The Dictatorship

How big is the US housing shortage? 10 million homes

Published

2 months ago

April 15, 2026

How big is the US housing shortage? 10 million homes

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House economists estimate the United States has a shortage of 10 million houses, according to a new report out Monday — and say regulatory cuts could lead to more construction to stabilize pricesincrease home ownership and fuel faster economic growth.

The analysis, part of the Economic Report of the President, outlines both a political risk and a messaging opportunity for President Donald Trumpwhose public approval has slumped because of concerns about his tariffsthe Iran war and his unfulfilled promises to slash inflation and unleash stronger growth.

Trump signed two executive orders in March directing federal agencies to reduce housing regulatory burdens and make it easier for smaller banks to provide mortgages but he’s been slow to take other steps that would show that high housing costs are a top priority for his administration.

The White House has been trying to focus on housing and other affordability issues for months to get ready for what’s expected to be a challenging midterm season for Republicans, but it has been thrown off course by a series of global issues. In January, a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that had been billed as focusing on housing turned into a showdown for Trump over control of Greenland.

Meanwhile, the Iran war has driven up the cost of buying homes, with average rates for 30-year mortgages jumping from just under 6% to 6.37%.

Trump also has argued in favor of keeping home prices high to protect values for existing owners. “I don’t want to drive housing prices down,” Trump told his Cabinet earlier this year. “I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes, and they can be assured that’s what’s going to happen.”

The report lays out a blueprint on housing

The housing chapter of the annual economic report, obtained by The Associated Press before its release, lays out a blueprint for how more home construction would help the middle class and the overall economy, setting up an argument that Trump could make to voters.

Put together by staff at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, it finds there would be 10 million more houses in the country if “homebuilding and the growth of the single-family housing stock had continued at their historical pace instead of falling dramatically” after the 2008 global financial crisis. That crisis was caused largely by a wave of defaults in the housing market, where prices had been fueled by problematic lending practices.

The analysis notes that home prices have risen 82% since 2000, while incomes are up just 12% — a mismatch that had been masked for a period by historically low mortgage rates. But when rates jumped with inflation in the aftermath of the pandemic, monthly mortgage costs also rose for buyers and affording a home, a signifier of middle class status, became a top concern for voters under 40.

The White House maintains that the executive orders in March, in addition to the plans to purchase mortgage-backed securities, show that the president is focused on housing issues.

The report says that various regulations on home construction, which it calls “the bureaucrat tax,” add more than $100,000 in costs to building. That cost includes changing the building codes over the past decade, compliance costs and zoning approval fees, among other expenses.

By the report’s estimates, a reduction in those regulatory costs could help spur construction of as many as 13.2 million homes. That could add on average 1.3 percentage points to annual economic growth over the next decade and support 2 million manufacturing and construction jobs, it argues.

Trump could decide to make federal funding to state and local governments contingent on reducing some of the regulations, according to an administration official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the report before its release.

The report also attacks the green energy housing standards introduced during the Biden administration as a factor in increasing construction costs. Those steps gave preferences for more efficient air conditioning units and water heaters as well as higher standards for the related duct work.

But getting rid of some of those requirements could increase other costs for homeowners over the long run, such as utility bills.

The report relies on a 2021 analysis by National Association of Home Builders that says the standards could add up to $31,000 to the price of a new home, while it could take as many as 90 years for a homebuyer “to realize a payback on the added cost of the home.”

It is not clear how much savings would occur from rolling back Biden-era housing standards because of existing legal challenges regarding their enforcement and different practices by states. In March, a federal judge in Texas agreed with 15 states led by Republicans that said the standards for federally backed housing were unlawful.

The Dictatorship

Oklahoma pastor drops out of GOP House runoff after reports of inappropriate texts

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Oklahoma pastor drops out of GOP House runoff after reports of inappropriate texts

Jun. 17, 2026, 9:50 PM EDT

A Republican congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer has dropped out of a runoff for a U.S. House in Oklahoma following reports that he had sent intimate text messages to a woman who was not his wife.

