News

South Africa’s Audacious Bid to Teach America a Lesson

South Africa’s Public Service Amendment Bill offers a potent lesson in democratic resilience.

Published

4 months ago

September 28, 2025

South Africa’s Audacious Bid to Teach America a Lesson

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – In Washington, D.C., federal officials worry about “Schedule F,” a Trump-era idea revived to reclassify thousands of career officials as political appointees. In London, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK agitates for a “power project” to seed ministries with ideological loyalists. Across the democratic world, the professional civil service is under siege, its neutrality recast as a weakness.

Yet in Pretoria, something rare is unfolding. South Africa, a younger democracy, is doing the opposite. Its Public Service Amendment Bill (PSAB), now on the cusp of being passed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) following recent deliberations, aims to hard-wire professionalism into law.

It removes hiring and firing powers from ministers, hands them to career officials, and bars senior civil servants from holding party posts. In effect, South Africa is trying to legislate the very separation between politics and administration that older democracies are busy dismantling.

The Ghosts of State Capture

This move is a direct response to South Africa’s recent past. The country is still recovering from the era of “state capture,” a period when powerful networks of political elites and private business interests systematically looted state resources and hollowed out key institutions. A key enabler was the notorious policy of cadre deployment: appointing loyal party comrades to public posts, regardless of merit.

The PSAB’s design is surgical, targeting the pressure points where patronage seeps in.

What the Bill Actually Does

The headline reform transfers key human-resources powers from ministers to professional heads of department. Hiring, promotion, performance management, and disciplinary action for senior officials will be handled by Directors-General, not political bosses.

“Why would you have heads of departments if you are not going to give them their responsibility and hold them accountable?” quips Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, the country’s Public Protector, in support of the change.

For Gcaleka, who has investigated countless cases of capture and abuse, this is a long-overdue correction: ministers will set policy and monitor delivery, while directors-general will actually run departments day-to-day and be held accountable for results.

The companion reform is a clear barrier between senior administrators and party politics. Section 36A of the PSAB will prohibit Directors-General, provincial heads, and those directly reporting to them from holding office in a political party. This is a targeted ban aimed at the very top echelons, a compromise after an earlier draft sought to ban all 1.2 million public servants from party positions.

Labour unions, led by COSATU’s Mathew Parks, blasted the early version as unconstitutional overreach, forcing the compromise that narrowed restrictions to top managers. That, says Parks, “is rational and fair and can pass constitutional muster,” aligning with recent court rulings upholding similar limits for municipal managers.

For watchdogs like Gcaleka, the logic is simple: “How do you manage the political–administrative interface if, after you leave this room, you are equals?” If a Director-General is simultaneously a party baron, their loyalty to the public could be compromised. By neutralizing these conflicted loyalties, the reform aims to ensure that senior officials serve the constitution, not party HQ.

An Independent Referee

This internal balance is reinforced by an external one. In parallel to the PSAB, lawmakers are advancing changes to strengthen the Public Service Commission (PSC), transforming it into a fully independent Chapter 9 institution with investigative and enforcement powers.

As DA lawmaker Jan Naudé de Villiers, who chairs Parliament’s portfolio committee on public service, put it, without an independent referee, meritocracy remains theoretical. The PSC’s enhanced powers give the new rules bite, deterring political overreach and giving administrators a lawful shield when they refuse improper instruction.

The Reformer’s Voice in South Africa

South Africa’s recent history proved that blurring the line between party and state breeds corruption and ineffectiveness. “The historical record provides overwhelming evidence that where democracies fuse the political and administrative, they tend towards corruption and ineffectiveness,” argues Ivor Chipkin, a public scholar of more than 30 years and executive director of the New South Institute (NSI), contending that truly autonomous, professional bureaucracies are what allow democracies to translate mandates into results.

Few people embody both the challenges and promise of reform like Yoliswa Makhasi. After 25 years in the public service, including a term as Director-General of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), she now directs the Public Service Reform Programme at the NSI.

In a 22 July hearing before Parliament’s upper house, the National Council of Provinces, Makhasi described the Public Service Amendment Bill as “a critical institutional advancement,” arguing that the state’s performance has long been undermined by blurred lines between political and administrative authority. For Makhasi, these episodes—highlighted by the Zondo Commission at state-owned entities like Eskom and Transnet—show why insulating the civil service from partisan leverage is essential.

