“It’ll guarantee the midterms,” he told Republicans gathered in the ballroom of his golf course just outside Miami on Monday. “If you don’t get it, big trouble.”

Less than 24 hours later, House Republican leaders highlighted their priorities. And the voting bill, which Trump has rebranded from the SAVE Act to the SAVE America Act, wasn’t high on the list.

Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the House GOP conference chair, spoke of tax cuts for families, energy independence and the so-called Trump accounts for newborns as she described “real results for real people.” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana said his colleagues were working with Trump to “make life more affordable for working families.” Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the House majority whip, recounted “win after win” as he proclaimed “working families are keeping more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.”

As House Republicans close out their annual ideas conference on Wednesday, an election year disconnect is emerging.

Just a few seats shy of losing their majority, senior Republicans are eager to emphasize the party’s work to lower costs, none of which is easy to accomplish with only a few votes to spare. Trump, meanwhile, is often focused elsewhere.

The war he initiated in Iran has disrupted the party’s message on affordability, with GOP leaders here facing frequent questions about the rising cost of gas, which House Speaker Mike Johnson described as a “temporary blip.” The voting bill Trump is pushing is rooted in his insistence that he won the 2020 presidential election, claims rejected by dozens of courts and his own attorney general at the time.

At times, the president was even dismissive of the traditional pocketbook issues other Republicans preferred to highlight.

“Every time I go out, save America, sir. Save America Act,” Trump said at the GOP event. “That’s all they talk about. They don’t talk about housing. They don’t talk about anything. That’s what they want to talk about.”

Johnson, who is close to Trump and appeared onstage with him this week, is hardly distancing from Trump’s push for the voting bill. On Tuesday, he denied there was any daylight between his colleagues and the White House.

“We’re all on the same page,” Johnson said. “The president and I are exactly in lockstep.”

A challenging path ahead for Republicans

But the path ahead is rocky.

In an effort to gain leverage over lawmakers, including some Republicans, Trump said he won’t sign other legislation into law until the voting bill is passed. That raises the prospect of Congress grinding to a halt just as lawmakers are asking voters to send them back to Washington.

Passing legislation that comports with Trump’s demands will also be challenging. The House has already passed a version of the bill so the changes Trump is seeking would require fresh action by the chamber.

The dynamic isn’t any easier in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to pass the measure without Democratic support. And that was before Trump asked for additions, saying Republicans should “go for the gold.”

In the meantime, other high-profile work lies ahead for Congress, including reopening the Department of Homeland Security and confirming its new leader.

Johnson suggested on Tuesday that there were ways for lawmakers to continue their work amid Trump’s threat to not sign legislation. The speaker noted that the Constitution allows legislation to become law if it’s sent to the president but isn’t signed within 10 days.

Johnson aims to shift focus to Democrats

Faced with a tough political calculus, Johnson is trying to shift focus to Democrats, in particular over the DHS shutdown, which has prompted security lines to swell at some airports over the past few days.

“If you missed a wedding or funeral or are worried about missing your flight for spring break this weekend, you have Democrats to blame,” he said.

Republicans spent much of this week trying to remind voters of what they didn’t like about life before Trump returned to office. There were frequent mentions of inflation and border crossings under former President Joe Biden.

The question that may animate this year’s election, however, is whether voters are more interested in the shift from Biden to Trump or are more focused on what’s ahead.

If voters are more future-oriented, that could represent an additional hurdle for the GOP.

About one-third of Americans mentioned inflation or personal finances as topics they wanted the government to address this year, according to an AP-NORC poll from December. Hardly any mentioned concerns about voting laws or election security.

Under a blazing Florida sun on Tuesday afternoon, a handful of House Republicans gathered to make the case that they were listening and deserve another term in power.

“We’re not sitting back on our laurels,” said Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas. “We recognize there is still plenty for us to do and we’re working on that.”

___

Associated Press journalist Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.

Option A is a beautiful home in California near good schools and job opportunities. But it goes for nearly a million dollars – the median California home sells for US$906,500 – and you’d be paying a mortgage that’s risen 82% since January 2020.

Option B is a similar home in Texas, where the median home costs less than half as much: just $353,700. The catch? Option B sits in an area with significant hurricane and flood risk.

