Key points:
- Trump administration faces criticism for penalizing public housing authorities that don’t identify immigrant tenants.
- National Housing Law Project (NHLP) says move will destabilize families and worsen housing crisis.
- Housing experts warn ending the mixed-status rule would fuel instability nationwide.
The Trump administration is facing sharp criticism from housing advocates after reports revealed that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is preparing to penalize public housing authorities that do not comply with new demands to identify immigrant tenants and families with mixed immigration status.
The National Housing Law Project condemned the move, saying it would destabilize families and worsen the nation’s housing crisis at a time when homelessness is already at record levels.
In a statement, Marie Claire Tran-Leung, Eviction Initiative Project Director at NHLP, said, “No matter where we come from, how long we’ve lived here, or what language we speak, our country has the resources to ensure that all of us have a safe place to call home. But Trump and HUD’s Scott Turner are threatening to take away the funding necessary to keep millions of people housed, despite tenants across the country struggling to make ends meet.”
“Rather than address sky-high rents, increasing evictions, and record homelessness, Trump and Turner are forcing public housing authorities to divert their limited resources away from affordable housing and towards wasteful policy designed to cause fear and hardship among immigrant families and scare them into self-evicting,” she continued.
“Trump is scapegoating immigrants to destroy the federal housing programs, seize even more control, and continue his unlawful power grab. We reject this blatant attempt to weaponize the HUD housing programs as a tool for violence. We will protect immigrants, HUD tenants, and fight to keep every family whole and housed.”
The directive comes in the form of a letter from HUD Secretary Scott Turner to public housing authorities. The letter gives agencies 30 days to provide detailed personal information on residents with mixed immigration status, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, alien file numbers, and proof of citizenship. Turner warned that HUD “will leverage all available enforcement actions against entities who do not comply with the request for citizenship information, including but not limited to, examination of HUD funding and/or evaluation of PHA program eligibility.”
According to Bloomberg, the administration is reviving an effort it first attempted in 2019, when it sought to overturn HUD’s long-standing “mixed-status” rule. That rule allows households with both citizens and noncitizens to live together in federally subsidized housing, with benefits prorated according to immigration status. Advocates say the policy was designed to keep families intact and prevent mass evictions.
In 2019, HUD’s own estimates suggested that eliminating the rule would affect 25,000 households nationwide, impacting 108,000 residents, including 55,000 children. Many of those children are U.S. citizens. Most of the families live in California, Texas and New York, particularly in Los Angeles and New York City.
Housing experts warn that ending the mixed-status rule would not ease long waitlists or address the housing shortage. Instead, they argue it would fuel instability. Deborah Thrope, deputy director of NHLP, told Bloomberg, “In most cases, it’s likely going to lead to mass terminations of these programs, evictions, housing instability, and homelessness.”
Critics also point to the timing. The United States is grappling with record homelessness, high rents and limited affordable housing supply. Removing thousands of families from federal housing support, they argue, would not free up resources but instead harm housing agencies that rely on rent contributions from mixed-status households. A 2019 HUD analysis estimated agencies would lose approximately $200 million annually if the rule were changed.
Some conservative policy voices argue that prioritizing citizens is fair. Howard Husock, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Bloomberg that changing the rule “can work, if existing leases aren’t immediately terminated.” He added, “If you want to give favoritism to American citizens, that’s a defensible point of view. But you can’t kick everybody out.”
Housing authorities themselves have raised concerns. In 2019, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles warned HUD that the proposed rule would not only deny housing to more than 3,500 individuals without legal immigration status but also jeopardize housing for nearly 8,000 citizens and legal residents, including many children. The New York City Housing Authority joined a city-authored comment denouncing the proposal as “nothing more than a policy to rip families apart, as it explicitly rescinds a regulation that was promulgated to preserve family unity.”
Advocacy organizations are preparing a response similar to their 2019 campaign, which generated more than 30,000 public comments opposing the rule. At that time, an NHLP analysis found that 95 percent of the comments opposed the change, helping stall the effort until the pandemic and the 2020 election shifted political priorities.
This time, however, organizers warn the administration may fast-track the rulemaking process. Ben Cohen, a tenant organizer with People’s Action, told Bloomberg, “What’s especially concerning is that what stopped the Trump administration last time from doing this was just the clock ran out, and the clock is not going to run out this time.”
Advocates also warn that the rule change is not just about housing but about immigration enforcement. HUD has already signed agreements with the Department of Homeland Security to share tenant information. Losing housing support, they say, could directly increase the risk of deportation for undocumented residents.
The move is consistent with Trump’s broader deportation agenda, which includes mass removals of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in the United States. As a candidate, Trump frequently blamed immigrants for the housing crisis, an argument echoed by Vice President JD Vance and other allies. Housing experts counter that immigrants are integral to the housing market, particularly as part of the construction workforce needed to build new housing.
Advocates fear the new HUD policy could spark widespread fear among tenants, even before any rule is finalized. “This has been true since, especially since June, with all of the ICE raids, but there is terror in the air,” Cohen said. “And the terror will increase.”
The NHLP and allied groups say they are preparing to challenge the directive in court. While the rule has not yet been published, legal experts expect lawsuits as soon as the administration moves forward. Congressional committees technically could intervene, but given the current partisan alignment, housing advocates say they are unlikely to block the change.
For now, families in public housing wait in uncertainty. Housing agencies are reviewing HUD’s request for information and weighing how to respond, even as advocates push back against what they call an unlawful attempt to intimidate immigrant families.
Tran-Leung said NHLP and its partners will continue to fight against the policy. “We will protect immigrants, HUD tenants, and fight to keep every family whole and housed,” she said.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
From article: “In a statement, Marie Claire Tran-Leung, Eviction Initiative Project Director at NHLP, said, “No matter where we come from, how long we’ve lived here, or what language we speak, our country has the resources to ensure that all of us have a safe place to call home.”
(See – that’s the type of belief that led to Trump’s win. This person appears to state that the U.S. has an obligation to house every illegal immigrant that’s already in the country, and every potential illegal immigrant from the entire world.)
From article: “The move is consistent with Trump’s broader deportation agenda, which includes mass removals of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in the United States. As a candidate, Trump frequently blamed immigrants for the housing crisis, an argument echoed by Vice President JD Vance and other allies.”
(Which makes sense, unless you somehow believe that 11 million illegal immigrants has no impact on demand for affordable housing.)
From article: “Housing experts counter that immigrants are integral to the housing market, particularly as part of the construction workforce needed to build new housing.”
(So, which “experts” are saying that 11 million illegal immigrants has no impact on demand for housing in the first place?)
From article: “Losing housing support, they say, could directly increase the risk of deportation for undocumented residents.”
(It’s not “losing housing support” that would lead to deportation. It’s the IDENTIFYING of illegal immigrants living in public housing that would lead to deportation.)