The Bill, she argues, is designed precisely to prevent such interference, regardless of which party is in office. Her point is not abstract. It flows from years of watching how even well-intentioned political interventions can unravel carefully built capacity, and how decent administrators can be sidelined when partisan considerations intrude upon hiring, promotion, and dismissal.

Lessons Written in Scars

South Africa’s appetite for institutional hardening is not ideological; it is born of bitter experience. Over the past decade, a sprawling corruption network—exposed in detail by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry—showed how patronage appointments eroded state capacity. Eskom, the national power utility, was driven to the brink of collapse, triggering rolling blackouts that hobbled the economy.

Transnet, the freight-rail operator, faltered as contracts were captured by cronies. Even the South African Revenue Service, once a model for the continent, lost expertise and credibility after politically connected officials were installed at the top. The pattern was clear: when political loyalty eclipses competence, accountability unravels and institutions buckle.

Unlike countries that inherited professional civil services long ago and now take them for granted, South Africa treats professionalism as a fragile, hard-won achievement that must be protected in law. The PSAB is not the start but the codification of a long policy journey.

It follows the 2022 Framework for the Professionalization of the Public Service, which sketched the philosophy and standards for recruitment, development, and accountability. Where that framework provided strategy, the PSAB provides legal mechanisms designed to endure beyond any single administration.

During a recent webinar, Deputy Minister Pinky Kekana stressed that professionalization needs firm legal grounding and cannot be left to policy instruments alone.

Democratic Maturity as Debate

If democratic maturity is the habit of arguing in public about important things, then the NCOP hearings are a case study. Six provinces, including Gauteng and Limpopo, have already signalled their support for the Bill, while three, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, and the Western Cape, are holding out.

The Western Cape, South Africa’s best-performing province by many metrics, has raised constitutional concerns that the Bill risks creating accountability without authority – a classic governance paradox.

Yet this is not obstructionism; it is part of the process. South Africa’s provinces are constitutionally empowered to scrutinize national laws, propose amendments, and test their resilience against different governance models.

The Bill’s authors answer by pointing to Schedule 2 (retained executive levers) and to the logic that professional appointments, insulated from partisan influence, ultimately make executive accountability more meaningful: politicians are judged for policy and oversight, administrators are judged for execution, and both sets of judgments are clear.

The contrast with cruder arguments for patronage is striking. When Bathabile Dlamini, a former minister and ANC women’s league former president, recently defended the practice of “rewarding loyal members with positions” as necessary for party cohesion, she gave voice to a worldview the Bill explicitly repudiates: the state exists for the public, not for party networks.

The very fact that South Africa is publicly wrestling with where to draw the line rather than doubling down on loyalty rewards is itself a marker of institutional health.

Why This Matters Beyond South Africa

Seen in a vacuum, the PSAB might read like bureaucratic housekeeping. Seen against global trends, it reads like a counter-narrative. Where some democracies are exploring how to politicize their permanent bureaucracies, South Africa is exploring how to de-politicize its own. Where others treat the apolitical civil service as an obstacle to be tamed, South Africa treats it as a public good to be protected.

This is not to say the country is blind to the dangers of an unaccountable bureaucracy. Quite the opposite: Schedule 2 explicitly empowers political executives to act against failing administration, but within a rule-bound process that aims to prevent vendetta politics. The idea is not to create a priesthood beyond scrutiny; it is to create a professional corps bound by skills, standards, and law.

The wider African context underscores that institutional innovation is not the monopoly of wealthy democracies. Rwanda’s Imihigo performance contracts have aligned incentives with results; Kenya’s digitized Huduma centres have streamlined service delivery and cut opportunities for petty patronage; and, within South Africa, the Western Cape’s performance culture shows that professionalization pays. The PSAB is an attempt to legislate those lessons nationally, knitting together merit, accountability, and an independent referee.

The Human Stakes: Service Delivery and Trust

While it is tempting to treat a bill about appointments and schedules as technical, said de Villiers. “The human consequences of administrative weakness are felt in clinics without medicine, classrooms without teachers, water systems that fail, roads that crumble, and permits that never arrive.”

South Africans do not experience “governance failure” in footnotes. They live it in rolling blackouts, in watching ambulances arrive too late, in permits that never materialize. The PSAB’s wager is that competence beats proximity: that an administrator promoted for skill and track record will steward systems better than one promoted because a party committee deemed them loyal.

