144
Trump Refuses to Sign Housing Bill Until Unpopular Voting Restrictions Pass Congress
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
144 points (98.6% liked)
politics
30195 readers
2414 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's particularly bonkers because the bill passed with a veto-proof majority
So, Trump has zero leverage here. Unless he thinks, somehow, he can convince Republicans to switch sides and vote against a veto override on a bill they already voted for.
This bill is becoming law whether he supports it or not. It's also quite popular (with everyone who is not in Private Equity). Usually, he bends over backwards to be seen on the popular side of an issue. This makes no sense, even by Trump logic.
That is exactly what he will do. And they will fall in line like they always do.
They can remove the dementia fuckstick at any point, but they don't. Even while he's at a new all-time low approval, even with Republican voters. And regularly failing at absolutely everything he does now. It's extremely easy to justify removing him with all these obvious and public fuckups, but they still don't.
I don't think they can use the 25th amendment unless Vance is on board. And going into midterms with Acting President Vance might not be any more appealing to the Republicans than sticking with Trump.
Are you serious? No, the 25th is not an option. It never was, especially this term. It is not worth mentioning.
I was saying it should be used. The person I was replying to seemed to be suggesting it and I was pointing out problems.
edit: wasn't. I wasn't saying it should be used.
In his jello brain this is a power play. He got some recent primary wins, so now he's going to dare Republicans to defy him on this under the threat of a future primary challenge. The next big election after the midterms will the presidential election where he imagines he'll be the kingmaker.
I agree I think it's unlikely enough people are going to bend on this, but with how spineless Republicans have been, it would not surprise me if a whole bunch of them started making noise about it. Jesters dancing for the king.
He's trying for a pocket veto. It might work.
Doesn’t a pocket veto mean the law goes into effect anyway?
The President has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to sign the bill, or veto it. If he does neither, the bill takes effect as if he had signed it -- as long as Congress is still in session.
A Pocket Veto is when the President doesn't sign a bill, and Congress is not in session when the 10 day period expires. In that case, the law will not take effect.
But, these days Congress never formally adjourns. Even when they go home, local members still hold formal sessions where nothing is done specifically to keep Congress in session. And I think even this Congress won't simply adjourn itself because Trump wants it to.
This was also a discussion when Trump nominated idiots like Matt Gaetz, who had no shot of getting confirmed. Trump wanted Congress to adjourn itself, so he could make a Recess Appointment. They declined. If they didn't roll over then, they won't now.
I'd Congress stays in session it goes into effect. If Congress leaves town it doesn't.
That's basically it, but the complex version is that if someone is appointed to receive messages then this becomes law on the 6th or 7th (i.e. in 10 days, not counting Sundays).
But, if no one is appointed for this break, then it's a pocket veto and cannot be overruled, it would require a new bill.
If Congress were in session the week of the 6th, then this wouldn't be an issue.
I guess this bill passed with a veto proof majority, so there is no pocket veto, but normally, if it passed with like 50 some percent, he could not sign and it would be a pocket veto.
I don't buy any Private Equity whining about this, all they need to do is spin up a few corporate shells and they'll be able to keep each one of them under the limit on single family home ownership, but they'll still be cashing subsidies for construction and enjoying the gutting of environmental regulations that came with this
The real housing reform we need is more public housing on the market owned and administered by municipal or state governments, anything short of that is just going to be putting money back into the pockets of the land barons
You don't think private equity will be complaining, lobbying on this? Wow, your understanding is fucked.
No, I think their complaining and lobbying is a bullshit pretense to keep everyone talking about this legislation that doesn't solve the problem (and creates a few new ones) instead of talking about policies that would actually do something
While this legislation is bullshit, and clear permit processes and such for these same assholes to bring their bullshit, they will still be opposing it out of principle, you can be sure. These are the most arrogant assholes on the earth.