“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer, a candidate for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, said in a statement Wednesday.

“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington,” he added.

President Donald Trump initially endorsed Lahmeyer, whom he called a “MAGA Warrior,” in May but withdrew his support following the controversy. Soon after, Trump endorsed Lahmeyer’s opponentMark Tedford, who now becomes the Republican nominee by default.

“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”

Lahmeyer, a pastor Sheridan Church in Tulsa, centered his congressional campaign around his Christian faith.

Lahmeyer dropped out of the race after the Daily Mail reported Sunday that he had exchanged numerous romantic text messages with Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign. In one text message obtained by the Daily Mail, Lahmeyer allegedly invited Key into his hotel room. Key also alleged that Lahmeyer once professed his love to her.

“There’s a real problem with the fact that he’s married and a pastor,” Key told the outlet. “There is a responsibility when you are leading people in the name of Christ to hold yourself to a higher standard.”

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

The Dictatorship

U.S., Iran digitally sign memorandum of understanding

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

U.S., Iran digitally sign memorandum of understanding

Jun. 17, 2026, 9:14 PM EDT

President Donald Trump has digitally signed the memorandum of understanding with Iran while at dinner in Versailles with French President Emmanuel Macron, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Wednesday.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also digitally signed the memo, according to Sharif.

The agreement between the United States and Iran establishes a framework for negotiations aimed at permanently ending the conflict, which began when Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed a joint attack on Iran on Feb. 28.

Sharif said in a statement the agreement now goes into “immediate effect.” He noted that the first steps are for Tehran to “instantly reopen” the Strait of Hormuz and for the U.S. to “immediately lift” its naval blockade against Iran in the strait.

“The signing of this agreement at the highest level of the respective governments demonstrates the commitment of both sides to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict,” Sharif said in a statement.

Officials will hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland on Friday, Sharif said. A U.S. official did not respond to MS NOW’s questions on if an official document of the agreement will be released to the public.

According to the memothe U.S. and Iran have agreed to finalize a deal within 60 days, “extendable with mutual consent.” The agreement also calls for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”

Despite the memo’s explicit inclusion of Lebanon, Israeli leaders and U.S. officials continue to offer conflicting views on how that will be implemented. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said Israel’s war against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah is not part of the agreement, while Netanyahu vowed to remain in “security zones” in southern Lebanon.

Iran has also reaffirmed that it would not “procure or develop nuclear weapons,” which was a central issue Trump cited when defending the conflict in Iran. Both the U.S. and Iran also agreed to discuss how Tehran will dispose of its highly enriched uranium stockpile, with supervision from the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The agreement also includes an end to the U.S.’ naval blockade against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, with a goal of restoring pre-war maritime traffic to the region.

“May this Memorandum of Understanding serve as an enduring foundation for greater understanding, mutual respect and shared prosperity for the complete region,” Shebaz said.

Emily Hung is an associate White House producer for MS NOW.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

The Dictatorship

The more Senate Republicans learn about Trump’s Iran deal, the more they don’t like it

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 17, 2026, 6:19 PM EDT

Republicans started the week on Capitol Hill already uneasy about President Donald Trump’s still unreleased plan to end the U.S.-Iran war.

But by Wednesday, as details of the memorandum of understanding finally began to emerge, the unease turned into outright opposition.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., posted online.

Cassidy, who recently lost his re-election bid to a Trump-backed primary challenger, said that under the memorandum, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.”

“Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” he added.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is not seeking re-election, argued the memorandum falls short given the costs of the conflict.

“We’ve lost two F-18s, several other air frames, 13 people have died, several of our Middle East partners have been attacked, 365 people have been injured,” Tillis told MS NOW, adding that the the U.S. had spent “$100 billion has been spent since the first kinetic strike.”

“I need more than 14 [bullet] points,” he said.

He later added that anyone who “is gushing over it being a great plan, I think, have insufficient information. Anybody complaining that it’s a bad plan, have insufficient information.”

