The Brief

In the days since declaring a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump has spoken repeatedly of extending federal control over the city, even as it fights back with protests and legal challenges.

Trump took control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deployed D.C.'s National Guard last week after a former DOGE staffer was injured in an attempted carjacking. Trump has cited "out of control" crime, despite the fact that city data shows violent crime is at a 30-year low.

The 1973 Home Rule Act gives the president command of D.C.'s National Guard. It also allows him to use local police for federal purposes during emergencies — but only for up to 30 days without authorization from Congress, which is on recess until early September.

"We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions," Trump told reporters last Wednesday, referring to MPD control.

That has left many in D.C. wondering: How long can Trump's law enforcement takeover last?

"That is actually a question that we don't really have an answer to, because there is very little case law about the proper uses of the D.C. National Guard or about the authority that the president is relying on to invite other states to send their National Guard forces into D.C.," says Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

No other president has taken control of the MPD since the passage of the Home Rule Act. And while there are no clear time limits on his use of the D.C. National Guard, previous deployments — including responding to civil rights protests in 1968 and 2020 — have addressed more specific crises.

Trump's focus on crime, in contrast, seems much broader and more politically motivated, says Goitein, noting that the president has suggested other Democratic-run cities, like New York and Chicago, could be next.

"It just seems like this is a flexing of federal muscle to intimidate jurisdictions across the country," she says. "And so it's not clear what could bring this to an end, other than intervention by the courts, by Congress or overwhelming public disapproval."

Police officers set up a roadside checkpoint on 14th Street NW, a busy commercial street in D.C., last week.

(

Tasos Katopodis

/

Getty Images

)

Last week, after D.C.'s attorney general sued the Trump administration to block its police takeover, a federal judge effectively halted its plan to replace D.C.'s police chief.

But the federal government has oversight over local police for now. And hundreds of National Guard members, some armed, are patrolling the city, with more on the way. The Republican governors of at least five other states say they are sending their own National Guard troops to the nation's capital — raising questions about what they will do and how long they will stay.

"If crime is already down, then at what point do they say, 'Mission accomplished'?" says Meryl Chertoff, an adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. "Or is the mission going to last endlessly because you're never going to drive crime down to zero?"

The White House declined to answer questions about its timeline for withdrawing National Guard troops from D.C., telling NPR on Monday: "We wouldn't get ahead of any potential announcements from POTUS."

Chertoff says the fact that Trump is already talking about extending his control over MPD, and inviting governors of other states to deploy their National Guard troops, suggests he is not making his decisions based on data.

"If the president were really serious about this as law enforcement, as opposed to intimidation or provocation of people who live in D.C., he would wait to see whether the current activation was enough to solve the problem which he says exists in D.C.," she adds.

What are the limits on Trump's use of D.C. police? 

Thousands marched through Washington, D.C., on Saturday to protest President Trump's use of federal agents and the National Guard to conduct policing actions throughout the city.

(

Dominic Gwinn

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Section 740 of the Home Rule Act allows the president to temporarily use D.C. police if he determines that "special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes."

He can only do so for 30 days, at which point the House and Senate would need to pass a joint resolution authorizing an extension. Trump's Aug. 11 executive order declared such an emergency and requested the services of the police "for the maximum period permitted."

That initial window would run through Sept. 10, unless Trump ends it sooner. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters last week that "we will reevaluate and reassess and make further decisions after this 30-day period is up."

Mere days later, Trump himself said his administration would ask for "long-term extensions."

"I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously," he added.

Indeed, many Republican lawmakers — including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune — have complained of crime in D.C. and embraced Trump's efforts to address it.

"Give Trump a third term, give him a Peace Prize, and let him run D.C. as long as he wants," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., tweeted Friday, despite the fact that the Constitution limits presidents to two elected terms.

Many Democrats — both in Congress and in local government — strongly oppose Trump's takeover, painting it as a threat to democracy in D.C. and beyond.