Institutional memory is an asset, acting appointments and constant churn destroy it. Clear lines of authority help fix problems faster; blurred lines ensure that everyone is “in charge” and no one is responsible. If the reforms work as designed, citizens, not officials, are the ultimate beneficiaries.

Politicians vs Professionals: Striking a Balance

Reforming the engine of government inevitably stirs debate about power and accountability. Not everyone is cheering the diminution of ministerial influence. The Western Cape Government (WCG), run by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the Public Service Amendment Bill—somewhat unexpectedly, given the DA’s loud opposition to ANC cadre deployment.

Dr Harry Malila, the province’s Director-General, warns that stripping ministers of hiring powers could reduce them to bystanders. “How can executives be held accountable if they can’t choose their own top team?” he asks. The WCG broadly supports professionalization but opposes the Bill in its current form, arguing that devolving HR management from executives to heads of department limits oversight and risks weakening governance coherence under section 125 of the Constitution. During submissions, the province advocated for clearer definitions (e.g., of the Minister’s ‘functional area’) and a balanced approach.

Supporters of the reform counter that accountability is not lost, it is just being realigned. Under the new system, Ministers will still set the strategic direction and can hold Directors-General to account via performance agreements and oversight mechanisms.

Crucially, the Bill explicitly provides a process for Ministers to intervene if a DG is underperforming; they may issue a directive and ultimately recommend dismissal if incompetence is proven. This was a deliberate concession to avoid creating untouchable mandarins.

De Villiers, who also chairs Parliament’s portfolio committee on public service, explains: “You don’t want a situation where every time a new minister comes in, they just fire the DG to bring in their own people—that creates instability. But the minister can still write a directive to a DG and say, you are failing at your job,” triggering an inquiry and potential removal.

Some purists wanted no political involvement at all in firing officials, “but I personally feel the ability of an executive authority to actually hold a DG to account must be legislated… when done correctly it is not political overreach.” De Villiers envisions the strengthened PSC stepping in as an independent watchdog to investigate any frivolous ministerial actions, ensuring checks and balances.

Should the Bill become law, Malila anticipates the first tangible improvement for Western Cape residents as greater consistency and speed in filling critical senior management positions, streamlining recruitment and enhancing service continuity.

As America toys with politicizing its bureaucracy and Britain entertains loyalist staffing schemes, South Africa is betting that democracy’s durability rests not on party muscle, but on the quiet competence of those who serve.

By: Fidelis Zvomuya, New South Institute

News

AOC Accuses Jessie Watters of Fox News of Sexualizing and Harassing Her

Published

23 hours ago

January 10, 2026

VORNews

AOC Accuses Jessie Watters of Fox News of Serializing and Harassing Her

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez AOC rejected an invitation to appear on Fox News’ Jesse Watters Primetime on January 7, saying host Jesse Watters has “sexualized and harassed” her on air.

The back-and-forth, filmed outside the U.S. Capitol, quickly spread online and set off another round of partisan arguing. Her response, delivered while cameras and reporters crowded around, pulled millions of views and landed where most political clips do now, in fast-moving social media fights.

The moment happened just after Ocasio-Cortez spoke to reporters about a separate issue, a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent in Minneapolis. She framed it as part of wider problems tied to immigration enforcement.

As she wrapped up, Fox producer Johnny Belisario walked up with a microphone and a camera crew and passed along an invitation. “Jesse Watters would like you on his show,” Belisario said, according to video shared by MeidasTouch Network and reposted widely on X (formerly Twitter).

Ocasio-Cortez didn’t hesitate. “He has sexualized and harassed me on his show,” she replied, sounding angry and firm. She added that Watters “has engaged in horrific, sexually exploitative rhetoric.”

Belisario responded, “That’s not true, Congresswoman.” Ocasio-Cortez pushed back with a direct example. “It is true, because he accused me of wanting to sleep with Stephen Miller,” she said. “So why don’t you tell me what you think is acceptable to tell a woman?” She then walked away, leaving the producer without much to add.

AOC’s Comment Sets Off a Dispute

Her reference pointed to an October 2025 segment on Fox’s The Five. During a panel discussion about an Ocasio-Cortez post that mocked Stephen Miller’s height, calling him “4’10” and “insecure,” Watters joked, “I think AOC wants to sleep with [Stephen] Miller… it is so obvious. I’m sorry you can’t have him.”

