New report: Home prices rose 30% because of this Biden policy



For years, Americans have watched home and rent prices climb out of reach, with many blaming everything from interest rates to a lack of new construction. But Ron Simmons argues that illegal immigration under the Biden administration has played the biggest role.

“Housing prices went up significantly during the time that Biden was president. And a lot of that, or some of that anyway, was due to the illegal immigration surge. And it triggered at least a 30% rise in home prices and a 20% rise in rents,” Simmons explains on “Relatable.”

“And this is according, not to some partisan organization, but this is according to the Dallas Fed,” he says, noting that the Dallas Fed “put out a paper that talks about the impacts of unauthorized immigration in the U.S. labor and housing markets.”

Researchers found “that while the influx of workers boosted employment with little measurable impact on wages, it also increased demand for housing in areas where supply was already limited.”


“So, places that are growing fast like Texas and a lot of the other red states, there had been a pressure on housing because it’s growing faster than we can build houses, and the illegal immigration has contributed to that,” Simmons explains.

"Unauthorized immigration accounted for roughly 30% employment growth and about 30% of home price growth and 20% of rent growth," he reports.

Vice President JD Vance is also aware of who caused the rise in housing prices. During a November 2025 interview, he explained that “under the Biden administration, the price of a new home literally doubled in four years.”

“It went up 100%. Under the Trump administration, housing and rent prices are up about 1% to 2%. That’s actually in line with what you would like to see,” he explained.

“So, while it’s gone a lot better since we’ve removed most of the illegal immigrants, or a lot of the illegal immigrants that are in this country — I wouldn’t say most of them by any means, but a lot of them,” Simmons comments.

“And we certainly have shut down the border, I think as low as it has been since 1970, which is incredible,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Young Adults’ Real Crisis Isn’t Affordability — It’s Lifestyle Expectation Inflation

It may be time for a renaissance of the old-fashioned American values of moderate expectations, frugality, and making do.

If voters don’t feel relief, the economy isn’t fixed



The concerns of many Americans about their economic well-being may be at the highest level since the Great Depression. Politico recently reported that 46% of Americans say their cost of living is the worst that they can remember, including over one-third of Trump voters. Nothing better exemplifies this than the many “30-somethings” who are unable to purchase a home.

Financial anxieties center around affordability, which is the proxy for evaluating whether the economy is meeting the public’s needs. Affordability is the degree to which households can responsibly pay for essential goods and services.

In the end, the nation’s affordability dilemma is about the confidence people have in the country’s economic future.

Gregg Ip, an economic commentator for the Wall Street Journal, says that affordability cannot be measured solely by economic data, but must also account for perceptions of financial security.

President Trump opined that concerns about affordability are a “hoax” created by Democrats for political purposes. Most Americans would disagree. While the runaway inflation of the Biden presidency has moderated, widespread concerns about affordability persist. According to a recent Politico poll, nearly half of the nation found the cost of their groceries, health care, utilities, and housing to be unaffordable. About half of the respondents said food costs are difficult to manage, and more than a quarter skipped medical appointments because of the cost.

In the 2026 midterm elections, it will be incumbent upon Republicans and Democrats to make an affordability agenda “job one.” These agendas should be the yardstick voters use to cast their vote for members of Congress and state officials.

The U.S. affordability crisis is multidimensional, requiring a dual-track strategy that combines structural reforms with immediate and affordable relief for the most vulnerable citizens. Each party’s affordability agenda should demonstrate when households will realize cost-of-living relief, avoid another round of inflation, provide market incentives for innovation, supply expansion and productivity gains, demonstrate distributional fairness, and stress choice over federal mandates.

Restoring an affordable economy will require that failed federal policies be reversed and the president and Congress focus on fixing long-term root causes.

To make goods and services more affordable, public policies should aim at increasing private-sector housing construction, modernizing domestic energy regulations, expanding production, encouraging competition in the health care insurance market, avoiding deficit spending that can rekindle inflation, rolling back regulations that increase consumer and business expenses, and devolving social and educational programs to the states to tailor taxpayer-friendly solutions to local challenges.