As a professor of urban planning, I know this isn’t just a hypothetical scenario. It’s the impossible choice millions of Americans face every day as the U.S. housing crisis collides with climate change. And we’re not handling it well.

The numbers tell the story

The migration patterns are stark. Take California, which lost 239,575 residents in 2024 – the largest out-migration of any state. High housing costs are a primary driver: The median home price in California is more than double the national median.

Where are these displaced residents going? Many are heading to southern and western states like Florida and Texas. Texas, which is the top destination for former California residents, saw a net gain of 85,267 people in 2024, much of it from domestic migration. These newcomers are drawn primarily by more affordable housing markets.

This isn’t simply people chasing lower taxes. It’s a housing affordability crisis in motion. The annual household income needed to qualify for a mortgage on a mid-tier California home was about $237,000 in June 2025, a recent analysis found – over twice the state’s median household income.

Over 21 million renter households nationwide spent more than 30% of their income on housing costs in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. For them and others struggling to get by, the financial math is simple, even if the risk calculation isn’t.

I find this troubling. In essence, the U.S. is creating a system where your income determines your exposure to climate disasters. When housing becomes unaffordable in safer areas, the only available and affordable property is often in riskier locations – low-lying areas at flood risk in Houston and coastal Texas, or higher-wildfire-risk areas as California cities expand into fire-prone foothills and canyons.

Climate risk becomes part of the equation

The destinations drawing newcomers aren’t exactly safe havens. Research shows that America’s high-fire-risk counties saw 63,365 more people move in than out in 2023, much of that flowing to Texas. Meanwhile, my own research and other studies of post-disaster recovery have shown how the most vulnerable communities – low-income residents, people of color, renters – face the greatest barriers to rebuilding after disasters strike.

Consider the insurance crisis brewing in these destination states. Dozens of insurers in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and beyond have collapsed in recent years, unable to sustain the mounting claims from increasingly frequent and severe disasters like wildfires and hurricanes. Economists Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder, who study climate change impacts on real estate, describe the insurance markets in some high-risk areas as “broken”. Between 2018 and 2023, insurers canceled nearly 2 million homeowner policies nationwide – four times the historically typical rate.

Yet people keep moving into risky areas. For example, recent research shows that people have been moving toward areas most at risk of wildfires, even holding wealth and other factors constant. The wild beauty of fire-prone areas may be part of the attraction, but so is housing availability and cost.

The policy failures behind the false choice

In my view, this isn’t really about individual choice – it’s about policy failure. The state of California aims to build 2.5 million new homes by 2030, which would require adding more than 350,000 units annually. Yet in 2024, the state only added about 100,000 – falling dramatically short of what’s needed. When local governments restrict housing development through exclusionary zoning, they’re effectively pricing out working families and pushing them toward risk.

My research on disaster recovery has consistently shown how housing policies intersect with climate vulnerability. Communities with limited housing options before disasters become even more constrained afterward. People can’t “choose” resilience if resilient places won’t let them build affordable housing.

The federal government started recognizing this connection – to an extent. For example, in 2023, the Federal Emergency Management Agency encouraged communities to consider “social vulnerability” in disaster planning, in addition to things like geographic risk. Social vulnerability refers to socioeconomic factors like poverty, lack of transportation or language barriers that make it harder for communities to deal with disasters.

However, the agency more recently stepped back from that move – just as the 2025 hurricane season began.

In my view, when a society forces people to choose between paying for housing and staying safe, that society has failed. Housing should be a right, not a risk calculation.

But until decision-makers address the underlying policies that create housing scarcity in safe areas and fail to protect people in vulnerable ones, climate change will continue to reshape who gets to live where – and who gets left behind when the next disaster strikes.

Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As a result, one in 5 engaged couples are rejecting the linens and dishes of traditional wedding registries and asking friends and family for down payment cash instead, according to an October report by Zillow and The Knot, a wedding planning site. 

With an average of $70,000 needed for a 20% down payment on a starter home, it’s understandable that couples would search for creative ways to get cash. 

“I think we can be optimistic that instead of throwing in the towel, young couples are willing to give up tangible gifts or even honeymoon funds in order to get closer to achieving the American Dream of homeownership,”  Amanda Pendleton, a personal finance expert at Zillow Home Loans, tells Fortune. “They see the value of saving for an appreciating asset, as opposed to the immediate gratification of new bedding or silverware.”   