Last week, several House Democrats introduced a resolution that would terminate Trump's federalization of the MPD. Home rule allows Congress to end the president's control of local police through a joint resolution, though it would face an uphill battle in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Legal challenges pose a more likely obstacle to Trump's takeover, as was the case last week. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the U.S. Justice Department to block what he called a "hostile takeover" after it tried to put a federal official in charge of the MPD.

At an emergency hearing on Friday, Judge Ana Reyes — appointed by former President Joe Biden — suggested she would grant Schwalb's request unless the Justice Department rewrote its memo to leave the existing police chief in charge. She indicated she will hold another hearing on the broader legal questions this week.

"I still do not understand on what basis the president … can say, 'You, police department, can't do anything unless I say you can,' " Reyes said, according to reporting from Politico, USA Today and others. "That cannot be the reading of the statute."

What would need to happen for the National Guard to leave? 

Members of the D.C. National Guard patrol the Foggy Bottom Metro station on Saturday.

(

Andrew Leyden

/

Getty Images

)

Home Rule gives the president command of the D.C. National Guard, a power that goes to governors in other states. It does not limit how long the Guard can be deployed.

Experts say there are a few ways that the Guard's time in D.C. could come to an end.

Lawsuits are one of them. Goitein, of the Brennan Center, says they would likely center around the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which largely limits the military's role in domestic law enforcement — and has several potential loopholes.

"President Trump is trying to exploit a couple of those loopholes," she says. "And we don't know yet whether the courts are going to endorse what he's doing."

For example, she says the administration might argue the D.C. National Guard is operating under non-federal status (despite being under the president's command), which would make it exempt from Posse Comitatus. Or it could argue that the National Guard is not directly involved in law enforcement in D.C. (The Army said last week that guard members will not conduct arrests, but serve as a "visible crime deterrent.")

Chertoff says that as long as Reyes has jurisdiction over the police case, D.C.'s attorney general could theoretically go back and "ask for additional rulings with respect to the use of the National Guard." While it has "limited cards to play," she says the influx of troops from states could lend support to a potential abuse-of-power argument.

There are also more practical considerations. For example, National Guard forces are at the forefront of responding to natural disasters, and could be needed more urgently at home during Atlantic hurricane season.

When South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster announced the deployment of 200 troops to D.C. on Saturday, with Hurricane Erin approaching the East Coast, he said, "should a hurricane or natural disaster threaten our state, these men and women can and will be immediately recalled home to respond."

Goitein says there's also the power of public opinion, citing videos of masked agents conducting operations going viral and disruptions to local businesses; Data from online dining platform OpenTable showed a 25% drop in D.C. restaurant reservations in the days after Trump's takeover.

She says the public response, from protests to polling, could potentially shape Trump's decisions.

"As it becomes increasingly clear that D.C. is essentially under military occupation and that what's happening here, if replicated elsewhere, basically is moving this country toward a police state, that can move public opinion," Goitein says. "And public opinion can move the president."
Copyright 2025 NPR

In his final year in office, Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to go after large investors buying and owning California housing — in the same week that President Donald Trump also took rhetorical aim at Big Landlord.

It’s an unlikely meeting of the minds of two political foes who, in a race to head off the electorate's concerns about affordability, have landed upon the same populist message: Blame Wall Street.

Newsom plans to say during his State of the State address to lawmakers on Thursday that he wants to work with them to regulate the practice of investors buying up large stocks of housing to rent out, forcing California residents to compete with them to afford buying a home, according to the governor’s office.

Proposals could include “enhanced state oversight and enforcement and potential changes to the state tax code,” according to the governor’s office.

“When housing is treated primarily as a corporate investment strategy, Californians feel the impact,” a source in the office said. “Prices go up, rents rise, and fewer people have a chance to buy a home.”

That sounds similar to a proposal Trump made on his social media platform Truth Social on Wednesday. The two previously closely aligned on policy related to clearing of homeless encampments.

“I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes,” the president wrote, sending stock prices of major publicly traded residential investment firms plummeting. He urged Congress to put the proposal into law and promised to unveil additional housing policy proposals at the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland later this month.

Newsom is stopping short of calling for an outright ban on institutional investors’ ownership, though the source said he will seek to “curb” it with the goal of making home ownership more affordable for California residents.

