Politicians Think More Zoning Laws Will Fix Housing Prices, But The Data Says Otherwise
Should land-use decisions rest with the families who live there or with politicians pursuing ideological agendas from above?Should land-use decisions rest with the families who live there or with politicians pursuing ideological agendas from above?Trump should not fill Alito’s seat with a ‘meh’ in robes
At the beginning of the year, one of my crystal-ball predictions for 2026 was that Samuel Alito and/or Clarence Thomas would retire so President Trump could replace them before the midterms.
Recent reporting suggests that prediction may prove correct, especially with speculation that Alito is considering stepping down. So I checked with some sources to see which names are circulating as possible replacements.
Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?
The reality is Alito is not easily replaced. He has been one of the best Supreme Court justices of this century. His successor cannot be some C-plus or B-minus judge with a fuzzy record and a habit of folding at the wrong moment. The stakes are too high.
That is why one name worries me: Judge Andrew Oldham.
Trump already passed on Oldham for the Supreme Court in 2020 and for good reason. What remains of our constitutional republic does not have time for a “meh” nominee.
Oldham, a former general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), now serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick look at his record shows a pattern that should alarm anyone hoping for another Alito.
Let’s start with life.
Alito authored the phenomenal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the most wicked decisions in American history. Oldham’s record points the other way. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s FDA treated pregnancy as an “illness” to justify accelerated approval of abortion drugs as the supposed “cure.” Years later, a Trump-appointed district judge rightly rejected that decision, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge backed him. Oldham, however, became the first circuit judge to side with the Clinton FDA’s position on procedural grounds.
The American Family Association called that decision “shockingly weak” at the time. The Supreme Court effectively vindicated that criticism in 2024 when it overturned Oldham by a 6-3 vote.
Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?
The concerns do not stop there.
AFA, which tracks judicial nominations as well as any group on the right, has also described Oldham as “soft” on COVID shot mandates. He earned that reputation when he wrote an opinion saying schools need not require children to wear masks, not because masks do not work, but because schools could instead adopt other COVID policies involving vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, distancing, and more.
The opinion was so weak that no other judge joined it.
Then came gender ideology. Last year, my Blaze Media colleague Daniel Horowitz reported on Oldham siding against doctors and with the Biden administration’s edict that they must perform gender-transition procedures on children by refusing even to hear their challenge. Oldham had a chance to join a Trump-appointed judge who rejected Biden’s grotesque mandate. He passed.
His immigration record raises more red flags.
Oldham declined to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing illegal aliens to receive cheaper in-state college tuition than out-of-state Americans. That alone should have disqualified him from serious consideration.
Thankfully, Trump’s Justice Department sued last year to end that practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former client is governor. Once the Justice Department sued, Texas finally conceded the point. Now left-wing groups want the courts to restore that anti-American policy. And which legal precedent are they citing? Oldham’s.
You cannot make it up.
Nor was that his only immigration failure. Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared an invasion at the southern border two years ago. Does that sound like a judge ready to overturn Plyler v. Doe, the disastrous precedent that for illegal immigration serves much the same function Roe once served for abortion?
Now sensing that his moment may have arrived, Oldham appears to be trying to retcon himself as a reliably based jurist. Even Slate has noticed the pattern — the judicial equivalent of a comb-over meant to hide an obvious weakness. The result has been embarrassing. He now gets overturned with some regularity by one of the most right-leaning Supreme Courts in recent memory.
That tends to happen when ambition outruns conviction.
Oldham once lobbied Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren, of all people, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now he wants conservatives to view him as Alito’s natural heir. That kind of ideological shape-shifting should make everyone nervous. When a man’s career seems driven more by advancement than by principle, it becomes hard to know where he actually stands.
That was never a question with Alito.
Replacing a sure thing requires another sure thing. Oldham is not that. Maybe he has good explanations for parts of his record. But maybe Trump can do better.
This may be Trump’s last chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It would amount to a self-own of historic proportions for the most based president of modern times to replace Alito with someone appreciably weaker than a George W. Bush appointee turned out to be.
