California is bracing for a new wave of homelessness—and not because of bad local policy, but because of deliberate federal sabotage. Amid soaring rents, an already fraying safety net, and a housing shortage decades in the making, the Trump administration is now actively undermining the very programs that keep tens of thousands of vulnerable Californians housed.
At the center of this looming disaster is the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program, a COVID-era federal initiative that has quietly become one of the most effective tools in the fight against homelessness. Created at the height of the pandemic, the EHV program currently helps more than 15,000 Californians—many of them survivors of domestic violence, people with disabilities, and those formerly unhoused—secure and maintain stable housing. But now, as federal funding is set to expire in parts of the state by the end of the year, the silence from Washington is deafening, and the consequences will be catastrophic.
Without renewed federal support, thousands of households that finally found safety will be pushed back onto the streets. In a state already battling a severe homelessness crisis, this is more than a policy oversight. It is an act of cruelty.
Even more disturbing is that this unraveling is by design. President Trump’s proposed budget doesn’t merely neglect to renew funding for the EHV program—it proposes to eliminate it altogether, alongside the broader Housing Choice Voucher program (commonly known as Section 8), which supports housing for more than 500,000 Californians and 2.3 million people nationwide.
In its place, the administration offers a hollow promise: a vague, underfunded “State Rental Assistance Program” that does not currently exist, lacks a clear funding formula, and appears intended more as a vehicle for ideology than effective governance. The goal, according to administration statements, is to “incentivize self-sufficiency”—coded language that, in practice, means disqualifying anyone who can’t afford market-rate rent. In other words: the poorest Americans, including seniors, disabled individuals, and low-wage workers, are on their own.
This is the same administration that has repeatedly criticized California for its homelessness crisis—only to now pull the rug out from under programs that actually work. It’s like setting a house on fire and then blaming the residents for getting burned.
The human cost is staggering. Take Sacramento County, where an estimated 4,000 people are living unsheltered on any given night. The federal voucher program helps approximately 13,000 families remain housed in the county. In Los Angeles County, more than 75,000 households rely on federal housing subsidies. In Merced, it’s 2,800; in Stanislaus, nearly 5,000. These numbers aren’t just statistics—they represent real people: parents working multiple jobs, seniors on fixed incomes, children who finally have a place to call home.
For these Californians, losing their housing voucher doesn’t just mean relocating—it means facing impossible choices. Many will have to choose between paying rent and affording food, child care, or medicine. Others will have no choice but to return to the streets. The program’s average voucher covers roughly $1,550 per month in housing costs, while recipients still typically pay 30 percent of their income. For most, that gap is the difference between survival and disaster.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is not only gutting funding—it’s also weaponizing culture war politics to reshape the very conditions under which homelessness services are delivered. Federal Continuum of Care grants—another lifeline for local governments and nonprofits—are now being tied to ideological strings. HUD grant recipients are being told they must not promote “gender ideology,” “illegal immigration,” or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Violating these terms could lead to penalties triple the amount of the grant—or even criminal charges.
The largest source of federal homelessness grant dollars has thus become a political minefield.
In counties like Santa Clara and San Francisco, leaders are fighting back. Alongside dozens of other jurisdictions, they’ve filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration’s new restrictions are unconstitutional, unworkable, and imposed without lawful process. A federal judge has already agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction that blocks the administration from enforcing these terms—for now. But the injunction only applies to the plaintiffs in the case. Hundreds of other housing providers, especially small nonprofits, face an impossible choice: comply with vague, punitive restrictions, or walk away from funding they depend on to keep people alive.
Many are choosing to sign and hope for the best. But even that comes at a cost. Organizations are rewriting mission statements, removing pronouns from email signatures, folding equity committees into other departments—all to avoid triggering an administration that treats inclusion as a threat. Sacramento Steps Forward recently deleted all references to “racial equity” and “diversity” from its governance documents, even dissolving its Racial Equity Committee—an advisory body composed largely of people who have experienced homelessness themselves.
It is a chilling portrait of the Trump administration’s priorities: use bureaucracy to punish those who serve marginalized communities, and frame it all as fiscal responsibility.
The irony, of course, is that these “cost-saving” measures are wildly shortsighted. Trump’s recent decision to send U.S. military troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests carries an estimated price tag of $134 million. That’s enough to provide housing subsidies for 13,000 families in Sacramento County for nine months. So much for economic efficiency.
The cruelty is the point.
The battle over homelessness in California is now as much about values as it is about budgets. Who do we believe deserves to be housed? What do we owe our neighbors in times of crisis? And will we allow ideologues in Washington to sabotage local solutions under the guise of saving taxpayer money?
This is a pivotal moment. Congress must act now—not next year, not after another round of political theater. It must fully restore funding for Emergency Housing Vouchers, reject cuts to Housing Choice Vouchers and Continuum of Care grants, and block this administration’s cynical attempt to use federal funds as a bludgeon against DEI, gender equity, and immigrant rights.
California has its own house to clean. Local zoning policies, chronic underinvestment in affordable housing, and a fragmented service system have all contributed to the scale of homelessness we see today. But throwing thousands of people back into homelessness is not the answer. Stripping away federal support for those barely getting by is not the answer. And holding basic dignity hostage to culture war politics is not just bad policy—it’s morally indefensible.
If Trump’s administration has its way, thousands of Californians will lose their homes. Not because of personal failure. Not because of market forces. But because someone in Washington decided that poor people, queer people, immigrants, and Black and brown people don’t deserve to be helped.
That’s not just a policy failure. It’s a deliberate choice. And it’s one we must resist.
“But because someone in Washington decided that poor people, queer people, immigrants, and Black and brown people don’t deserve to be helped.”
It has absolutely nothing to do with that, in regard to the recipients of the assistance.
The directive (in regard to DEI) has to do with the organizations that are getting paid by the government (and also do not pay taxes, themselves).
I don’t think you can safely make the claim that you are.
I feel pretty “safe” in doing so. But it’s actually you who made the claim to which I responded.
Given that “poor people, immigrants, black people, brown people” are likely over-represented regarding this type of assistance, wouldn’t an “inclusionary/DEI” statement be redundant, at best?
I don’t believe that “queer people” (using the terminology that you used) are over-represented regarding this type of assistance. (In fact, I believe they are among the wealthiest cohorts.)
Everything is Trump’s fault. LOL
When he eliminates programs that fund things, that is kind of his fault.
DG say: “When he eliminates programs that fund things”
It’s very important that THINGS be funded.