He hasn’t yet proposed anything concrete. Whatever Newsom seeks to do, he’ll need the approval of the state Legislature.

Trump, for his part, did not offer any details about his proposal, such as how institutional investors would be defined under the proposed law or why he targeted single-family homes in particular. The White House’s press office did not respond to an email with those questions.

The twin announcements come after years of long-shot efforts by California progressives to address a surge in companies buying up single-family housing stock in the wake of the Great Recession. The issue has been the subject of renewed anxiety in post-fire Los Angeles, where a recent report by RedFin showed investors (loosely defined as any buyer with a name that includes “LLC,” “Inc” or “Corp”) have purchased 27 of 61 burned vacant lots that sold in Altadena — more than 40%.

Asked about that report in an interview on MS Now this week, Newsom said he had signed an executive order last year seeking to protect homeowners who find it too expensive to rebuild from falling for “predatory” lowball offers for their properties. But he acknowledged “the broader market conditions are challenging.”

The proposals mark new territory for Newsom’s housing affordability platform. The governor, now in his final year in office, has spent most of the past seven years focused on boosting construction. It’s a pivot toward populism for the governor, who is widely expected to run for president in 2028.

Blaming deep-pocketed investors for the nation’s housing woes has become an increasingly ideological-spanning exercise in recent years, with politicians as diverse as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vice President J.D. Vance championing the cause.

Shortly after Trump’s post, Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, an enthusiastic supporter of the president, promised to introduce legislation in his own post on X.

Is this actually a problem in California?

Many housing industry professionals, economists and policy researchers are skeptical.

“It’s really hard to buy a house right now so people are looking for someone to blame for that, but I think (institutional investors) are more of a symptom of the affordability crisis than they are a perpetuator of it,” said Caitlin Gorback, a University of Texas at Austin economist who has studied investors’ effect on local real estate markets.

Research on the topic is mixed, though most analyses have found that by taking owner-occupied homes and converting them into rentals, these companies tend to increase the supply of rentals. That puts downward pressure on rents, while taking away purchasable homes, leading to higher prices.

Fewer than 3% of all single-family homes in the state are owned by companies that own at least 10 properties.That also takes away opportunities for would-be homeowners to buy a coveted single-family home. But even that comes with an under-appreciated upside, said Gorback: They provide more priced-out renters the opportunity to live in single-family homes — typically in wealthier, whiter and higher-resourced neighborhoods — something historically reserved for those who can afford to buy.

While apartment buildings are commonly owned and managed by large financial companies, single-family rentals weren’t seen as Wall Street-worthy money-making opportunities until the aftermath of the Great Recession. Since then, companies like Invitation Homes, Blackstone, Progress Residential and AMH Homes have typically focused on markets with relatively low prices and rapidly growing populations.

That doesn’t describe California. As a result, larger investors — however defined — make up a relatively small share of single-family landlords in the state. Fewer than 3% of all single-family homes in the state are owned by companies that own at least 10 properties, according to an analysis by the California Research Bureau, which conducts research for state lawmakers. A mere 20,066 are owned by firms with portfolios of 1,000 units or more. The largest of those owners is Invitation Homes, which owns over 11,000 homes in the state and reached a settlement with Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office last year over allegations it price-gouged tenants and illegally raised rents on more than 1,900 properties.

There are more than 16 million rental units across the state, according to Census data.

Though attacking big monied investors for the high cost of housing is a “huge distraction,” it has obvious political appeal, said Stan Oklobdzija, a UC Riverside public policy professor. “Attacking institutional investors is the latest iteration of appearing to do something without actually doing anything. …It's just kind of archetypical cheap talk.”

For nearly a decade, Democrats in the state Legislature have proposed bills to track or ban the practice. Former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018 vetoed a bill to create a registry of institutional investors that own 100 or more single-family homes, noting that “collecting the data would not stop the purchase of these homes by private investors.”

In 2024, lawmakers proposed banning investors that own at least 1,000 single-family homes from buying more houses and renting them out, prohibiting institutional investors from buying single-family homes for any reason and banning developers from selling entire new single-family subdivisions to investors to rent. All three bills died in committees.

