That framing overlooks a key part of U.S. housing policy history. Zoning is administered locally, but federal policy helped shape the land-use system in place today.
A recent executive order from President Trump illustrates this tension. It directs federal agencies to identify regulations that slow construction and raise housing costs, focusing on environmental review timelines, permitting delays, and barriers to manufactured housing.
These reforms may improve federal processes, but they largely avoid the policy that most determines how much housing can be built: zoning.
This reluctance reflects a long-standing assumption that land-use regulation lies beyond federal reach. The historical record, however, is more complicated.
In the twentieth century, federal housing policy helped normalize zoning as a core feature of urban planning. Federal programs encouraged local governments to adopt land-use rules aimed at stabilizing property values and guiding development. Mortgage insurance standards and planning guidance reinforced separation of uses and low-density development.
These policies did not create zoning on their own—cities had already begun adopting it—but they accelerated its spread across metropolitan America.
The result was a national land-use framework administered locally but shaped by federal incentives. That legacy matters today because zoning rules are among the most powerful constraints on housing supply. Minimum lot sizes, height limits, parking mandates, and single-family zoning restrict how many homes can be built. When supply cannot expand, prices rise.
Federal policymakers increasingly recognize that regulation affects housing costs. Recent bipartisan proposals aim to streamline environmental review, expand manufactured housing, and encourage new construction methods. These steps may help at the margins by reducing delays and costs.
But they cannot overcome supply limits if local zoning prevents additional housing.
Treating zoning as outside federal policy debates misses an important opportunity. If federal policy helped entrench land-use systems that constrain supply, it can also encourage reform.
This does not require federal zoning mandates. Cities vary in geography, housing markets, and infrastructure, and local governments remain best positioned to guide development. But federal policy can still shape local incentives.
Housing programs, infrastructure funding, and transportation grants already influence local development. Conditioning those funds on pro-housing reforms—or rewarding jurisdictions that expand supply—could encourage cities to revisit outdated land-use rules.
The goal is not uniform zoning nationwide, but recognition of a broader reality: housing shortages are regional and national problems, even when their causes appear local.
In high-cost regions, demand grows with jobs and population while land-use rules prevent supply from keeping pace. When those constraints persist, affordability deteriorates.
Federal regulatory reform can address part of this problem by reducing delays. But meaningful progress requires confronting the rules that determine whether homes can be built at all.
A century ago, federal policy helped legitimize zoning as a national planning norm. Today, policymakers have an opportunity to rethink that framework.
Housing affordability will depend not only on removing federal barriers to construction, but also on encouraging local reforms that allow supply to grow.