Monica De La Cruz (R-TX)
Freedom to Build Act
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to create a Freedom to Build designation for local communities that voluntarily qualify. Localities can qualify either by adopting specific local reforms that remove housing construction barriers or by meeting a housing supply growth target based on affordability. The Secretary must publish a list of designated communities and give them priority for certain competitive federal housing grants. Designations last for five years and can be renewed if the community continues to meet the qualifications. Communities can also lose their designation if they reverse their reforms or fail to meet supply growth targets.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +5
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill is designed to increase housing supply and reduce regulatory barriers to make housing more accessible and affordable overall.
- Scored +4
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults and first-time homebuyers can benefit from increased housing availability and potentially lower purchase costs.
- Scored +4
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Middle-class families gain from expanded housing options, streamlined approvals, and protection from restrictive local mandates.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill preempts certain local zoning, energy, and rent control authorities, effectively overriding local municipal control.
- Scored -2
Would union members be better off under this?
The bill prohibits local wage, residency, or workforce-composition mandates on housing projects beyond state law, which may concern labor unions.
- Scored -2
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The bill prohibits local mandates for electric-vehicle charging infrastructure or on-site renewable energy, which may slow green building adoption.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Encouraging the use of modern construction methods: Section 2(b)(2)(A) includes reforms that remove regulatory barriers to modern construction technologies like modular, pre-fabricated, and off-site building techniques. This could benefit individuals by potentially lowering construction costs and increasing the availability of housing.
-
Speeding up the building approval process: Section 2(b)(2)(B) outlines reforms that reduce the time, cost, and uncertainty of development approvals, such as binding maximum timelines for permit decisions and allowing qualified third-party inspectors. This could benefit builders and home buyers by reducing delays and red tape in getting homes built.
-
Protecting property owners and building choice: Section 2(b)(2)(C) contains provisions that protect property owners from certain local mandates, such as local bans on specific residential energy sources or restrictions on property use. This could benefit individuals by giving them more personal freedom and choices regarding their own property.
-
Prioritizing federal grants for pro-building communities: Section 3(b) requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to give priority to applicants located in designated Freedom to Build communities for competitive housing and community development grants. This could benefit people living in those communities by driving federal investments toward local infrastructure and housing projects.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limits on rent control and tenant protections: Section 2(b)(2)(C)(i) and Section 2(b)(2)(C)(ii) mention reforms that prohibit rent control or rent stabilization on certain dwelling units and protect the ability of property owners to promptly address nonpayment and lease violations. This could negatively impact tenants by removing local rent caps and making it easier for landlords to address lease issues or evict occupants.
-
Restrictions on local energy and environmental mandates: Section 2(b)(2)(C)(vi) authorizes builders to comply with a federally recognized energy rating index as an alternative to prescriptive energy efficiency codes, and prohibits mandates for electric-vehicle charging infrastructure or on-site renewable energy generation. This could burden individuals who prefer or rely on local environmental mandates or specific green building requirements in their communities.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Real estate developers and housing construction business owners benefit significantly from streamlined regulations and innovation incentives. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class families gain from expanded housing options, streamlined approvals, and protection from restrictive local mandates. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults and first-time homebuyers can benefit from increased housing availability and potentially lower purchase costs. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households and developers benefit from reduced regulatory hurdles and faster approval timelines. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Property owners and investors benefit from relaxed restrictions on property use and expedited project approvals. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged households looking to move or purchase homes benefit from an expanded housing supply. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban and suburban residents facing high housing costs can benefit from policies aimed at boosting housing production. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural and agricultural communities have opportunities to participate in regional housing compacts and receive grant priorities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased overall housing supply can help ease housing market pressures, though some tenant protections like rent control are restricted. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural areas that qualify can benefit from prioritized federal infrastructure and community development grants. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Large-scale real estate investors may see advantages from reduced local regulatory burdens. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill prohibits local wage, residency, or workforce-composition mandates on housing projects beyond state law, which may concern labor unions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small and independent homebuilders benefit from reduced permitting costs, clearer timelines, and removal of local regulatory hurdles. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill encourages housing construction and development, which can stimulate employment in the construction and trades sectors. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Streamlining development approvals and boosting housing supply can foster greater economic activity in local communities. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — By encouraging housing supply growth and removing regulatory barriers, the bill aims to help moderate housing costs and inflation in the housing sector. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill requires full public disclosure of all permits, fees, and approvals, increasing transparency for consumers and builders.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill is designed to increase housing supply and reduce regulatory barriers to make housing more accessible and affordable overall. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Promoting increased housing supply can indirectly help alleviate housing shortages that contribute to homelessness.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides builders with clearer timelines, administrative appeals, and structured recourse mechanisms against unreasonable government delays. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires full public disclosure of permits, fees, and approvals, along with maintaining a public website list of designated localities. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation grants the Department of Housing and Urban Development new authority to set standards and designate localities. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill preempts certain local zoning, energy, and rent control authorities, effectively overriding local municipal control.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Rural and local communities can benefit from prioritized federal infrastructure and community development grants if they qualify. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Exemptions from certain local energy efficiency codes and environmental mandates may reduce local environmental standards. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Prohibiting mandates for on-site renewable energy generation and EV infrastructure could dampen local investments in clean energy. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill prohibits local mandates for electric-vehicle charging infrastructure or on-site renewable energy, which may slow green building adoption.
- 9/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/9/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York