The American dream of homeownership is slipping out of reach for millions, crushed by skyrocketing prices and a severe housing shortage. As a bipartisan group in Congress slowly works on a traditional legislative solution, the White House is now floating a far more radical and constitutionally explosive idea: having President Trump declare a national emergency.
This is not a story about housing policy. It is a story about the normalization of “governing by emergency.” The proposal to use a national security tool to solve a domestic economic problem is a profound test of the separation of powers and the constitutional limits on the executive branch.
A “Game-Changer” to Break the Gridlock
The idea has been met with enthusiasm by key Republicans in Congress. Representative Mike Flood, who chairs the House subcommittee on housing, called the prospect of a presidential emergency declaration a “game-changer.”
“The president of the United States putting his thumb on the scale and saying that housing is in a crisis situation, and it’s an emergency – that changes the entire conversation,” Flood said.
His comments reveal the core motivation behind the proposal. It is a desire to bypass the slow, deliberative, and often gridlocked legislative process in favor of a fast, decisive command from the President to “push this at light speed across the finish line.”
The Constitutional “Nuclear Option”: The National Emergencies Act
The legal tool the President would use is the National Emergencies Act of 1976. This law does not grant new powers to the President on its own. Instead, it “unlocks” a menu of over 100 special statutory powers that Congress has passed over the years, allowing a president to take extraordinary actions once an emergency is declared.
This is a constitutional “nuclear option.” We have a powerful and recent precedent for its use: during his first term, President Trump used this same act to declare an emergency at the southern border, which allowed him to divert billions of dollars in military construction funds to build the border wall – an action the Supreme Court ultimately did not stop.
A Threat to Federalism and the Separation of Powers
To use a national emergency to address a chronic, domestic economic problem is a dangerous perversion of the law. Emergency powers were intended for sudden, unforeseen crises like a war or a terrorist attack, not for long-standing policy challenges like housing supply.
The most profound constitutional threat is to the principle of federalism. Housing policy – particularly local zoning and building regulations – is one of the most fundamental powers reserved to state and local governments under the 10th Amendment. A federal housing emergency could be used as a constitutional cudgel to force states and cities to change their local laws, perhaps by threatening to withhold federal funds, a massive intrusion into local sovereignty.
Furthermore, it is a direct threat to the separation of powers. It allows the President to bypass the legislative process where this debate is already happening, as Rep. Flood’s own committee work shows, and to potentially impose a solution by executive decree.
The housing crisis is a real and painful problem for millions of Americans, and the desire for a swift solution is understandable. But the normalization of governing by emergency is a grave threat to our republic. When a president can declare any long-standing domestic policy problem an “emergency” to unlock extraordinary powers, the legislative process becomes obsolete, the balance of power is shattered, and the constitutional limits on the executive begin to disappear.