Low-Income Families Face Homelessness Under Proposed HUD Changes
A study from New York University projects that 1.4 million low-income families could lose their homes if the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets a two-year time limit for residents living in government-subsidized housing.
According to AP, the Trump administration submitted a discretionary budget proposal for the 2026 fiscal year that would introduce drastic changes to how HUD has traditionally operated. One of the biggest changes is introducing a two-year time limit for people living in government-subsidized housing. Housing Secretary Scott Turner argued time limits are necessary during a congressional hearing in June, saying they would mitigate fraud and waste, as well as spur low-income families to become self-sufficient.
Turner said HUD is 'broken and deviated from its original purpose, which is to temporarily help Americans in need. HUD assistance is not supposed to be permanent.'
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the government has billions of dollars to sink into their Tubi Gestappo (ICE, should you need the clarification), they have the money to provide housing for our most vulnerable citizens. They're not making the hard call, and no one would ever accuse the Trump administration of being the adults in the room. They're simply being a word I can't use due to editorial standards (hint: it rhymes with 'brass pole').
Despite Turner saying the move is designed to curb 'waste and fraud,' there's no evidence that imposing time limits would save money. NYU's study found that 'if currently assisted households are subject to a two-year limit, that would lead to enormous disruption and large administrative costs,' and would result in public housing authorities having to 'evict all of these households and identify new households to replace them.'
From AP:
The NYU researchers dove deep into HUD's nationwide data over a 10-year period, analyzing nearly 4.9 million households that have been public housing and Section 8 voucher tenants. Of that, about 2.1 million could be affected by the time limits because they include at least one adult who is not elderly or disabled and about 70% of those households had already been living on those subsidies for two or more years.
HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett pushed back on the NYU study.
'There is plenty of data that strongly supports time limits and shows that long-term government assistance without any incentive disincentivizes able-bodied Americans to work,' Lovett said in a statement. Source: The Washington Post / Getty
As per usual with the pro-life party, the HUD proposal would wind up hurting children the most, as an estimated 1 million children could become homeless should it go into effect. While the GOP pushes a narrative that the people living in government housing are unemployed freeloaders, the reality is that many of these people living in subsidized housing are working. They're simply not making enough to keep up with the average cost of living in their area.
There's been a growing cost-of-living crisis across the nation, with rents, groceries, and gas prices becoming unsustainable for much of the working population beyond just those in subsidized housing. The Trump administration's erratic tariff policies aren't helping either, with inflation spiking 2.7 percent last month.
No one wants to be poor, and being poor is not a matter of work ethic or laziness. For example, I was making far more than most of my peers as a TV producer. It was a job I worked incredibly hard at and came after years of busting my tail. Things were great until I found out I got laid off via tweet. That would set off a solid year of unemployment, which led to another year of underemployment. Not because I was lazy, not because I wasn't applying for jobs, but because wages are really that bad and the job market is a nightmare.
Mind you, this is the experience of someone with a college education, who's child-free, and spent most of their 20s working jobs that allowed them to be self-sufficient. So, imagine how stressful life already is for the folks who have to live in subsidized housing and don't have a potentially lucrative skill set to rely on. It took me two and a half years to finally make two-thirds of my previous income, and they're expecting our most vulnerable groups to be fully self-sufficient in that time frame?
So is everyone in the Trump administration doing ketamine now?
If the Trump administration really wanted to help put these families on track for self-sufficiency, it would improve current skills training programs, not try to kill them. It would expand student loan assistance programs, not gut them completely.
Make no mistake, these proposed moves at HUD are not about promoting self-sufficiency, but are yet another attempt by the Trump administration to punish the poor.