Another tax credit won’t fix what Sunday schools used to teach
The American dream of owning a home — a yard, a fence, a stake in the neighborhood — is slipping out of reach for many young adults. Policymakers keep treating this as a pure affordability problem. Prices, interest rates, and down payments are all important, but the real culprit lies beneath the numbers: family formation, especially marriage.
First-time buyers made up just 21% of home purchases last year, the lowest share on record. The median first-time buyer is now 40 — up from 33 in 2021 and 29 in 1981. Census data show homeownership for Americans ages 25-34 at about 35%, roughly 19 percentage points lower than in 1980, when mortgage rates were much higher.
We keep treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease.
Affordability helps explain some of that decline. Housing is cyclical, and prices will soften if government stops inflating asset bubbles. But a newer analysis argues the bigger driver is cultural, not fiscal: the drop in marriage.
American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship analyzed census data for the Institute for Family Studies and found that most of the generational decline in young homeownership tracks the collapse in marriage. While overall homeownership among Americans under 35 sits around 35%, the rate for young married couples remains about 63%.
“As recently as 2023, 63% of young married couples were homeowners,” Winship wrote. “That was the same as in 1983 and only 3 percentage points lower than at the height of the 2000s housing bubble. The 2023 rate was also higher than in any year through 1970 and any year from 1985 to 1999.”
That should change the argument. The big generational slide in homeownership hasn’t hit married couples the same way. The bigger collapse is marriage itself. The share of Americans ages 25-34 who are married fell from about 67% in 1980 to about 37% in 2025 — a 30-point drop. That’s the hole in the bucket.
So the answer shouldn’t just be “more programs.” It should address the cultural drivers behind the marriage collapse — because no housing bill can substitute for family formation.
That’s why the usual Washington approach misses the point. After decades of affordability initiatives dating back to the Clinton era, homeownership still hasn’t surged. Yet Republicans in the Senate just passed Elizabeth Warren’s housing bill — another expansion of HUD programs that would rope more people into an inflated market while rewarding the same political class that helped inflate it.
RELATED: Elizabeth Warren’s housing fix could make home buying even tougher
We keep treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease.
In the long run, the country won’t face a shortage of houses. The baby boom generation holds a huge share of the housing stock. Those homes will enter the market as boomers age and pass away, often transferring to heirs. The deeper question is whether the next generation will form families stable enough to buy them — and want them.
So, why is marriage declining?
Contrary to a popular assumption, it’s not mainly the housing crisis depressing family formation. The bigger driver is spiritual and cultural: a rejection of God and biblical values. Rising costs can pressure families at the margins. But a slightly higher child tax credit won’t reverse a collapse that began generations ago with the decline of worship and the rise of a culture that treats marriage as optional.
Europe has run the experiment. Many countries tried generous incentives — paid leave, universal child care, expanded benefits — and still can’t restore stable birth rates. Money can ease sacrifice. It can’t create the desire for marriage and children.
But faith can.
Institute for Family Studies senior fellow Brad Wilcox has noted that the birth rate for religiously oriented people has never fallen below replacement. A large Harvard study found that frequent religious service attendance (more than once a week) correlates with a 50% lower divorce rate compared with those who never attend. Strong marriages create the conditions for stable family life — and stable homeownership.
Anyone raised in an orthodox Christian or Jewish home learns the opening chapters of Genesis early: Marriage and children aren’t lifestyle accessories. They’re duties bound up with meaning, responsibility, and love. Faith-based communities also create thicker social bonds and clearer norms — including a dating pool that doesn’t feel like a battlefield.
A new Pew Research survey shows worship and practice dropping across every region over the last two decades. In the South, only 51% say they pray daily — still the highest region, but down 14 percentage points in a decade. The share of religiously unaffiliated Southerners rose to about a quarter of the population. In the West, 35% report no religious affiliation.
That decline makes the marriage decline easier to understand — and it helps explain why young homeownership is falling with it.
If we want more young Americans to buy homes, we should stop pretending this is only about interest rates and HUD programs. We need cultural repair. We need marriage. And to rebuild marriage, we need to rebuild the house of God.
Elizabeth Warren’s housing fix could make home buying even tougher
As part of his affordability agenda, President Trump has been looking for ways to bring down housing costs.