The nation’s affordability dilemma is not only about the price of goods and services. It concerns the relationship between costs, income, and the perception of financial security. In the end, it is about the confidence people have in the country’s economic future.

RELATED: All I want for Christmas is for Vivek Ramaswamy to stop embarrassing the GOP

Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images

When households and businesses feel “squeezed,” they lose faith that public or private institutions are protecting their interests. A September 2025 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that just 17% of Americans trusted the federal government to do the “right thing” most of the time. Similarly, the July 2025 Gallup survey reported that less than 30% of Americans had confidence in U.S. institutions.

The major impediments to addressing the high cost of living are deep ideological divides over causes and solutions. Progressives emphasize government mandates and regulations, subsidies, and deficit spending. Conservatives stress fiscal restraint and market-driven solutions. Adopting common-sense economic reforms requires compromise and the rejection of left and right extremism driven by grievances and rage.

There is no more important issue for voters than which candidates and parties will boldly tackle the affordability challenge. Success will be influenced by policies that encourage business investment and innovation and workers keeping more of their income.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

The party that made life more expensive wants credit for noticing



Having identified a problem they created, Democrats are now blaming “affordability” on Republicans. It is a striking display of audacity — the very definition of chutzpah.

For more than a year, Democrats have struggled to find a message that resonates because they keep recycling losing ones. They have lashed out at immigration enforcement —storming ICE facilities, attacking ICE officers, and defending violent illegal aliens.

Democrats are now left with a single strategy: campaigning on the consequences of their own incompetence and hoping voters forget who caused them.

They voted for the largest tax increase in U.S. history by opposing the extension of the 2017 tax rates under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

They continue to cling to climate alarmism even as the rest of the world moves on.

They remain soft on crime, opposing President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in cities where criminals run rampant and law-abiding citizens live in fear.

And in a final act of desperation, they triggered the longest federal government shutdown in history — before caving and achieving nothing.

Same issues. Same failure to connect.

The results speak for themselves. Democrats’ favorability sits at an abysmal 32.5%, well below Republicans’ 38.2% and far below President Trump’s 43.8%.

Then came Zohran Mamdani, the neophyte New York Democratic Socialist who toppled Democrats’ old guard in consecutive elections — first Mayor Eric Adams, then former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani did what Democrats have always done: promise voters lots of free stuff. Only he did it on a far grander scale — buses, housing, child care, grocery stores.

Faced with his success, Democrats opted for the familiar response: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. They sanitized Mamdani’s socialism, rebranded it as “affordability,” and declared it their new cause.

That affordability is now Democrats’ issue should surprise no one. After all, they caused the crisis they now loudly lament.

Start with New York City, where affordability has collapsed most dramatically. According to Visual Capitalist’s ranking of America’s least affordable cities, Manhattan is No. 1, Brooklyn ranks sixth, and Queens seventh. In fact, the top 10 least affordable cities are overwhelmingly governed by Democrats and located in Democrat-dominated states: New York, Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts. By contrast, nine of the 10 most affordable cities are in Republican-dominated states.

The reasons are no mystery. They are the left’s preferred policies: high taxes that drive up the cost of living and chase out taxpayers; rent control that discourages new construction and fuels homelessness; and excessive regulation and litigation that inflate the cost of everything they touch.

The same pattern holds at the state level. U.S. News and World Report lists the 10 least affordable states, and the top six are California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington, and New York. Nine of the 10 are blue states. Florida — the lone red-state exception — also boasts the No. 1 economy, ranks second in education, levies no state income tax, and continues to attract new residents in large numbers. Meanwhile, all 10 of the most affordable states are Republican-led.

RELATED: The socialist spell: Why modern minds keep falling for an old lie

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What about inflation? Isn’t that a national problem?

Yes, but inflation didn’t materialize out of thin air. It began under the Biden administration, reaching a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022. CPI-U inflation was just 1.4% when Biden took office in January 2021. By March, it had nearly doubled. By June, it had surged to 5.4%. By December, it hit 7%. A year later, it still stood at 6.5%. Inflation did not fall below 3% until July 2024 — the 43rd month of Biden’s presidency.