The line got laughs on set, but it also drew criticism from women’s rights advocates who said it reduced her to a punchline and treated her like an object. Ocasio-Cortez, who has spoken publicly about being a sexual assault survivor, later reposted the clip on X with the caption: “You can either be a pervert or ask me to be on your little show. Not both. Good luck!”

Watters Responds On Air, Calls It Another “Fabrication”

Watters addressed the exchange on his January 8 broadcast and rejected Ocasio-Cortez’s claim. He described her response as “dramatic street theater” and said she was calling a joke harassment. He also argued that her accusation fit what he called a pattern of exaggeration and lies.

Watters pointed to past moments he says show she plays loose with the facts, including debates about her background and protest footage. He also ran clips, including Ocasio-Cortez’s 2019 60 Minutes interview, where she suggested being “morally right” matters more than being “factually” exact, a comment Watters mocked as an excuse to stretch the truth.

This wasn’t his first attack along those lines. In 2023, he criticized her during a segment about the Green New Deal and accused her of having “a history of lying.” On the January 8 show, he told viewers that if she wouldn’t come on the program, he would keep “fact-checking” her anyway.

Fox News has not released an official statement about the clash. The original report also claimed Primetime viewership rose 15% after the exchange.

The argument also landed in a bigger debate about media standards and how public figures get treated on air. Ocasio-Cortez has avoided Fox for years. Since Watters Primetime launched in 2022, she has said she doesn’t want to help what she describes as disinformation aimed at Democrats. Watters has regularly targeted Ocasio-Cortez and other members of “the Squad,” often painting her as a socialist who is out of touch.

This time, the language got sharper. By using the term “sexual harassment,” Ocasio-Cortez raised the stakes and put more pressure on the network. Progressive groups, including UltraViolet, called for Fox to look at its internal standards and how hosts talk about women on air.

OOC Faces Long-Running Claims About Truthfulness

Ocasio-Cortez has drawn intense attention since she arrived in Congress, and critics, especially on the right, often accuse her of making misleading statements. Supporters say the attacks are political and designed to discredit her. Some fact-checking groups have rated certain claims as wrong or misleading. Below is a partial list of criticisms that have circulated in public reporting and commentary.

Background and class messaging (2018 to present): Ocasio-Cortez has often described herself as coming from the working-class Bronx. Critics, including National Review, have pointed to her family’s home in Yorktown Heights, Westchester County, reported as costing more than $500,000. A 2018 Washington Post fact-check described parts of her narrative as “misleading,” noting her father worked as an architect. Conservative outlets, including The Daily Caller, accused her of playing up class identity for political effect.
Unemployment claim (2019): She tweeted that unemployment under Democratic presidents was “significantly lower” than under Republicans. PolitiFact rated it False, saying the comparison didn’t hold up when looking at the broader context and economic cycles.
Medicare for All election claim (2020): After the election, she said on X that “every single swing-seat House Democrat who endorsed #MedicareForAll won re-election.” PolitiFact rated that False, saying at least two endorsers lost or faced very tight outcomes.
Bernie Sanders and lobbyist money (2020): While backing Sanders, she said he had “never taken corporate lobbyist money” in his career. Fact-checkers called the claim misleading, citing campaign fundraising details that included bundled donations tied to lobbyist-connected sources.
Debt and deficit comments (2023): She said the Trump tax cuts were “the largest contributor” to the debt ceiling and deficit. The Washington Post gave the claim Four Pinocchios, pointing to pandemic spending and policies from multiple administrations as larger drivers.
Texas abortion law statement (2022): She said Republicans “passed a law allowing rapists to sue their victims for getting an abortion.” PolitiFact rated the claim Mostly False, saying the law’s private enforcement system allows lawsuits but doesn’t set it up in the way the tweet described.
Migrant detention remarks (2019): Ocasio-Cortez called some detention facilities “concentration camps” and said women were told to “drink out of toilets.” Critics said she was lying, while reports acknowledged harsh conditions, and the “toilets” line was tied to detainee accounts that inspectors and others disputed as overstated.
“Faked arrest” claim (2022): Viral posts said she pretended to be arrested during an abortion-rights protest. FactCheck.org said that claim was false and pointed to Capitol Police records, though critics still frame the moment as performative.
Social Security rumor (2025): A viral story claimed her family cashed her deceased grandmother’s checks for 15 years. Reuters traced it to a satire site. The rumor spread anyway, alongside talk about a 2025 House Ethics Committee review of her campaign finances, which the text says ended without findings.

