Recent proposals from the Trump administration threaten to strip approximately 4 million individuals of their federal housing assistance, according to experts who have analyzed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. These new regulations would introduce a series of restrictions long championed by conservative factions, including imposing time limits on public housing residency, enforcing work requirements for many federal housing aid recipients, and penalizing entire families if just one member is undocumented.
The first Trump administration attempted similar measures but faced significant backlash and ultimately failed to implement them. However, renewed efforts have been underway since early in Trump’s second term. The documents acquired by ProPublica detail the administration’s intentions to radically transform essential housing programs that benefit some of the nation’s most vulnerable populations, raising alarms among experts and advocates who warn that these reforms could dismantle the already fragile social safety net amid soaring rental prices, home costs, and homelessness.
“These are rules that are going to cause an enormous amount of hardship for millions of people in communities across the country,” said Will Fischer, director of housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank. “It’s going to cause people to become homeless, kids to be pulled out of their schools, people to lose their jobs.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency responsible for drafting these rules, declined to provide comments on the matter.
The drafts of the two rules are still under review and may undergo changes before they are officially proposed. At a recent meeting at HUD headquarters, Ben Hobbs, who oversees the agency’s public housing office, noted that the rules are currently with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which typically assesses proposed rules for adherence to federal standards and alignment with presidential policies.
This push to enact the new regulations is part of a broader movement to roll back federal housing programs under the Trump administration. The president’s budget proposal previously called for a staggering 43% cut in funding for public housing, housing vouchers, and other essential rental assistance programs. In March, HUD and the Department of Homeland Security announced a data-sharing agreement aimed at targeting mixed-status families, where some members qualify for housing aid while others do not due to their immigration status. More recently, HUD reportedly instructed local public housing authorities to identify such families for federal oversight.
In the view of HUD Secretary Scott Turner, work requirements represent a “renewed sense of purpose for millions of Americans.” He and other senior officials argue that welfare is a “lifelong trap of dependency” for many, asserting that for able-bodied adults, assistance should be a temporary “hand-up” rather than a permanent “handout.”
Federal housing assistance programs currently support over 8 million individuals by providing public housing units or subsidies that alleviate rental costs in the private market. Participants typically pay 30% of their adjusted income towards rent, with the government covering the rest. The majority of those benefitting from these programs are elderly, disabled, or children, with the average household income in public housing or among voucher recipients hovering below $20,000 annually.
The first proposed rule does not mandate work requirements and time limits; instead, it grants local housing authorities and landlords the authority to impose such conditions. Originally, Hobbs sought to mandate these policies, but career staffers persuaded him to allow voluntary implementation. The rule would enable local housing authorities and private landlords to enforce work requirements and time limits across four significant federal housing programs: public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Vouchers, and Project-Based Rental Assistance (commonly referred to as Section 8). Households could be required to work up to 40 hours per week, with time limits potentially as short as two years, after which assistance would be discontinued.
The proposed time limits would apply to any family where the heads of the household are not elderly or disabled, with few exceptions. Work requirements would similarly target residents aged 18 to 61 who do not fall within exempt categories such as being disabled, pregnant, primary caregivers of young children, or full-time students. Housing providers may allow individuals to satisfy work requirements through job training or community service, but the specifics of such support services would be left to the discretion of the providers. HUD anticipates that around 750 public housing authorities and 3,500 landlords will adopt these work requirements or time limits following the new regulations, particularly in more conservative regions.
The administration argues that these new regulations will promote economic self-sufficiency and make subsidized housing available to millions who qualify but currently cannot access it due to limited resources. However, housing advocates and researchers contend that the reforms are a thinly veiled attempt to strip families of their benefits. Deborah Thrope, deputy director of the National Housing Law Project, argues, “It’s disguised as work requirements and term limits, but in reality, it’s a way to strip families of their benefits. This represents a significant departure from how HUD programs have operated since their inception.”
Estimates indicate that around 4 million individuals could find themselves without housing assistance as a result of these proposed changes, with many at risk of becoming homeless. Fischer highlights that most non-elderly, non-disabled households already include employed individuals, yet these jobs often come with limited hours and pay, which may still lead to the loss of assistance.
Research indicates that work requirements do not significantly enhance economic self-sufficiency among housing assistance recipients. Studies examining similar welfare policies, such as those governing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, show that while such requirements may not increase employment, they do lead to higher rates of benefit loss among recipients.
The second proposed rule specifically targets mixed-status families. Under existing HUD regulations, these households can live in public housing or receive vouchers, with benefits prorated so that ineligible members receive no assistance, resulting in families paying a larger share of rent. The new rule would render mixed-status families ineligible for assistance altogether, save for a few exceptions, and would require U.S. citizens applying for or receiving housing aid to provide proof of citizenship, such as birth or naturalization certificates. Proponents claim this will align HUD regulations more closely with federal law.
HUD estimates that the rule could impact around 20,000 mixed-status families currently receiving housing assistance, with 16,000 of those families having children. Most of these families reside in states like California, Texas, and New York, with an average income below the federal poverty line of $32,000.
While the rule allows families to retain assistance if the ineligible member moves out, HUD anticipates that out of fear of family separation, nearly all will choose to forgo assistance. The agency’s analysis suggests that the proposed regulations may initially leave public housing units vacant as they transition from prorated assistance to fully eligible households, potentially increasing government rental assistance costs by up to $370 million annually without an initial increase in funding for local public housing authorities.
Furthermore, the requirement for residents and applicants to prove their citizenship, alongside the obligation for housing providers to verify it, may incur an additional $100 million in costs. This new burden could particularly disadvantage homeless and low-income individuals, making it exceedingly difficult for those who need assistance the most to access it.
The first Trump administration proposed a similar rule in 2019 but withdrew it following overwhelming public opposition, receiving more than 30,000 comments, the majority of which were against it. The Biden administration subsequently rescinded the proposal in 2021.
As the timeline for HUD to publish these proposed rules remains uncertain, they will be subject to public comment, which the agency must consider before finalizing them—a process that may extend for months or even years.