Excessive Democrat spending fueled this surge. From fiscal years 2021 through 2024, the Congressional Budget Office shows cumulative deficits of $8.9 trillion, driven by roughly $8 trillion in spending above the pre-pandemic baseline. The only reason Democrats didn’t spend more is that members of their own party balked.

Inflation works like weight gain: it comes on fast and comes off slowly. Even when the rate of inflation declines, prices remain higher. There is no economic Ozempic. Americans are still paying the price for four years of Democratic fiscal gluttony.

None of this has stopped Democrats from claiming “affordability” as their issue — or from demanding more of the same policies that caused the crisis in the first place: higher spending, higher taxes, and more regulation.

Stripped of winning ideas, Democrats are now left with a single strategy: campaigning on the consequences of their own incompetence and hoping voters forget who caused them.

Liz Warren hustles Trump with a housing bill from hell



What is it about the National Defense Authorization Act that makes it a dumping ground for every dumb liberal pet project?

First the Trump administration pushed an AI data-center amnesty that would have stripped states of authority over massive, power-hungry facilities. Then lawmakers tried to slip in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s housing bill, a package built to subsidize Section 8 tenants and builders and to fuel the very forces driving the current housing bubble. After a backlash, both provisions came out of the NDAA. Now congressional leaders plan to pass the Massachusetts Democrat’s housing bill on its own.

The real crisis comes from government debt and the inflation it fuels. This is not a shortage of lumber or land. It is a monetary chokehold created by government policy.

Earlier this year, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) worked with Warren to move S. 2651, an omnibus housing package that expands every federal program Trump previously vowed to cut. They attached the legislation to the Senate’s NDAA, then lobbied House conservatives to adopt it in their version of the defense bill. At the last minute, House leaders stripped the language. The House Financial Services Committee now plans to mark up the bill next week.

Here’s the trouble: The bill misdiagnoses the housing crisis. It treats high prices as a supply shortage instead of a government-fueled asset bubble and inflationary pricing distortion.

The result is predictable. Its 40 provisions would expand Section 8, loan subsidies, “affordable housing” grants, and even looser mortgage programs for people priced out of the market. Every one of these items pours accelerant on the factors that drove the 2008 bubble and the post-COVID spike.

Government subsidies for overbuilding and for buyers who cannot afford homes created the crisis. Yet like a dog returning to its vomit, Scott, the president, and Senate Democrats are endorsing Warren’s 2020 campaign platform to revive the same model. The bill promises builders and activist groups federal cash in exchange for regulatory concessions. The trade-off is disastrous.

Section 202 creates a new federal grant program to fund local housing projects in designated zones — a warmed-over version of the community-engineering schemes Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development pushed a decade ago.

Meantime, Section 209 establishes a $200 million yearly fund at HUD to award “innovative housing reforms” to localities that reshape zoning to favor dense, subsidized units.

Conservatives would call these incentives an invitation to replicate failed urban policies in red suburbs. The bill rewards grifting nonprofits and community organizers who treat federal housing programs as political infrastructure.

At the same time, the administration is pushing rules that limit red-state zoning authority to clear the way for data-center construction while promoting Section 8 expansion with new incentives and zoning guidance. It revives, in effect, Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regime — the same racial-gerrymandering tool Trump killed in his first term. Supporting the Scott-Warren bill would revive it in practice.

Worse, the bill rests on a false premise. America doesn’t have a housing shortage. According to Redfin, as of October sellers outnumbered buyers by 36.8% — about 529,000 more sellers — the largest gap since 2013. Census data shows about 148 million housing units for roughly 134 million households, a surplus of around 14 million units. When Trump took office, the vacancy count stood near 11 million, yet prices were far more affordable.

The real crisis comes from government debt and the inflation it fuels. Construction costs surged with inflation. Interest rates spiked to service that debt, creating an interest-rate cliff that locked millions of homeowners into sub-3% mortgages. They cannot sell without doubling their monthly costs. High rates froze the existing inventory in place. This is not a shortage of lumber or land. It is a monetary chokehold created by government policy.