Assemblymember Alex Lee, author of the first proposal, revived the bill last year. It passed the Assembly and awaits a hearing in a Senate committee.

Lee, a Democratic Socialist who has long critiqued the role of big money in the state's real estate market, said he was "flabbergasted" to find himself on the same page with Trump, whom he described as a "far-right fascist." Though he expressed doubts that the Trump administration would follow through with the promises the president made in his social media post, he said that "Democrats need to wake up to this populist, but righteous, position."

"We can’t let the far-right capture the housing positions that the people care about," Lee said.

Newsom evidently agrees.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Once upon a time, we lived in a world where the “cool” kids were the ones up drinking until 5 a.m., weekend warriors who relished the pursuit of pleasure no matter the unsavory cost.

In today’s post-COVID world, however, things have gotten a little topsy-turvy. Nowadays, the cool kids are in bed by 9 p.m. so they can be up at 5 a.m., in time to slam down a shot of matcha and head to a day rave where all the attendees are — believe it or not — shockingly, sober.

The thing is, to the undiscerning eye, the crowd at a Daybreaker rave looks exactly the same as its typically drug-fueled nighttime counterpart: buoyant, animated and so very alive with its sea of thrashing bodies, quivering booties and smiling faces.

It’s a testament to a new paradigm shift, one in which adults are increasingly turning away from the hard stuff in favor of celebrating without alcohol. Nurtured by the desire for vitality, the small flame of “Dry January” has taken shape into something much greater — a whole new world of non-alcoholic gatherings.

From coffee raves to tea speakeasies and beyond, the world of adult beverages as we know it is rapidly changing. Whether you’re a social butterfly looking for a new scene or a homebody hoping to finally venture off the couch, we’ve featured three of our favorite non-alcoholic gatherings in L.A. Check ‘em out below in all their glory.

Bar Nuda (pop up locations)

Founded by Morris Ellis, a creative director and branding expert, and Pablo Murillo, a storyteller and entrepreneur, Bar Nuda is a pop up “bar” experience designed for those in mind who want to indulge in the social aspects of the barfly life without any of the lingering regrets the next morning.

“We've been on a mission to redefine a night out,” says Murillo, smiling as he places a drink in front of me. “Our slogan is ‘Drinks to Remember’, because we want you to go out and celebrate life.”

Bar Nuda helps you indulge in the social aspects of the barfly life without any of the lingering regrets

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

It’s a mission that’s more personal than professional — Murillo’s experience of losing his father to alcohol-related illness inspired him to redefine the narrative of what a night out could look like. His goal was a surprisingly simple concept: to create a warm, welcoming community where people could mingle without the standard social lubricant of booze.

“We wanted to really hold space for people like myself, you know?” Murillo continues. “When we started Bar Nuda, I was not sober, but I am now. Bar Nuda got me sober. We wanted to change the narrative for my family, but also be there for others to do the same and to say, hey, look, you can go out and have a really good time without drinking booze.”

Bar Nuda's slogan is “Drinks to Remember"

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

Bar Nuda partners up with local bars, neighborhood coffee shops and other venues around Los Angeles to create unique non-alcoholic based events for patrons; check out their Instagram for the details. Trivia Night, for instance, is a regular staple in their event roster, with most events starting at 7 or 8 p.m. Other events include benefit concerts (to raise money for CHIRLA, The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights), Alcohol Free Game Night and even courses dedicated to making your own non-alcoholic based drinks.

“We do a ton of work with hospitality groups, venues and music festivals who are looking to build out their non-alcoholic programs,” says Brianda Gonzalez, founder of the non-alcoholic shop The New Bar, who partners with Bar Nuda. “Consumers are increasingly looking for other options when they go out and don't want to drink quite as much.”