Together, these disputes feed a familiar argument about her style. Critics say she favors punchy lines over careful wording. Supporters say she speaks plainly, pushes hard, and gets nitpicked because she threatens the status quo. Her 2019 60 Minutes comments about moral clarity versus “semantic correctness” still get quoted by opponents who say it proves she’s fine with bending facts.

What It Says About Politics and Cable News Right Now

The clash landed as political tensions rose again, with Donald Trump’s second term looming in the background of many debates. Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself as a leading voice against tougher immigration moves she expects from a new administration.

Her refusal also fit a wider feminist argument about how women in politics get talked about on male-led shows, including reminders of Fox’s own history with harassment scandals and the 2023 settlements.

Watters’ response speaks to a different crowd. He framed Ocasio-Cortez as someone using “woke” outrage for attention, a message that often plays well with Trump-aligned viewers.

As clips and memes continued to bounce around X, the fight turned into what cable news often rewards most, a loud moment that keeps people watching. Ocasio-Cortez remains one of the most visible Democrats in the country, and she also remains one of the most targeted.

Whether the dispute becomes a formal complaint or fades into the next news cycle, it underlines how quickly “banter” can turn into a boundary fight, and how rarely either side backs down once cameras are rolling.

Trending News:

Democrats in Turmoil Over Hopeless Impeachment Drive Against HHS Secretary RFK Jr.

News

JD Vance Exposes Walz’s Fraud and CNN’s Lies in White House Presser

Published

2 days ago

January 9, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C – Vice President JD Vance stepped to the White House podium in an unusually blunt briefing and went after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, calling his administration a mess tied to widespread welfare fraud. He also accused major outlets, including CNN, of misreporting key facts to shield Democrats, a move he said puts law enforcement officers in danger.

Vance spoke as tensions rose after a fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis and fresh claims of billions in taxpayer-funded fraud tied to programs run under Walz. Standing with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Vance outlined new actions the administration says it will take to fight fraud across the country and defend federal agents facing backlash from state and local officials.

Walz Under Fire as Fraud Investigations Grow

Vance focused much of his criticism on Walz, whose administration has faced investigations tied to fraud estimates that Vance said top $9 billion. He pointed to the Feeding Our Future case, which involved allegations that hundreds of millions were siphoned from child nutrition programs during the COVID era.

“Look, Tim Walz is a joke. His entire administration has been a joke,” Vance said, linking those claims to Walz’s recent announcement that he will not run for re-election. Vance framed the decision as a retreat brought on by growing scrutiny.

He argued that Walz either knew the fraud was happening or failed to act when warning signs appeared. Vance said the schemes allowed organized networks to exploit programs meant to help children and families, and he claimed some of those networks were tied to parts of the Somali immigrant community in Minnesota.

Conservative researchers and whistleblowers, boosted by widely shared reports online, have pointed to daycare sites that appeared empty while still submitting claims for large reimbursements, including meals that investigators say never existed. Vance said the administration has already stopped billions in federal funding to Minnesota and other Democrat-led states it suspects of similar misuse.

Vance also announced a new Assistant Attorney General role focused on prosecuting fraud nationwide, with Minnesota as a top priority. “This official will have nationwide jurisdiction over the issue of fraud,” he said, adding that the White House plans to push for a fast Senate confirmation. He described the alleged fraud as a large network that has drained public money for years.

Vance Targets CNN, Calls Coverage an “Absolute Disgrace”

Vance also aimed his sharpest words at the national press, singling out CNN over its reporting on Wednesday’s ICE shooting in Minneapolis that killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good.

He read a CNN headline during the briefing and argued it painted a one-sided picture of what happened. “The way that the media, by and large, has reported this story has been an absolute disgrace, and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day,” Vance said.

According to Vance, videos show Good attempting to hit federal agents with her car during an immigration enforcement action. He said the ICE officer fired in self-defense and noted the agent had been badly hurt in a prior incident involving a vehicle.

Vance claimed some coverage left out those details and helped stir anger against law enforcement. “They’re lying about this attack,” he said, warning that misleading reports can feed hostility and raise the risk for officers in the field.