RELATED: Why the kids are not all right — and Boomers still pretend nothing’s wrong

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Federal housing policy adds another layer. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac long prioritized “access to credit” over price stability. By guaranteeing high-risk loans and encouraging low down payments, they allow buyers to bid more than their incomes justify. Subsidized credit lifts prices for sellers, not buyers.

S. 2651 makes the problem worse by expanding the Community Development Block Grant and similar programs, encouraging activist groups and corporate developers to overbuild units no one can afford without subsidies. That process pushes prices upward and strengthens corporate buy-ups of suburban neighborhoods.

The administration previously acknowledged these distortions. In Trump’s FY 2021 budget, the Office of Management and Budget proposed eliminating CDBG and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, arguing that states and localities were better positioned to address affordability challenges. This new bill reverses that logic entirely.

The Federal Reserve’s rate whiplash — a decade of near-zero borrowing costs followed by sudden hikes — froze supply by trapping owners inside artificially cheap mortgages. Washington’s policies created the gridlock. The inventory exists. Monetary policy quarantined it.

What the administration needs to do is allow prices to fall back toward alignment with median incomes. That adjustment would restore affordability without new federal intervention. Instead, the FHFA is pushing lower credit-score requirements for subsidized mortgages. That mistake will repeat the pattern of enticing families into overpriced homes they cannot sustain.

Housing policy should stop trying to prop up inflated prices. The market must correct. A federal “solution” built around 40 expansionary programs will intensify the crisis, not solve it. Doing nothing would spur more affordability than this bipartisan blunder.

We Need To Deport 1 Million Illegal Immigrants A Month

Americans want zero illegal immigration, little or no legal immigration, and a mass deportation system that makes noticeable cultural changes to American cities and towns.

'Lipstick on a pig': How printing cash is destroying America — and crypto could be next



Decisions made in the 1970s may still be affecting the average American's ability to buy a home.

When the United States used gold as a standard for backing its currency, it acted as a limiter on money creation, capping the amount of currency that could be printed.

'You have one year. One year. I don't give a damn. I don't care if you go bankrupt.'

According to currency expert and author Paul Stone, severing the U.S. dollar from gold in 1971 allowed for unlimited money-printing, immediately devaluing Americans' savings while causing the unfettered spiraling of housing prices.

"The best way for everyone to understand gold standard ... is it's just a limiter," Stone told Return in an interview. "They raised gold's price to 35 bucks an ounce, which immediately diluted your savings by 40%. ... That's evil. When the government fixes its problems or addresses them at our expense, that's evil."

Likening uncontrolled money-printing to making "cotton candy out of thin air," Stone told Return that the government has continuously doubled down on creating a false financial-energy system that causes stress and burden where it need not be.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in housing costs.

RELATED: Jerome Powell proves the Fed’s ‘independence’ is a myth

Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Contrasting the median price of a home in 1970 ($23,000), Stone said today's average of $420,000 should be around $56,000-$70,000 if it were not for inflation caused by money printing.

Printing "us" out of debt was continuously perpetuated, Stone explained, all the way through the Bill Clinton administration, which "made fractional lending happen."

Stone explained that with fractional lending, banks were allowed to lend 10 times the real amount of their money, which flooded the market with nonexistent capital. With that much money floating around, and an additional 1,000% spending power, the money directly inflated real estate pricing.

"So the price goes from what we think it ought to be ... to $420,000 grand?!" he laughed, disappointedly.

When Stone was asked whether or not cryptocurrency, or perhaps specifically Bitcoin, was a way to circumvent inflation and make real capital gains, Stone identified that the method of currency is not the problem, but rather it is the user.

RELATED: I went to El Salvador to see if the country really gave up on Bitcoin

Your browser does not support the video tag.

"The reason there's a ton of crypto is we're brilliant creations," Stone theorized. "And so people started to sense issues with government money. So they created non-government money. And of course the government has the power to get on top of that. And now it's all just lipstick on a pig."

The currency, whether crypto or fiat, will continue to be devalued and spiral out of control if the government does not change its core thesis, the author continued. "You can rename the dollar to some other name and it's still worth three cents and you're still printing money to pay your bills and you're still killing the currency. There's no way out of this."

His radical solution? "Stop printing a dollar. Literally start back and just bring reality in as it kicks our ass," Stone bluntly stated.