Ellis and Murillo are certainly doing something right: to walk into one of their events is to feel like you’re, well, inside of a bar, filled with the sounds of warm laughter, buzzing conversations and the inevitable chaotic din of the trivia crowd. Drinks are prepared with a level of craftsmanship that might have you second guessing as to whether or not you’re drinking alcohol. The menu rotates seasonally, with many of the drink ingredients sourced directly from Mexico. The house favorite is the “Rosa Nuda”, made with tantalizingly tangy, fresh bougainvillea sourced by Bar Nuda’s Beverage Director Bryant J. Orozco.

As the guests at the bar form a small crowd, giggling about events to come, I take a sip of the Rosa Nuda before a huge smile spreads across my face.

The bartender laughs at me, pleased.

“Not bad, eh?”

Grab tickets here.

Daybreaker (rotating locations)

A recent Daybreaker event in Venice giving good vibes

(

Courtesy Daybreaker

)

The first time I attended a Daybreaker event was in Portland several years ago. I attended because friends of mine had told me there was a new, sober day rave spreading across town, and I simply didn’t believe them.

How very wrong I was. It may have been 9 a.m., but this crowd seemed just as rowdy, if not rowdier, than its nighttime counterpart. The only difference between the two was this crowd seemed decked out in yoga pants rather than rave gear.

Bubbling with energy at Daybreaker Venice

(

Bailey Templeton

/

Courtesy Daybreaker

)

“I wanted to have fun while still being able to function,” said Nemo, a DJ I met there. “At some point my body was not able to handle the disrupted sleep cycles and booze anymore, but I still wanted to be able to go to events and enjoy myself.”

To my great surprise, I discovered raving sober had its own unique appeal. The lack of alcohol kept me light and energetic rather than clouded in a drunken haze. I was able to dance for much longer than usual, and felt a familiar euphoric high similar to a runner’s high the longer I danced.

Daybreaker throws day raves in a number of different cities: Los Angeles, Seattle, Atlanta, New York. The next event in L.A. is Saturday Jan. 24 from 9 a.m. - 12 noon, to be held in a secret venue. Given it’s described as “dry January, wet with endorphins”, there’s a good chance it’s in a sauna, where Daybreaker is known to throw dance parties.

Celebrating life at 9am in Venice

(

Bailey Templeton

/

Courtesy Daybreaker

)

“We’re living in a cultural moment where people are craving clarity, connection, and control over their wellbeing — and ultimately belonging,” says Daybreaker founder Radha Agrawal.

“Post-pandemic, there’s been a mass re-evaluation of what we put into our bodies and how we spend our time. Gen Z in particular is leading the charge — they’re drinking nearly 30% less than millennials did at their age — and they’re looking for ways to connect without sacrificing health or mental clarity," he says.

"People want to wake up feeling good, not hungover, and they’re realizing that social connection can actually feel better without alcohol.”

Snag tickets here.

Bu Tea Den (DTLA)

In true speakeasy style, I reached Bu Tea Den through an inconspicuous metal door in a back alley downtown. Once inside, however, the vibe quickly shifted. A curious video was projected onto a wall by the entrance, lit up by colorful, digital Paisley shapes swimming about. Each Paisley had a customer’s name plastered above it, giving the surreal sensation that I was watching some sort of digital city like a god from up above on high. ‘PAISLEY ID’ read across the top of the screen.

Nearby, what I initially thought was an ATM was actually marked "AFTM: automated fortune telling machine". Patrons can take a quiz and receive a spiritual fortune of sorts, printed out neatly onto a slip of paper like an ATM receipt, along with a corresponding Paisley.

(According to the machine, my life path number is seven, my soul age is baby, and my chakral focus is sacral. "Trust what steadies you, even if it changes tomorrow.")

Writer Janelle Lassalle experiencing Bu Tu Den's AFTM — an automated fortune telling machine

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

Inspired by time spent in the Burning Man community, co-founders Severin Sauliere and Natalie Tran created the art installation to help inspire a sense of community at Bu Tea Den.

Sauliere and Tran are husband and wife: Sauliere is an artist/Creative Director, and Tran is Chief Steeping Officer in charge of tea operations. Their goal is to redefine happy hour by giving guests the opportunity to slow down and get social without the thundering din of techno music and flashy cocktails.

