OAKLAND, CA — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by 17 other state attorneys general, has formally opposed the Trump administration’s latest move to dismantle longstanding fair housing protections.
In a strongly worded letter submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Bonta and his counterparts denounce the interim final rule (IFR) issued by HUD as an illegal rollback of the agency’s obligation to combat housing discrimination and segregation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
“During the first Trump Administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development tried repeatedly to abandon its legal obligation to facilitate fair housing. My office took a leadership role in fighting back, and we’re doing so again now,” said Bonta in a statement Thursday. “Ending housing discrimination and fostering diverse communities should not be controversial. My fellow attorneys general and I will continue to champion fair housing opportunities for all.”
At the center of the dispute is HUD’s statutory duty to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) — a mandate that goes beyond simply preventing discrimination. The AFFH provision, embedded in the FHA since 1968, requires HUD to take proactive steps to dismantle segregation and promote integration in housing policy.
The interim final rule, issued by HUD under the reinstated Trump administration, effectively replaces a robust 2021 regulation with a minimalist approach that weakens oversight and strips away key enforcement mechanisms.
According to the 18-state coalition, the IFR “seeks to dismantle the prior administration’s AFFH rulemaking efforts and substitute them with a toothless certification process” that fails to require any meaningful fair housing planning or community accountability.
The new rule allows HUD grantees — which include states, municipalities, and public housing authorities — to receive federal funding without demonstrating how they will reduce segregation or overcome systemic barriers to fair housing.
The 13-page multistate letter, co-led by Attorneys General Bonta, Letitia James of New York, and Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, argues that the IFR violates the core purpose of the FHA and HUD’s statutory obligations. “The IFR does not require HUD grantees to meaningfully evaluate whether their actions will reduce segregation and promote integration. It does not require specific fair housing planning processes or goals,” the letter states. “As such, the IFR violates HUD’s statutory mandate to affirmatively further fair housing and is therefore unlawful.”
The attorneys general also note that the IFR eliminates any requirement for HUD or its grantees to conduct assessments of fair housing outcomes — a key provision under the 2015 and 2021 rules, which sought to tie federal funding to measurable progress. “In effect, the IFR substitutes legally required analysis and accountability with vague paperwork and self-certification,” the letter asserts.
California, where numerous municipalities and housing agencies rely on HUD grants to support affordable housing, anti-homelessness initiatives, and equity-driven development, stands to be especially harmed by the rule change. The letter warns that weakening the AFFH framework “will undermine California’s efforts to combat housing segregation, promote equal housing opportunities, and address homelessness throughout the state.”
The IFR, formally titled Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Interim Final Rule (Docket No. FR-6519-I-01), was issued in early 2025. It follows the Trump administration’s earlier attempt in 2020 to rescind the Obama-era 2015 AFFH rule, which required local governments to produce detailed “Assessment of Fair Housing” reports and commit to data-driven plans to dismantle segregation. That effort was heavily criticized and ultimately reversed by the Biden administration in 2021, which reinstated and strengthened AFFH enforcement through the 2021 final rule.
The coalition of attorneys general argue that HUD’s newest IFR is not only substantively flawed but procedurally deficient. “HUD has provided no reasoned explanation for why the robust 2021 Rule — adopted after a thorough notice-and-comment process and substantial public support — should be abandoned. Nor has HUD offered any factual basis for concluding that the AFFH certification process in the IFR will meaningfully further fair housing,” the letter states.
The letter was signed by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington — all states where fair housing advocates have expressed concern about the potential impact of the rule change.
In closing, the attorneys general urge HUD to rescind the interim rule and return to the 2021 framework. “We strongly oppose the IFR and urge HUD to withdraw it immediately. In its place, HUD should reinstate the 2021 Rule and continue building on its affirmative fair housing obligations through transparent, accountable, and enforceable regulations,” the letter concludes.