He’s had some success. Mortgage rates are lower than at any point since his first term. The National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index has started ticking up again. And as Trump noted during his State of the Union address, the cost of buying a house has dropped about $5,000 since he took office.
Affordability is the target. A serious policy needs to increase the number of homes Americans can actually buy, not just score points against investors.
More work remains. Trump brought a guest to the State of the Union to make the point. Rachel Wiggins, a Houston mom of two, told a story many families recognize: She bid on 20 homes and “lost all of those bids to gigantic investment firms that bypassed inspection, paid all cash, and turned all those houses into rentals, stealing her American dream,” Trump said.
That experience explains the executive order Trump signed to curb large institutional investors from dominating the single-family market — driving up prices for buyers and renters alike while shrinking supply for both.
Trump’s order sets a clear policy: Large institutional investors should not buy single-family homes that families could otherwise purchase. It does that by restricting federal approval, insurance, guarantees, securitization, and other forms of facilitation for institutional purchases of single-family homes that could go to owner-occupants. It also limits the disposal of federal assets in ways that transfer single-family homes to large institutional investors.
The order goes farther. It directs the administration to promote sales to individual owner-occupants — people who actually live in the homes and care for the neighborhoods — through first-look policies, disclosure requirements, and anti-circumvention provisions. It also directs the legislative affairs office to produce legislation to codify the order.
The order includes narrow exceptions for build-to-rent projects planned, permitted, financed, and constructed as rental communities, as well as other tailored cases. It also directs the Treasury Department to tighten rules affecting housing acquisition and instructs the attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission chairman to review major acquisitions, especially serial purchases, and to prioritize antitrust enforcement as warranted.
Trump also directed Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner to require owners and managing agents of single-family rentals participating in federal housing assistance programs to disclose indirect owners, managers, and affiliates and to report changes in ownership.
In other words, Trump offered a concrete proposal: prioritize owner-occupants, expand supply, and curb the worst market distortions without choking off lawful investment that supports construction and growth.
RELATED: What ‘democratic socialism’ really means to young voters
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) offered something else.
Warren unveiled legislation last week before the Senate Banking Committee, where she serves as ranking member. Her approach targets the tax incentives that support housing investment. It would impose higher taxes on any person or entity that owns more than 50 single-family homes. It would also bar access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-backed mortgages and restrict purchases of foreclosed homes.
That is less a housing plan than a punishment plan. It aims to drive investors out, even though big investors have never owned more than about 4% of U.S. housing stock. The core problem is supply: The country does not have enough homes for a growing population. The answer is not to chase away capital that can help build housing. The answer is to align incentives so that families — owner-occupants — get first priority.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Warren’s co-sponsor, said he’s willing to work with anyone trying to bring down home prices. Trump should take him up on that offer and make the point directly: The goal is not to punish firms that operated lawfully. The goal is to create rules that prioritize families, encourage construction, and expand affordable supply.
Affordability is the target. A serious policy needs to increase the number of homes Americans can actually buy, not just score points against investors.
Mamdani Says Quiet Part Out Loud About Democrats’ Tax-Hiking Agenda
Elected Democrats rarely limit tax increases to wealthy families once in office.Democrats Can’t Seriously Believe ID Requirements Are Civil Rights Violations
Democrats do not want the specious nature of their charge of racism to be revealed, let alone adjudicated.3 debunked Democrat claims about the SAVE America Act
Democrats and legacy media have put forth several mischaracterizations and even flat-out lies about the GOP's latest election integrity bill.
The House passed the SAVE America Act Wednesday with unanimous Republican support and with even one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, joining the GOP. The bill would put in place basic election integrity requirements like providing proof of citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections.
'If you buy a 6-pack of beer you have to show an ID.'
The bill is now in the Senate, where Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is leading the effort to pass the legislation.
Although this proposal seems commonsense to most Americans, Democrats have caused a firestorm of hysteria and misconception. Here is the truth behind Democrats' most common rebuttals.
RELATED: 4 Senate Republicans evading MAGA's pressure campaign to prevent noncitizens from voting
1. 'It's already illegal!'
The SAVE America Act aims to protect ballots from election fraud, particularly from illegal aliens and noncitizens. Democrats are quick to point out that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections, and those Democrats who are willing to admit that noncitizens voting does occasionally happen insist it takes place at a negligible rate.
