Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk says putting more Americans in jail will solve the housing crisis. What's behind his theory?

Is he right? By most mainstream estimates, the U.S. simply doesn’t have enough homes.

In 2022, Brookings reported a housing shortfall of 4.9 million.

At the same time, investor activity in the market has grown. In Q1 2025, investors purchased nearly 27% of homes sold — the highest share in at least five years.

This rising investor presence is one reason entry-level buyers are being priced out.

What crime has to do with prices

The U.S. already incarcerates nearly 2 million people — the highest rate among developed nations. That translates to 580 inmates per 100,000 residents, according to federal data.

While crime can influence housing demand, the economic relationship is often misunderstood. One study found that a 1% drop in violent crime corresponded to 0.2% to 0.6% increase in home prices in affected neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, safer streets attract more buyers, boosting demand — and typically raising prices.

In other words, safer communities don’t make housing more affordable; they make certain areas more desirable.

That’s where Kirk’s theory — that jailing more people would lower housing costs — begins to fall apart. Incarceration is one of the most expensive tools in public policy.

Annual per-prisoner costs vary widely range from $23,000 in Arkansas to more than $307,000 in Massachusetts, with a national median of $64,865. Alabama’s new 4,000-bed prison, for example, carries a $1 billion price tag. Those dollars aren’t building homes — they’re building cells.

And there’s a deeper economic issue. Aggressive incarceration and immigration enforcement can shrink the available construction labor pool, driving up building costs and timelines. In a country already facing a severe housing shortage, that’s the opposite of what the market needs.