Additionally, Stone said that his "drastic" solution would include telling all U.S. corporations that they have one year to stop manufacturing outside of the country.

"You have one year. One year. I don't give a damn. I don't care if you go bankrupt. The country is practically dead financially."

At the same time, he suggested a focus on state power and urged young Americans to vote with their feet and attempt to create an insulated environment in an affordable place. This sort of devolution revolution involves citizens not paying for what the federal government could not pay for if it weren't for money-printing.

Stone urged, "The number-one solution to all this is you either move to a place where what you earn overwhelms your bills better or the government stops printing. ... Move to a small town."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Government broke the housing market — only this will fix it



If you’re frustrated with being unable to buy a home today, you’re not alone. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, homeownership affordability has been near an all-time low since 2023. The deadly combination of both home prices and interest rates skyrocketing broke the housing market, but simply lowering interest rates today won’t fix it.

To understand why, it’s important to know what caused this housing affordability crisis. Over the last several years, the federal government spent trillions of dollars it didn’t have in the world’s largest-ever borrowing binge. The money came from the Federal Reserve, which created those trillions of dollars out of nothing, depressing interest rates.

The real solution is not to manipulate rates lower and spawn further inflation, but to get government out of the way so interest rates can come down naturally.

The predictable result was a rapid devaluation of the dollar, manifesting as 40-year-high inflation, followed by the fastest rise in interest rates in just as long to cool off the inflation.

Rates aren’t the problem

Not only did home prices become stratospherically high relative to incomes, but financing costs became prohibitively expensive. Consequently, during the four years of the Biden administration, the monthly mortgage payment doubled on a median-priced home.

For the housing market, this was a one-two punch that cratered affordability and consigned millions of Americans to renting for the foreseeable future.

The Fed’s artificially low interest rates helped cause the problem in the first place. Home prices rose not only because the dollar lost value (taking more dollars to buy the same home), but also because lower interest rates meant potential home buyers could borrow more and bid up the price of homes.

What’s most important to someone when considering buying a home is not the home’s price but the monthly mortgage payment. While the payment is clearly dependent on the whole price, interest rates are also a major factor. When those rates fell below 3%, people were willing to spend much more on the same home because the monthly payment didn’t change much.

As the months passed, however, and the bidding wars continued, prices just kept rising. Once interest rates returned to more normal levels, everything fell apart as monthly mortgage payments exploded. It now takes over two-thirds of the median household’s take-home pay to afford a median-priced home.

Historically, when interest rates rise, home prices fall, but that didn’t happen this time. So many people locked in home loans at interest rates below 4% — or even below 3% — that they can’t sell their homes today, because doing so would mean losing that interest rate and getting a new mortgage at 7%, 8%, or 9%.

The only way to make the math work is if homeowners sell at a huge premium, giving a massive down payment on their next home, minimizing the amount borrowed at a higher rate, and therefore preventing their monthly payment from skyrocketing. The large and fast increases in interest rates pushed home prices even higher instead of lower.

Get government out of the way

The temptation today is for the Fed to simply lower the federal funds rate (its benchmark interest rate), under the assumption that such a move will push down interest rates throughout the economy, including mortgages. Sadly, instead of fixing the broken housing market, it would likely have the opposite effect.

Last autumn, in a move that could only be described as blatant election interference, the federal funds rate was reduced when there was no empirical justification for doing so. But the move buoyed stock prices. Market participants saw through the charade and realized the artificially low rates would ultimately lead to more inflation, which prompted private market interest rates to rise.

RELATED: Trump rips into Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not lowering interest rates and suggests he'll be fired soon

Photo by e-crow via Getty Images

Lenders don’t like inflation because it reduces the value of the money being repaid in the future. To compensate, creditors demand a higher rate of return. That’s why the yield on Treasury debt at the end of last year jumped 100 basis points after the federal funds rate fell 100 basis points, demonstrating the Sisyphean nature of the problem.

Additionally, interest rates and home prices have recoupled. If interest rates fall one or even two percentage points, that will again prompt potential home buyers to borrow more, thereby bidding up home prices again. Unless rates drop substantially more, existing homeowners will remain trapped by the golden handcuffs of their 2% or 3% interest rates.