He also said the administration will back the ICE officer and pushed back on talk of investigations into the agent’s actions. Vance said the officer should not be punished for following orders during a dangerous situation, and he criticized Walz and local activists for pushing the issue.

Backing ICE and Federal Agents, Message to Sanctuary Cities

The briefing reinforced the Trump administration’s support for ICE and tougher enforcement, while Vance blamed Democratic leadership for disorder in sanctuary cities, including Minneapolis.

As protests build and Walz calls in the National Guard, Vance urged the public to reject what he described as a false story pushed by political leaders and friendly media outlets. He said criticism of immigration policy should not turn into attacks on officers.

With fraud investigations expanding and more federal attention on Minnesota, Vance’s appearance signaled that the administration plans to press harder on both corruption claims and public safety. Republicans praised the remarks as overdue accountability, while Democrats pushed back and defended Walz’s record.

Vance ended with a clear message: the administration says it will no longer allow large fraud cases to be ignored, and it will not stay quiet when federal agents are publicly blamed for carrying out their jobs.

News

Trump Takes Bold Stand on Corporate Giants Snapping Up American Homes

Published

2 days ago

January 9, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump is aiming at Wall Street firms, which he says are pushing families out of the housing market. On Wednesday, he announced a plan to block large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. In a sharp Truth Social post, Trump framed the move as a way to protect homeownership and bring the American Dream back within reach.

“For a very long time, buying and owning a home was considered the pinnacle of the American Dream,” Trump wrote. “It was the reward for working hard and doing the right thing.” He said that the goal now feels out of reach for many Americans, and he blamed “Record High Inflation caused by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Congress.”

Trump said he wants to stop large investors, including Blackstone and other hedge funds, from buying homes at scale.

“I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes,” Trump wrote, adding that he will urge Congress to make the policy law. “People live in homes, not corporations.”

Supporters say the message fits Trump’s long-running pitch, taking on big money and putting working families first. Critics in the press have been quick to downplay it, but conservatives call it a direct response to a real problem.

Wall Street Reacts Fast

Markets moved quickly after the post. Shares of major single-family rental companies, including Invitation Homes and American Homes 4 Rent, dropped within hours. Blackstone also fell, reflecting investor concern about what a ban could mean for corporate buying strategies. Some traders were caught off guard, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Many voters won’t be upset to see corporate landlords sweating. Large firms have bought heavily in places like Atlanta, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Tampa. In some local markets, institutional ownership makes up a large share of single-family rentals. Families often get outbid by cash offers, then end up renting from the same companies that drove prices higher.

Trump’s proposal focuses on “large institutional investors” and avoids targeting smaller landlords. That distinction matters to many renters who rely on local owners and small property managers.

Rare Cross-Party Agreement, Plus Support From Housing Officials

The idea has picked up some unexpected agreement across party lines. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has also criticized big investors and said he wants to “curb” their role in housing. Trump’s team argues there’s a difference between talk and action.

Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and a Trump appointee, backed the plan and called Trump the “builder-in-chief.” Pulte suggested the administration can take steps that put American homebuyers ahead of large funds.

Some conservative economists point out that institutional investors hold about 2-3% of single-family rentals nationwide. Still, their buying can be heavily focused on Sun Belt markets, where the extra competition can tighten supply. Trump’s goal is to reduce that pressure and give families a fairer shot.

Trump Blames Inflation and Rules That Slow Building

Trump also tied the housing squeeze to inflation and policy choices under President Biden. He argued that higher prices and higher mortgage rates have hit buyers hard. He also pointed to years of rules that make it harder to build new homes, which keeps supply behind demand.

The ban, he says, is only the start. Trump hinted at more housing affordability ideas in an upcoming speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he plans to compare his approach with what he calls failed globalist policies.

Left-leaning critics, including writers at The Washington Post, have dismissed the plan as “populist claptrap.” They say the main issue is underbuilding. Trump’s allies reply that bulk buying by big funds also matters because it pulls homes off the market and changes how neighborhoods function.

He is pitching this as a simple principle: homes are for people who want to live in them, raise kids, and build a life, not for companies chasing returns.

As lawmakers prepare to take up the issue, Republicans are expected to face pressure to move quickly. With affordability sitting near the top of voter concerns, this policy could become a central fight in Congress. Trump is betting that many Americans agree with his core message: housing should serve families first, not corporate balance sheets.