finding that they can’t rent hotel rooms, get served at coffee shops, receive communion at churches, or find play dates for their kids with decent people’s kids, they’ll be incentivized to modify their behavior, abandon the thug life, and seek real jobs.

But getting there will take some peaceful pressure from normal people … perhaps starting with a boycott of Hilton-affiliated hotels.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Zohran Mamdani’s promise to bring “the resurgent flame of hope” to “the January chill” as mayor of a literally frozen New York City during his January 1 inaugural address got the cold shoulder from conservative commentators.

Despite his vow to move the city to unity past “a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor” and highlighting constituents “who supported President Trump a year before they voted for me,” some just aren’t buying Mamdani’s narrative. At most, reactions to lines such as the pledge to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism” in City Journal or The Wall Street Journal don’t go quite as far as National Review‘s Noah Rothman in invoking “the warmth generated by torchlit marches, book burnings, and crematoria.”

Yet those red-baiting Mamdani’s “Red Apple” could stand to scratch the surface and see how much the gilded apple of Trump Tower pokes through — and not just because he won’t be able to “deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few” if those fat cats pull up stakes.

Mamdani at least acknowledges that Bill de Blasio took office via the same winning “tale of two cities” rhetoric in 2014 — and the precedents of David Dinkins and Fiorello La Guardia, both memory-holed by the subtitle of Run Zohran Run! Inside Zohran Mamdani’s Sensational Campaign to Become New York City’s First Democratic Socialist Mayor. The contrast to such predecessors as former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and election competitor Andrew Cuomo is left unsaid.

Yet Mamdani’s assertion that subsidies for rents and rides are “not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom” parallels Giuliani’s infamous line about how “freedom is about authority.” Rudy’s concomitant qualms about using such authority to “solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve” are nullified by certitude that “there is no need too small to be met” by statism — itself an echo of Cuomo’s confidence that in the New York state he then governed “there is no small solution to big problems.”

Mamdani assures us that his administration is one for which “no longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power” in the face of “those who insist that the era of big government is over.” He doesn’t specify whether their ranks include the husband of former United States Senator Hillary Clinton who originated that phrase, but it’s not that far from William Jefferson Clinton’s anti-Jeffersonian claim to find “nothing patriotic about … pretending that you can love your country but despise your Government.”

For New Yorkers who love their city despite its government, that’s not the result of what Mamdani dubs “decades of apathy” but of understanding reality.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

1. “OPINION: Humanitarianism is the warmest place to hide” by Joel Schlosberg, The Richmond Observer [Rockingham, North Carolina], January 6, 2026
2. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Wilson, North Carolina Times, October 4, 2024
3. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Enterprise [Williamston, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
4. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Johnstonian News [Smithfield, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
5. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Ledger News [Oxford,
   North Carolina], October 4, 2024
6. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Wake Weekly [Wake Forest, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
7. “Humanitarianism is the warmest place to hide” by Joel Schlosberg, Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman [Wasilla, Alaska], January 7, 2026
8. “Humanitarianism is the Warmest Place to Hide” by Joel Schlosberg, CounterPunch, January 8, 2026