Editor’s Note: The RISMedia series, Legislative Round-Up looks at pending and passed federal and state-level legislation that impacts real estate professionals.
NAR-approved Big Beautiful Bill has boons for real estate
On Friday, July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump officially signed what is commonly referred to as the “Big Beautiful Bill” into law. The omnibus bill’s effects are wide-reaching, but the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) has consistently praised the bill’s tax reform and other provisions which directly impact real estate.
Said provisions include temporarily raising the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction up to $40,000 for households making less than $500,000 annually, which could benefit homeowners in states with high local tax rates—as well as a permanent extension of the mortgage interest deduction. Benefits for real estate professionals include a 20% business income deduction for independent contractors and small business owners and the protection of “Business SALT” deductions.
Massachusetts reforms broker fee obligations
In November 2024, the New York City Council passed the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act, which mandates that during a residential real estate transaction, the party that hired the real estate broker must pay the broker’s fee. Previously, tenants would be on the hook for the fee even if it was the landlord who hired the broker.
Despite strong opposition from the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and local brokers, the FARE Act went into effect as law on June 11, 2025. Now, Massachusetts—where statewide tenants had been liable for brokers’ fees—is following the FARE Act’s example.
In January 2025, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said that her 2026 budget proposal would include a provision saying that the person who hires the broker, not necessarily the tenant, is the one who must pay the fee. As of July 2025, the budget has passed with that provision included—the new law will take effect on August 1.
Healey highlighted the new law in an X post, putting it in continuity with her administration’s previous laws to build more housing inventory.
“Building housing is one of my top priorities as governor. We’re making Massachusetts a place everyone can call home,” said Healey in the video included in the post.
The change to Massachusetts brokers fees has naturally attracted real estate industry responses. In February, following Healey’s budget proposal, the Massachusetts Association of Realtors® made a statement calling the broker fee proposal a “dangerous and unprecedented intrusion into basic concepts of our market driven economy, especially, for professions that are licensed to do business in our Commonwealth.”
Doug Quattrochi, executive director of MassLandlords, said to Boston public radio station WBUR that the law lacks enforcement language, and “we’re kind of not expecting this will really change a whole lot.”
Quattrochi said that some Massachusetts property owners might simply pass the broker fee cost onto the renter via higher rents, echoing criticism also lobbied at the FARE Act.
Greg Vasil, CEO of industry advocacy group the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, told Axios that he hoped the law would bring needed relief to renters, but that brokers should continue to receive fair compensation.
“Brokers possess a deep knowledge of the markets and communities they serve, and whether it is the renter or property owner who hires them, they will continue to receive the compensation they deserve,” said Vasil.
New Jersey Realtors® association opposes mansion tax
As of July 10, a new tax law has taken effect in New Jersey: a “graduated percent fee,” or a tax on real estate transactions in properties exceeding a $1 million price tag, to be paid by the seller.
The tax is tied to New Jersey’s existing Realty Transfer Fee, paid by the seller upon transfer of the property deed to the buyer, but previously the 1% “mansion tax” on properties priced higher than $1 million had been paid by the buyer. The now in-effect law transfers the cost to the seller.
New Jersey Realtors® has voiced strong opposition to the graduated percent fee and said in a press release that they have “(begun) discussions with the legislature on repealing parts, or potentially all, of the increased tax.”
“We fought relentlessly to blunt the impact of this proposal and reduce the number of New Jerseyans it would affect,” said Doug Tomson, CEO of New Jersey Realtors®, in a press release. “It was a bad policy when it was introduced, and it remains bad policy today. It sought only to harm the housing market, which has seen no real stability since 2020.”
On the other side of the country, Los Angeles, California, recently announced that it would be spending $425 million out of $702 million raised by a similar “mansion tax” enacted in 2023.
Connecticut affordable housing vetoed
In June 2025, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont vetoed an extensive housing reform bill that would have, among other things, altered building incentives/guidelines and zoning laws for local housing. However, the story appears that it is not ending with this veto.
In a July appearance on PBS’ “The Wheelhouse,” Lamont cited local leaders’ concerns about “ambiguous language” in the bill as a reason for his veto. He said he is continuing negotiations with the state legislature to ensure the legislation lives up to its name “Towns Take the Lead.”
One part of the bill would have assessed housing needs in towns and assigned each a set number of units to prepare to build. Another provision, “priority housing development zones,” would have allowed towns to establish areas with new minimum density standards, specifically: four units per acre in single-family housing, six units per acre for duplexes and 10 for multifamily units.
According to the CT Mirror, the provisions mandating towns to plan for more units and changes to parking requirements are among the ones most likely to be altered as negotiations continue.
The Regional Plan Association (RPA), a tri-state area based nonprofit that includes the subsidiary program Desegregate CT, had supported the “pro-homes bill” Lamont vetoed. The association said it was “deeply disappointed by the veto” in a June press release.
“While we are optimistic that a bill will be passed and signed in a special session largely intact, this veto is an affirmation of the status quo and a capitulation to bad faith, fearmongering, or perhaps innocent confusion,” said the RPA press release. “We will be making sure that Work Live Ride, parking reform, and commercial conversions remain in this bill and that the Governor maintains smart standards of accountability for local reforms.”
In response to an emailed request for comment, Joanne Breen, Chair of the Connecticut Association of Realtors Legislative Committee, said the association had supported some measures in the bill and opposed others, while taking a judicious stance on future efforts.
“There was thoughtful work by legislators that went into the omnibus housing legislation, and thoughtful consideration by the Governor before his decision to veto. There is widespread consensus and acknowledgement that Connecticut needs more housing construction, as does most if not all of the country. CT REALTORS applauds the focus on housing, and we look forward to learning what may be considered if/when a special session is called for that purpose later this year,” said Breen.
‘Housing Not Handcuffs’
Introduced on Thursday, June 26, the Housing not Handcuffs Act would prohibit federal agencies from “criminalizing homelessness” (i.e., arresting or ticketing homeless people). It is the “first bill solely aimed at stopping federal agencies from treating homelessness as a crime,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The bill was spurred not only by rising homelessness (which hit a record high at the end of last year) but by the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Supreme Court ruling on June 26 2024, according to a press release from the National Homelessness Law Center. That decision held local governments banning homeless people from camping on public land did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment
The bill currently has 17 sponsors in the House, all Democrats. It has also garnered the support of more than 50 organizations, including the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC).
“Instead of wasting taxpayer money on ineffective and cruel bills that punish people, Housing Not Handcuffs eliminates criminalization as an option and redirects elected officials to focus on the real solutions to homelessness: housing and supportive services that everyone needs to thrive,” said the NLIHC on its website.
Trigger leads likely to be banned
A “trigger lead” is when, after a consumer makes a credit inquiry when applying for a loan (including a mortgage), a credit reporting agency can sell that consumer’s information to third parties for marketing purposes. But possibly no more.
As of June 2025, both the House and Senate have passed slightly different versions of the same Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act to restrict trigger leads, such as limiting when they can be used or requiring the consumers’ consent. The bills will need to be reconciled by the House and Senate into a single package before advancing to the presidents’ desk for signage or veto.
(The House bill calls on the Government Accountability Office to launch an investigation into the value of trigger leads received by text message, to be submitted to Congress after a 12-month investigation period. The Senate version does not have such a provision.)
The banning of trigger leads has been supported by the mortgage industry. Following the House vote on the bill, Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) President and CEO Bob Broeksmit called the vote an “important step forward in our fight to provide relief for consumers who face a torrent of unwanted emails, texts and phone calls the moment they apply for a mortgage.”