SEE ALSO:
HUD And The History Of Racist Housing Policy
Trump's HUD Is Undermining Housing Discrimination Cases
SEE ALSO
Low-Income Families Face Homelessness Under Proposed HUD Changes was originally published on newsone.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump announces 90-day negotiating period with Mexico as 25% tariff rates stay in place
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States will enter a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico over trade as 25% tariff rates stay in place, President Donald Trump said Thursday. Trump, posting on his Truth Social platform, said a phone conversation he had with Mexican leader Claudia Sheinbaum was 'very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other.' The Republican president said that goods from Mexico imported into the U.S. would continue to face a 25% tariff that he has ostensibly linked to fentanyl trafficking. He said that autos would face a 25% tariff, while copper, aluminum and steel would be taxed at 50%. He said that Mexico would end its 'Non Tariff Trade Barriers,' but he didn't provide specifics. Trump had threatened tariffs of 30% on goods from Mexico in a July letter, something that Sheinbaum said Mexico gets to stave off for the next three months. 'We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow and we got 90 days to build a long-term agreement through dialogue,' Sheinbaum wrote on X. Some goods continue to be protected from the tariffs by the 2020 U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which Trump negotiated during his first term. But Trump appeared to have soured on that deal, which is up for renegotiation next year. One of his first significant moves as president was to tariff goods from both Mexico and Canada earlier this year. Census Bureau figures show that the U.S. ran a $171.5 billion trade imbalance with Mexico last year. That means the U.S. bought more goods from Mexico than it sold to the country. The imbalance with Mexico has grown in the aftermath of the USMCA as it was only $63.3 billion in 2016, the year before Trump started his first term in office.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate panel advances funding bill with $1 billion for Ukraine
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that provides approximately $1 billion in security assistance for Ukraine. The funding was included in the fiscal year 2026 Defense appropriations legislation and was pushed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). The bill advanced in the committee by a vote of 26 to three. It includes $800 million in security assistance for Ukraine and $225 million in security assistance for Baltic countries. Coons earlier told reporters that the funding for the Baltics — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — is likely to go towards those countries' support for Ukraine, saying the total for Kyiv can be viewed as $1 billion. 'The secretary of the Army rightly calls Ukraine the Silicon Valley of warfare. The navy considers the maritime fight between Russia and Ukraine as the Black Sea battle lab, and recognizes the need for rapid innovation,' McConnell said at the committee's meeting on Thursday. 'But abandoning the foremost experts in drone warfare would be strategic self-harm, shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military's efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield. Like our friends on the Armed Services Committee we are restoring funding for the USAI and other security assistance programs that make America safer.' The funds for Ukraine proved non-controversial in Thursday's committee meeting, where partisan debates focused on things like Trump's acceptance of a luxury plane from Qatar and requested funds to retrofit it as Air Force One. There's a bipartisan majority supporting Ukraine in the Congress, even if Trump and the MAGA movement argue against the U.S. sending military assistance to other nations. 'I think there's broad enthusiasm for bringing this war to a just conclusion, but also broad awareness that that means, not peace at any price, by strengthening Ukraine so that it is able to defend itself against what will almost certainly be either continued or renewed attacks by Russia,' Coons told reporters in a briefing on Wednesday. The Senate bill will put the $800 million into the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which funds sending direct military assistance to Ukraine, provides other support systems and training programs. The fund, established in 2016, typically receives $300 million per year from Congress. Coons said it was important to increase the funding in the face of Trump's efforts to completely end U.S. funding for military support to Ukraine. But the $1 billion appears to be a drop in the bucket to the more than $60 billion Congress approved in an April 2024 in a supplemental military assistance package, and as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued an urgent appeal for air defense missiles and long-range munitions that the U.S. is the foremost supplier. 'Last night, Russia launched another massive attack on Kyiv: hundreds of Shahed drones and missiles. Air defense shot down many, but not all,' Zelensky said in a speech Thursday, marking 50 years of the Helsinki Final Act, which established the OSCE, a forum between western Europe and former Soviet Union countries. 'President Trump is truly interested in ending the war. We must do everything we can to make sure the U.S. and Europe act together – for security.' Trump has spoken out against the U.S. sending weapons to Ukraine at the expense of the American taxpayer and did not request funding for Ukraine in his 2026 budget. A House version of the Defense appropriations bill had no money for Ukraine. But Trump has not completely halted U.S. weapons deliveries sent with funds approved during the Biden administration. He's also provided a quick green light for Ukrainian purchases of military equipment from U.S. companies. He has also increasingly shown frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the obstacle to a ceasefire and set a deadline of Aug. 8 for Moscow to halt the fighting or face financial penalties. Earlier this month, Trump announced a deal where NATO would purchase U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine, a workaround from direct American support for Kyiv. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the funding.