According to a senior U.S. official, the memorandum — signed by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf — outlines a list of commitments as the two sides kick off 60 days of negotiations on a final deal.

In addition to the U.S. ending its naval blockade and the Iranians reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the memorandum calls for the U.S. to take steps to “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

It calls for the U.S. to work with other Middle East partners to “develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” And the MOU says that “Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.”

In particular, the $300 billion proposal is the source of GOP angst — even from some of the president’s fiercest defenders.

“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters. “I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”

His Texas colleague, Republican Sen. John Cornyn, told MS NOW, “I don’t like that part of the deal.”

He noted, “The president has the authority to negotiate,” but he added that Congress should have an “oversight role.”

While some Republicans were outright critical, many others tried a more tactful approach. Many said they were still waiting for more information.

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., told MS NOW he needed to “see the details” before really commenting on the emerging deal. But when pressed on some of the leaked details, he said the U.S. needed to “tighten the thumb screws if we want to get the sort of concessions required to secure or remove the nuclear material.”

Asked about the $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, which is supposed to be paid for by private investments from other countries, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she was waiting to hear about a “corresponding win” for the U.S.

She said she wanted the Trump administration to present the deal to lawmakers “with an opportunity for us to actually ask those questions.”

And Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., who told reporters Wednesday that he still had not seen the final text, said, “There’s a bunch of things in here that I think we’re going to have questions about.”

“I need to hear more about it, and what the ideas are for implementation, and what the enforcement compliance mechanisms are,” he said.

To be sure, only a handful of Republicans directly praised the memorandum. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, told MS NOW he was “very happy” with the deal.

“I think it’s historic,” he said.

And Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told MS NOW he “would think” the memorandum is better than the Iran nuclear deal crafted during the Obama presidency.

But most Republicans approached by MS NOW insisted they had not yet seen the memorandum and therefore wanted to refrain from comment — even when MS NOW pressed about the topline aspects of the plan, like sanctions relief and the potential for $300 billion in assistance.

“Haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I’m sorry,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.

“I’m not going to comment if I haven’t read it,” said Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah.

“I don’t know what’s in it yet, and that’s critical,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told MS NOW. “I haven’t had a classified briefing yet, and that’s critical.”

But as Republicans learn more details about the agreement, reactions generally haven’t been positive. After spending years blasting the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal — particularly for the agreement sending “pallets of cash” to the Iranian regime — Republicans may have trouble swallowing some of the concessions in this agreement, even if it’s just a temporary deal paving the way to a larger pact in 60 days.

As Democrats have been pointing out, it will be practically more difficult for Trump to walk away from negotiations in August, with the pressure of midterms increasing and the prospect of higher gas prices more daunting.

In general, Democrats have cast the memorandum as an “abject failure,” though they’ve couched that disappointment with an insistence that they’re happy about a potential end to hostilities.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who in recent months has spearheaded a Democratic effort to curtail the president’s war powers in Iran, said it sounded like “we’re giving a lot more to get a lot less than we got in the JCPOA” — a reference to the Obama-era deal, which was formally named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told MS NOW that “by virtually every goal that President Trump announced when this war began” — from regime change to cutting off Iran’s support for its proxies in the region to collecting the country’s nuclear material — “he’s failed.”

In particular, Coons took issue with the proposed sanction relief and the $300 billion for reconstruction, likening it to “rivers of cash to help the mullahs not just rebuild Iran but to build a stronger Iran.”

“I hope — but do not expect — to hear from my many colleagues who denounced the JCPOA as funneling ‘pallets of cash’ to Iran to similarly denounce this deal,” Coons said.

Trump has left himself some latitude on the deal — at least on the potential blame for a bad agreement.

On Wednesday, as he faced questions in France over the pending MOU, he explained why he continued to present Vance as a key negotiator of the deal.

“This way, if it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD.”

Julia Jester, Lillie Boudreaux, and Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.