The real solution is not to manipulate rates lower and spawn further inflation, but to get government out of the way so those rates can come down naturally. If the government spent much less, then there would be less demand for borrowed money. Reducing demand in turn reduces the price, and the price for borrowed money is the interest rate.

Profligate government spending broke the housing market. Only fiscal restraint at the federal level will fix the problem.

‘New Urbanists’ Want To Bulldoze The Suburban American Dream

The future of America is not a high-density, corporatist nightmare. It’s the spacious, family-friendly suburbs where liberty thrives.

America’s housing crisis needs real answers, not Biden’s scapegoating



The economic law of supply and demand dictates that if the supply of goods or services outpaces demand, prices fall. Most politicians understand this and commonly invoke that law in response to public discontent about high consumer costs.

When it comes to housing, however, leading Democrats are offering lip service to supply, while simultaneously engaging in counterproductive schemes to deflect responsibility for rising costs.

Instead of addressing the true sources of inflation and economic instability, the administration’s go-to response is to take cheap shots at the private sector.

Addressing the national housing shortage will require an estimated 1.7 million new homes each year, on average, until 2030. As its response to this crisis, the Biden-Harris administration has chosen a desperate, partisan approach by scapegoating private-sector technology through litigation.

The Department of Justice is suing rental industry software company RealPage Inc., alleging it played a role in raising rents for apartments and multifamily dwellings. Blaming a single data analytics company for the nationwide housing shortage and inflationary pressures may seem bizarre — and it is. We need real solutions.

What is RealPage? In addition to providing property management tools like IT support platforms and renter verification systems, RealPage offers assessments of rental asset metrics such as vacancy rates, leasing term trends, projected occupancy, and anticipated consumer demand.

Property managers need quick analysis to set prices appropriately within the market. Setting prices too low risks financial disaster by failing to capture fair market value in a market with razor-thin margins. Setting them too high, however, discourages consumers, leading to empty units and daily losses.

Without evidence from the Justice Department showing where rents have risen excessively, the claims of market power against RealPage appear dubious at best. Leasing companies with about 3 million units nationwide use RealPage’s market price assessment tools. If the government’s accusation held merit, it could point to plenty of examples to support the charge.

Unwarranted attacks on data analytics tools represent the latest effort by a Biden-Harris administration that frequently makes baseless claims of misconduct across industries struggling to survive under the challenging economic conditions this administration has created.

Last year, for example, the Justice Department sued to block JetBlue’s acquisition of Spirit Airlines. Biden-Harris central planners attempted to dictate travelers’ options while fostering an environment that stifles innovation and limits airlines’ ability to reduce fares.

In another troubling example, the Biden-Harris administration targeted the grocery sector. When Kroger sought to acquire Albertsons, the Federal Trade Commission quickly challenged the acquisition, citing unfounded competition concerns and potential price hikes. This stance ignores the steep price increases driven by administrative policies and unchecked government spending, which have cost taxpayers over $2 trillion.

Instead of addressing the true sources of inflation and economic instability, the administration’s go-to response is to take cheap shots at the private sector — companies that aim to innovate and create market efficiencies that benefit consumers.

Improving the housing market starts with lawmakers overhauling the nation’s notoriously burdensome construction codes and regulations. Rising material costs due to tariffs, lengthy permitting processes, construction workforce shortages, restrictive zoning laws, and environmental requirements all create cost pressures that discourage building the new housing America desperately needs.

Since returning to my native Arizona several years ago, I’ve seen firsthand the influx of people moving here, naturally driving up rents. Unfortunately, under our Democratic attorney general, state officials have joined the Biden-Harris administration in ignoring the real causes of rising market costs, previously filing their own lawsuit against RealPage. After 20 years of Republican leadership that made Arizona attractive to newcomers, Democratic leaders now regrettably pursue a misguided path that stifles innovation.

To address housing affordability, we must tackle supply shortages and inflationary pressures. Instead, the federal government under Biden and Harris has chosen to scapegoat a software company and mislead consumers about how the housing market works. Americans shouldn’t fall for such false narratives.