The Senate cleared the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in an 89-10 vote, sending a bipartisan housing package to the next stage of the legislative process. The bill, closely aligned with President Donald Trump's agenda, drew opposition from nine Republican senators and one Democrat, even as the White House voiced its support for the legislation.
Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the top Republican championing the legislation, framed it as a direct answer to the president's call to action on housing affordability.
"Not only is this bill about cutting regulatory red tape, lowering costs, and expanding housing supply while generating no new spending, but it's about making sure people like the single mom who raised me in North Charleston, South Carolina, have even greater access to economic opportunity and the American dream of homeownership."
According to the Daily Caller, the White House has come out in support of the current version of the bill and sees it as a compromise product. The legislation also aligns with Trump's January executive order preventing institutional investors from buying up single-family homes.
The nine Republicans who voted down the measure were Sens. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Ted Budd of North Carolina, Todd Young of Indiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, and Ted Cruz of Texas. Democratic Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz also voted against. Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker did not vote.
None of the dissenting Republicans offered public statements in the source reporting, so the specific objections remain unclear. But the roster tells a familiar story. These are, in most cases, senators who treat any large legislative package with suspicion and who have built their brands on fiscal discipline and skepticism toward bipartisan dealmaking. Whether that instinct serves them well here is a different question.
The bill generates no new spending, cuts regulatory red tape, and unlocks housing supply. Those are not progressive wish-list items. Those are core conservative priorities. When a bill checks every one of those boxes and carries the explicit backing of the president, voting no demands a public explanation. Voters deserve to hear it.
Perhaps the most notable feature of this legislation is who built it. Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren are not names that typically appear on the same letterhead. Scott acknowledged the unusual alliance head-on in a CNBC interview.
"When President Trump and Elizabeth Warren and the Senate majority Republicans can all come to the same place on a housing bill, what it says is, you put partisan politics aside."
Warren, the top Democrat leading the legislation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Trump "has made clear that he supports this bill as written." She described it as a "compromise that receives support from both the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans."
Conservatives should note what is happening here. Warren is not driving this bus. The bill reflects Trump's housing priorities: deregulation, supply-side solutions, blocking corporate investors from gobbling up single-family homes, and zero new government spending. That Warren can live with those terms says more about how far the Overton window has shifted on housing than it does about any concession from the right.
Scott laid out the core provisions in an X post dated March 3, 2026, under the header "Promises made, promises kept":
Scott also noted the bill incorporates 20 of the 25 provisions from the version the House passed in February, calling the Senate product "fantastic."
One provision drawing attention from hard-line Republicans in both chambers involves a central bank digital currency ban that would be lifted in 2030. Lawmakers pushing for a permanent ban claim the provision would eventually allow the Federal Reserve an on-ramp to have power over people's financial freedom and violate their civil liberties. That is a legitimate concern, and one worth watching as the bill moves forward. A sunset provision on something this consequential is not the same as a permanent safeguard.
Because the Senate version differs from what the House passed in February, the bill now heads back to the lower chamber. It will either be amended and sent back to the Senate or face a formal negotiation to settle the differences between the two versions.
Democratic Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock said Wednesday that if politicians "center the people rather than their own petty and partisan differences," the bill will make it over the finish line. That is the kind of pablum that sounds nice in a press release. The real question is whether House conservatives will demand a permanent CBDC ban or other changes that could complicate passage.
Warren, for her part, tried to claim the populist mantle, telling the DCNF that the bill passed with overwhelming support "because all across this country, people want to see us lower the cost of housing and keep private equity out of the home buying market."
She is describing Trump's agenda and calling it a bipartisan consensus. That tells you everything about where the political energy actually lives on this issue.
Housing affordability is one of those rare issues where conservative principles and populist instincts converge cleanly. The answer to a housing crisis created by overregulation, restricted supply, and corporate consolidation is not more government programs. It has fewer barriers to building, stronger protections for individual buyers against institutional behemoths, and a refusal to let Washington bureaucrats conjure new spending obligations.
That is exactly what this bill delivers. The nine Republicans who voted no may have principled reasons rooted in specific provisions. But on the merits as reported, this is a Trump-backed, zero-new-spending, deregulatory housing bill that passed 89-10. The conservative case for it is not complicated.
The real test comes in the House, where the CBDC provision and other details will face sharper scrutiny. That fight is worth having. But the Senate just proved that a conservative vision for housing can command near-unanimous support when it is built on the right foundation.
Eighty-nine senators agreed. The president agreed. The question for the holdouts is simple: what, exactly, are you holding out for?