This is partially true. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in American elections, and when it does happen, estimates show it occurs less than 1% of the time. But even if the rate is extremely low, it's not zero. And while many elections are decisive victories, some are decided by razor-thin margins, making every ballot count.
In the 2024 election, former Republican Rep. John Duarte of California was unseated by Democrat Adam Gray by just 187 votes, chipping away at a historically thin GOP advantage in the House. But it's not just local elections that are decided by such narrow margins. In 2020, former President Joe Biden won several swing states by just thousands of votes, including Georgia by 11,779 votes and Arizona by just 10,457 votes.
There's no way to know if any of those votes were cast fraudulently, which is precisely the problem. Americans should have total confidence that every ballot counted in an election is a legitimate vote that reflects the political will of a United States citizen. The SAVE America Act would help do just that.
2. 'Jim Crow 2.0'
Democrats are no stranger to playing the race card, claiming that requiring photo ID somehow unfairly affects minorities. Perhaps most notable of them all is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who unabashedly likened the SAVE Act to Jim Crow-era rules.
"I have said it before and I'll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate," Schumer said in a statement earlier this month. "It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to. If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown."
Apart from Schumer's soft bigotry of low expectations, his claim is simply inaccurate. The SAVE America Act offers a wide range of acceptable documents to prove citizenship, including a valid U.S. passport, a REAL ID that indicates citizenship, a U.S. military identification card that shows birthplace in the U.S., a birth certificate or other equivalent naturalization documents, and even some tribal IDs like the American Indian card.
Presenting a photo ID is also already a requirement to vote in some states as well as for countless other activities and purchases, including boarding a plane and casting a vote as a member of Congress.
"If you buy a 6-pack of beer you have to show an ID," Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee joked in a post on X. "End this racism."
3. 'It's an attack on women!'
Another claim Democrats have repeatedly made is that the new requirements disproportionately impact women who have changed their names after marriage. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said that the name change "creates a real problem" for her, implying that the legislation is the GOP's latest attempt to suppress women's votes.
The absurdity of Warren's claim is self-evident. Married women often obtain documentation with their new names for other processes that require identification, such as purchasing alcohol or opening a bank account. In addition, women are not limited to producing birth certificates, but also may provide other forms of acceptable ID, such as a passport or a REAL ID.
RELATED: Lone Republican defies Trump, votes to tank the SAVE Act
Even in the rare case that a woman's ID is not updated with her new legal name, the SAVE America Act explicitly allows for name changes in documentation. The legislation requires states to establish fallback procedures for voters who have changed their names due to marriage, divorce, adoption, or another reason.
The reality is that none of the proposed requirements are novel or restrictive. They are simply common sense.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Couldn't find her reservation': Trump hilariously roasts Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren in private dinner
President Donald Trump delivered another hilarious one-liner during a private dinner, this time aimed at Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Trump has repeatedly trolled the Massachusetts Democrat, namely for claiming she had Native American ancestry, plaguing her political prospects in 2020. Warren even went so far as to list her Native American heritage in university records, but she was quickly mocked when she revealed her actual genetic profile.
'She "couldn't find her reservation.'''
Warren released her DNA results in an attempt to combat ridicule, only to reveal that her Native American ancestry went back roughly 6-10 generations, equating to about 1/64th to 1/1,024th Native American.
The scandal quickly became the subject of mockery, with Warren later apologizing to the Cherokee Nation.
RELATED: Trump offers hilarious rebuttal to Tim Walz's absurd Civil War analogy
Years later, the controversy remains a hilarious memory for many Americans, including Trump, who has made several references to it since.
Most famously, Trump branded Warren with the nickname "Pocahontas" in reference to the negligible Native American ancestry she made a focal point of her academic and political career.
RELATED: Liz Warren hustles Trump with a housing bill from hell
His trolling streak has only continued, with Trump referencing the classic nickname during a recent black-tie dinner. In addition to reviving the "Pocahontas" nickname, Trump joked about Warren's absence from the dinner.
Warren was set to attend the dinner alongside other lawmakers, but Trump noted that she "couldn't find her reservation."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
Why does the Biden admin REALLY want a ceasefire from Israel?