But there’s a slight problem: It seems wedding guests are put off by this request, as data shows friends and family are less enthusiastic about the new breed of  honeymoon registry. 

The typical couple receives 32% more for a honeymoon fund, with an average of $767, compared with a new home fund average of $556, Esther Lee, deputy editor of The Knot, tells Fortune. 

With mortgage rates hitting 23-year highs this fall and home prices on the rise, why would wedding guests be more willing to give to a honeymoon, than something more practical like a first-home fund? It’s time for a small lesson in what experts call behavioral economics.

The power of choice 

Morgan Ward, a marketing professor at top-ranked Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says it could be because people like to give more “hedonic” products as gifts—or things that the recipient wouldn’t otherwise purchase for themselves. Ward earned her Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business and her primary research focus is consumer behavior. A gift-giver knows that whether or not they give to a first-home fund, the recipient will purchase it themselves, she says.

“A honeymoon fund is probably something that’s perceived by givers as elective—and certainly hedonic—and thus by giving a higher dollar gift, the giver can offer something the recipient wouldn’t otherwise have access to,” she tells Fortune. “On the other hand, I would guess that givers think of a new home as more utilitarian and thus, less fun to give and probably something that the recipients will purchase themselves irrespective of whether they receive money for it as a gift.”

Ward also conducted research in 2016 that shows how wedding gift-giving differs from other types of gift-giving. For one, she found that when givers were faced with purchasing from a gift registry versus making their own choices of a gift, they often rejected the gift registry.

“It turns out that givers say they want to please the recipient as their highest priority, but often they’re using gift-giving opportunities as a way to signal their sentiments or the meaning of the relationship,” Ward adds.

Guests may also be more generous toward a honeymoon fund because they can give to specific experiences—whether it’s sunset cocktails, a tasting menu at dinner, a glass-bottomed kayak, snorkeling, or a ski lift pass in the Alps, Lee says—instead of donating to one giant fund where they may not understand the impact of their gift. 

“This allows couples to piecemeal their honeymoon fund even further, thus helping guests participate in each chosen experience,” Lee says. “The overall home fund is seemingly a more sizable amount that may seem daunting up front to guests. But with each contribution, a new home fund can become more approachable, with more guests potentially feeling more open to contributing.”

Soaring home prices fuel trend

While the trend of adding first-home funds to wedding registries isn’t completely new, “they’ve really picked up steam” in the past few years, Cathryn Haight, editor of gifting and stationery at The Knot, previously told Fortune. Since 2018, the share of couples including “home funds” as part of their wedding registry has increased 55%, according to Zillow and The Knot.

While any money is helpful when it comes to purchasing a home, hundreds of dollars could really just be a drop in the bucket for newlywed couples. 

The value of the typical home in the U.S. right now is about $350,000, Pendleton says, which means a couple would need to come up with $70,000 if they plan on putting down 20% on the home purchase. By comparison, the average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is $30,000 which includes the ceremony and reception, according to The Knot 2022 Real Weddings Study.

“This is a lot of cash and can be very intimidating for young couples looking to buy their first home,” Pendleton says. “Oftentimes, putting less than 20% down is totally doable, and your loan officer can talk you through your options. Keep in mind though, that the less money you put down, the higher your monthly mortgage payment will be.” 

Fortune was early to report on this trend earlier this summer, sharing the love story of Oliver and Cassie Nilsson who first met in 2012 at an Outback Steakhouse. When it came time for them to wed and buy a house, they hadn’t realized exactly how bad the market had gotten and how much cash they’d need. 

“Our expectation was as soon as I graduated college we would buy a house,” Oliver told Fortune. “We wanted to get a townhouse because we want a little yard for dogs. But we quickly realized that was not on the table for us, especially with the interest rate being so high.”

The couple ended up living with Oliver’s parents for eight months to save up enough money to afford to buy a condo. To help with the down payment on their home, the couple added a “first-home fund”—their one and only request on their wedding registry. 

“Honest to God, it was this [the first-home fund] and his parents letting us stay there,” Cassie told Fortune. “We would have never been able [to buy]. We would have rented our whole life.”