"It's not an upsell kind of thing," said Sauliere. "It's based on you chilling with your friends, having some tea together and talking. I'm not against alcohol, but it's everywhere. Having a space that doesn't have it challenges the dynamic a little bit."

Co-founder Natalie Tran, at Bu Tea Den “part tea lounge, part interactive art installation, and part intimate gathering space.”

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

The space is cultivated in the style of a tea lounge, with a number of booths scattered about facing the Paisley display. Guests can enjoy a unique tea experience at the bar in which they’re served several rounds of tea blends, along with snacks like Ube popcorn, Fridays - Sundays 5 - 9 p.m.

Billed as “part tea lounge, part interactive art installation, and part intimate gathering space,” Bu Tea Den isn’t just a place where you can come to enjoy a strong cup of jasmine tea: it’s also gearing up to become a community-oriented event space. Guests can come by for regular events like Mahjong at the Den, a Hong Kong style version of the popular game, or an upcoming "Tea and Tease" burlesque and comedy night on Saturday Jan. 17.

Get in on the fun here.

Homeownership has become increasingly out of reach for many young families, especially in pricey California. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he plans to make housing affordable again by cutting deep-pocketed investors out of the single-family home market.

“I am immediately taking steps to ban large, institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it,” Trump said on the social media platform Truth Social. “People live in homes, not corporations.”

But in California, housing policy experts say Trump’s strategy might not move the needle on affordability much. That’s because institutional investors aren’t buying many single-family homes in the Golden State to begin with.

“It's kind of a red herring,” said Richard Green, director of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate. “Institutional ownership of single-family rentals is a very small share of all single-family rentals, let alone all of the housing stock in the United States.”

Less than 3% of CA homes 

Trump’s idea is not new. Democratic California lawmakers have also proposed limits on investor home-buying. To inform the legislative process, state researchers have looked into the question of how California homes are getting scooped up by institutional buyers.

The answer: Not many.

Statewide, 2.8% of single-family homes are owned by investors who own 10 properties or more. That’s according to the California Research Bureau, which produces nonpartisan policy research for the Governor’s Office and the state Legislature.

According to the Urban Institute, large investors own a much greater stock of single-family homes in cities including Jacksonville, Charlotte and Atlanta, where institutional investors own nearly 29% of single-family rentals.

Corporate ownership rates are much lower in California. In Los Angeles County, home to more than 10 million people, only about 72,474 homes are owned by large investors, according to the California Research Bureau. That number includes single-family homes as well as condos, townhomes and duplexes.

Would banning corporate owners reduce competition?

Invitation Homes is the largest owner of single-family homes in California, with more than 11,000 properties to its name statewide, including about 3,100 in Los Angeles County. Its business model involves buying single-family homes, updating them and then renting them out to tenants who may not otherwise be able to afford home-ownership.

LAist reached out to Invitation Homes for comment on Trump’s announcement. We were sent a statement from the National Rental Home Council.

“Housing affordability is a critical issue, and we appreciate the administration’s focus on ensuring Americans have access to a diverse mix of housing options,” the statement read.

The statement continued: “Professional single-family housing providers represent a small segment of the overall housing market, and the single-family rental industry remains focused on supporting renters while also supporting pathways to homeownership.”

David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, said getting rid of institutional investors probably wouldn’t do much to bring down home prices for young Californians.

“The vast, vast majority of homes that are purchased are by people who are generally going to live in them,” Garcia said. “So you're not really reducing the main competition for home buyers, which is other home buyers.”

Lack of supply, lots of demand fuel CA’s high prices

Garcia and USC’s Green both said California’s home prices are high because of lack of supply. Steady demand for California homes coupled with low building rates since the Great Recession have produced a market where the wealthiest buyers out-bid everyone else for the few homes coming up for sale.

Trump’s proposal echoes similar policy explorations from the L.A. City Council, which voted in 2021 to consider banning companies like Zillow and Redfin from buying homes within the city.

Details were scant in Trump’s post, but he said more information about his plans would be forthcoming.

In his Truth Social post, he said: “I will discuss this topic, including further Housing and Affordability proposals, and more, at my speech in Davos in two weeks.”