HUD Rule Threatens 80,000 Housing Residents
A new federal mandate requires proof of citizenship for public housing, potentially forcing mixed-status families to split up by December 14.
By Samuel Hayes ·
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development published a new rule on Thursday that requires residents of federally funded public housing to prove they are U.S. citizens or hold eligible immigration status.
The policy is scheduled to take effect on December 14. Under the new guidelines, households must verify the status of every member living in the unit. This change reverses a provision in place since 1995 that allowed mixed-status families to remain together as long as federal subsidies covered only the eligible members.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the rule could displace nearly 80,000 people. Of that total, approximately 20,000 are part of mixed-status families. The nonpartisan institute reports that about 37,000 of those affected are children, most of whom are U.S. citizens.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner defended the measure in a statement, citing a recent audit that found nearly 200,000 tenants with incomplete or unverified eligibility. Turner stated that the current system leaves homeless veterans, the disabled, and the elderly on waitlists while ineligible individuals occupy units. He declared that American taxpayers would no longer foot the bill for these arrangements.
Critics argue the rule will fracture families and increase costs. Marie Claire Tran-Leung, director of the Evictions Initiative Project at the National Housing Law Project, said the previous system worked because mixed-status households often paid higher rent shares. She warned that forcing these families to leave public housing would create financial shortfalls for HUD.
A coalition of 22 state attorneys general opposed the rule, noting that it would impact more than 7,000 mixed-status households in California and 2,500 in New York. The largest concentrations of affected families are in New York, California, and Texas. The attorneys general wrote in April that the move would inflict economic costs on states and worsen the affordable housing crisis.
The agency reintroduced this proposal in February 2026 after a similar attempt in 2019 was withdrawn in 2021. The rule drew more than 11,000 public comments during the three-month review period. Commenters included Claire Stanley of Auburn, Washington, who argued the rule would save little money, and Mark Smith of Oconto Falls, Wisconsin, who urged officials to withdraw the proposal.
