What Impact Will the Fed, Trump, and Harris Have on Real Estate?

As political tension ramps up and the economy teeters between optimism and uncertainty, everyone’s asking the same thing: What’s next for real estate? With the Federal Reserve hinting at rate cuts, Trump talking deregulation, and Harris pitching large-scale building plans, the housing market finds itself at the crossroads of policy and perception.

The conversation isn’t just about politics—it’s about how these decisions ripple through Greenville and beyond.

Fed, Trump, and Harris Real Estate Impact

Fed, Trump, and Harris Real Estate Impact: When the Federal Reserve adjusts rates, the effects reach every street corner—from downtown condos to suburban developments. The Fed doesn’t directly set mortgage rates, but when it moves the federal funds rate (the rate banks use to lend to each other overnight), it indirectly influences the cost of borrowing for everyone else.

The question now: Will the Fed trim rates by a modest 0.25% or take a bolder swing at 0.50%? Either way, the signal is clear—economic cooling is here, and housing feels it first.

If the cut is smaller, markets may shrug. But a 50-basis-point slash? That could spook investors, send mixed signals about recession fears, and temporarily jolt mortgage rates. (Because nothing says “steady housing market” like Wall Street panic-buying bonds before breakfast.)

Still, the timing matters. A September rate cut won’t transform the market overnight. It takes months—sometimes quarters—for those shifts to trickle into home prices, buyer confidence, and local lending. By the time any change shows up in the data, the headlines will already have moved on.

Fed Myths, Politics, and Reality

It’s tempting to assume that the Fed acts with political motives. Rumors have already swirled that any rate cut this close to the election must be an effort to help Kamala Harris. But the timing simply doesn’t add up.

Interest rate adjustments work like slow-release medicine—it takes three to six months to feel the full effects. A September rate cut won’t meaningfully change November’s numbers. Plus, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, originally appointed by Trump and retained under Biden, has stayed notably cautious in his language, never once declaring victory over inflation. (If anything, Powell’s motto could be “Don’t jinx it.”)

In other words, the Fed isn’t playing politics—it’s playing catch-up with an unpredictable economy.

Trump’s Take: Cutting Red Tape to Cut Costs

When it comes to real estate, Trump’s philosophy centers on deregulation. His 2019 executive order targeted the “regulatory barriers” he blamed for stifling housing supply—everything from restrictive zoning to excessive energy mandates and parking requirements.

And he’s not wrong about one thing: those costs add up fast. In Greenville County alone, developers often face tens of thousands of dollars in impact fees, surveys, and tap charges before a shovel ever hits dirt.

Trump’s logic is simple: reduce red tape, reduce cost. But here’s the snag—land use is local. Federal policies can only nudge states and counties toward reform, not override them. (And let’s be honest, convincing local councils to loosen zoning rules is like convincing a cat to take a bath—technically possible, but rarely pleasant.)

His newer pitch involves opening federal land for housing, envisioning “Freedom Cities” complete with futuristic infrastructure. The idea sounds bold, but the logistics remain fuzzy. Still, freeing up federal land could ease inventory constraints if done responsibly.

On immigration, Trump argues that deporting millions would ease housing demand. Yet, on the ground in Greenville, data doesn’t support that theory. Many undocumented residents occupy or restore lower-quality housing that would otherwise remain vacant. In some cases, their labor even helps keep construction costs manageable. The connection between immigration and home prices isn’t as direct as campaign slogans suggest.

Harris’s Vision: Build More, Help More

Vice President Harris’s approach tackles the problem from the supply side—and the heart of her message resonates: America doesn’t have enough homes.

Her plan calls for building three to four million new homes within four years—a massive undertaking aimed at ending the national housing shortage (because who doesn’t love a little light construction before lunch?). She also proposes offering $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time buyers, plus tax credits for builders constructing affordable homes (finally, a plot twist builders can actually afford).

It’s an ambitious blueprint, but not without complications. For builders, scaling up that quickly means finding land, labor, and materials at unprecedented speed (and unless someone’s invented a “House 3D Printer Deluxe,” that’s going to be quite the juggling act). And for buyers, a sudden influx of government assistance could unintentionally overheat prices—more money chasing limited inventory. (Think of it like giving everyone front-row tickets… in a theater with only 50 seats.)

Still, Harris deserves credit for naming the real issue: supply. For too long, political leaders have focused on demand-side fixes—tax breaks, credits, and incentives—without addressing the lack of actual homes. Her proposal reframes the conversation toward production rather than perks.

Shared Ground and Sharp Contrasts

Despite their differences, Trump and Harris both identify supply as the core problem. Both advocate for building on federal land. Both acknowledge that regulation slows construction.

The divergence lies in their methods:

• Trump aims to deregulate and unleash private development.

• Harris hopes to incentivize and partner with the industry.

  
  

The question for Greenville—and every other city facing inventory strain—is which approach can actually get homes built faster.

Because in the end, the market doesn’t care about campaign slogans—it responds to action.

The Fed Still Holds the Biggest Key

While the presidential candidates spar over supply and incentives, the Fed quietly controls the real lever: affordability.

Whether the federal funds rate drops by a quarter point or half, it will shape borrowing power across the Upstate. Mortgage rate movement determines how many families can buy, how many sellers list, and how many investors jump back in.

The Fed might not be running for office, but its influence on real estate outpaces any campaign promise. (You could call them the silent landlord of the economy.)

Watch Or Listen To The Selling Greenville Podcast

Subscribe to the Selling Greenville podcast for real-time insights, bold perspectives, and unfiltered takes on the Upstate housing scene. Whether you’re buying, selling, or simply watching the market unfold—this is where Greenville goes to stay informed.

Bottom Line

Real estate doesn’t move on campaign cycles—it moves on fundamentals. Rate cuts might ease borrowing costs, but they won’t erase decades of supply shortages overnight. Deregulation might help developers, but only if local governments cooperate. And no amount of stimulus can replace stability.

As Greenville watches the national stage, one truth remains: what happens in Washington eventually trickles down to Woodruff Road. But whether it brings relief or another round of adjustments, homeowners and buyers alike would do well to keep their focus local—and their expectations realistic.

Ien Araneta

Journal & Podcast Editor | Selling Greenville