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Next stop, White House? Anticipation builds for Kamala Harris, other eager Dems
Like the party they hope to lead, the jumbled field of Democratic presidential hopefuls lacks a consistent philosophy or plan for victory - yet. She'll have plenty of company. Former Vice President Kamala Harris closed the door on a campaign for California governor next year, keeping open the door for a White House bid in 2028. Three years out, the presidential contest is rapidly becoming a full employment project for ambitious Democrats. Already in the mix of The Hopefuls and the Often-Mentioneds are governors and senators, rising stars and the once-were-rising stars. There are both Democratic Socialists and centrists, those who vow to battle President Donald Trump at every turn and those who counsel accommodation when it's possible. The Democratic contenders and maybe-contenders form a disparate group that lacks a consistent political philosophy or a clear plan for victory, in a party that could be described the same way. That's no coincidence. One shapes the other. A compelling candidate who emerges at the top in town-hall forums, debates and primaries will define the Democratic Party. And a consensus on where the Democrats stand will affect which candidate is seen as compelling. But not yet. The Republican Party could be clearly defined and immediately identified by the official, glowering portrait of Donald Trump. But without a president, or a presidential nominee, or even a frontrunner − or, for that matter, a speaker of the House or majority leader of the Senate − both the Democratic Party and its White House race is at the moment a wilderness. Albeit a crowded wilderness. There was a sign of the battles ahead on the Senate floor Tuesday night. When Nevada Democratic Catherine Cortez Masto sought to move a bipartisan package funding police departments, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker accused his fellow Democrats of "complicity" with Trump. "I say we stand, I say we right, I say we reject this," he declared. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar − who, like Booker, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 −rose to object that perhaps he should have shown up in the Judiciary Committee when the bills were being considered instead of waiting for the bigger stage of the Senate floor. How to spot a presidential candidate To identify prospects who would like to be president, or at least to be considered for the job, the key often isn't to listen to what they say. The default stance is that they love their current job in the Senate or the statehouse and are committed to it. Instead, watch what they do. Gathering chits by campaigning for fellow Democrats in 2025 and 2026? Check. Launching a "listening tour" to hear from voters in South Carolina? Check. Railing on Trump and his policies? Check. Dropping by New Hampshire on summer vacation? Check. Writing a book on policy prescriptions laced with personal anecdotes? Check. By the way, Harris announced she wasn't running for governor on July 30, Wednesday. On Thursday morning, Simon and Schuster announced she had written a memoir, titled "107 Days," chronicling her the whirlwind presidential campaign last year. More: Kamala Harris explores 'drama of running for president' in new book on 2024 bid The publication date is Sept. 23, less than a year since that Election Day. In another time, or maybe another political party, Harris would be viewed as the early frontrunner. She is credited with running a credible campaign under difficult circumstances, carrying 48.32% of the popular vote, compared to 49.80% for Trump. The Electoral College count was more lopsided, at 312-226. But she lost, and Democrats in the past have demonstrated little loyalty to losers. The last Democratic nominee who lost one presidential race and was nominated for another was Adlai Stevenson, in 1956, who lost to Dwight Eisenhower again. That was eight years before Harris was born. For the record, Republicans seem to be more forgiving. Trump, for one, was nominated in 2024 and won after losing to Biden in 2020. Richard Nixon was nominated in 1968 and won after losing to John F. Kennedy in 1960. In what may have been an object lesson for Harris, Nixon chose to run for California governor two years after that loss, in 1962, only to lose to Democratic incumbent Pat Brown and declare he was through with politics altogether. "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more," he famously, and prematurely, announced. Dealing with the legacy of Biden Harris would face another challenge: The continuing debate over Biden. The former president's decision to seek a second term, only to belatedly withdraw amid questions about his mental acuity, has contributed to the Democrats' current nadir. She was his vice president and defender. Now the Democratic field is wide open with the possibility to numbers could rival the 30-something record set in 2020, when a comprehensive alphabetical list included six names before you finished with the "Bs": Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Biden, Booker, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. More: Tarnished legacy? How Biden's age and refusal to pass torch earlier hang over his exit For 2028, a non-comprehensive list of those who have signaled interest in the presidential race would start with Biden administration veterans Harris and Buttigieg. Governors Gavin Newsom of California, J.D. Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Wes Moore of Maryland. Senators Booker and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, House members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ro Khanna of California. Whoever prevails faces an uphill job ahead. In a new Wall Street Journal poll, only 33% of Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party; 63% had an unfavorable one. That's a three-decade low.
