Listen to this article
Download AudioHUD’s Housing Time Limit: A Cruel Cut
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
Proposed Housing Cuts
The Trump administration has proposed a significant change to federal housing assistance programs. This includes public housing and Section 8 rental vouchers. The new plan would impose a two-year time limit on these benefits (davisvanguard.org). This proposal marks a major shift from how the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has traditionally operated. For many years, millions of tenants received subsidized housing for as long as they qualified (yourvalley.net).
HUD Secretary Scott Turner spoke at a congressional budget hearing in June. He argued that time limits are necessary to address waste and fraud in these programs. Secretary Turner stated that HUD is “broken and deviated from its original purpose, which is to temporarily help Americans in need” (kcra.com). He believes HUD assistance should not be permanent. Studies show that the average household in HUD-subsidized housing stays for about six years (abcnews.go.com). HUD currently funds public housing projects for nearly one million households. It also provides Section 8 vouchers to about four million households to help with private rentals (abcnews.go.com).
Impact on Families
New research from New York University (NYU) suggests that 1.4 million households could lose their housing assistance if the two-year time limit is put into effect (kcra.com). NYU researchers looked at HUD’s nationwide data over a ten-year period. They analyzed nearly 4.9 million households that have been public housing and Section 8 voucher tenants (startribune.com). Their findings indicate that about 2.1 million households could be affected by these time limits. These households include at least one adult who is not elderly or disabled (startribune.com). Furthermore, about 70% of these potentially affected households have already been receiving these subsidies for two years or more (startribune.com). This displacement would largely affect working families with children (davisvanguard.org).
The proposed time limits could lead to more than one million children becoming homeless. This policy would mainly harm families who are working but still earn far below their area’s median income (startribune.com). For many families, federal housing assistance is the only thing preventing them from becoming homeless (davisvanguard.org). The current proposal does not clearly state how it will affect tenants who have already lived in HUD housing for longer than two years. The overall reduction in funding and the shift to block grants for states mean states will decide who continues to receive help and who faces cuts (shelterforce.org).
Rationale and Criticism
HUD officials argue that time limits are supported by data and encourage self-sufficiency. Kasey Lovett, a HUD spokesperson, stated that “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” (startribune.com). Some believe that the threat of losing housing will push people to become self-sufficient (abcnews.go.com). Others think that limits, when combined with support and job incentives, can motivate tenants to improve their lives (abcnews.go.com).
However, critics argue that these proposed changes would destabilize vulnerable households and lead to significant administrative costs. The shift to restrict these key subsidies would be a major change for millions of tenants. Many of them moved into subsidized housing with the understanding that it would be long-term. These families are unlikely to afford today’s high rents (kcra.com). The NYU study found that if current households are subject to a two-year limit, it would cause “enormous disruption and large administrative costs” for public housing authorities (davisvanguard.org). These authorities would then have to evict these households and find new ones to replace them. There has been little guidance from HUD on how time-limited housing assistance would be put into practice. This includes how it would be enforced, when the clock starts, and how exemptions would be defined (abcnews.go.com).
Understanding HUD Programs
To understand the full impact of these proposed changes, it is important to know what public housing and Section 8 vouchers are. Public housing provides affordable rental homes for low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. These homes are owned and managed by local public housing authorities. Section 8 vouchers, also known as Housing Choice Vouchers, help very low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities afford safe and decent housing in the private market. Participants find their own housing, and the voucher pays for a portion of the rent. The tenant pays the difference. Both programs aim to ensure that vulnerable populations have access to stable housing.
The Trump administration’s proposal would combine five main federal rental assistance programs. These include project-based rental assistance, Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), public housing, supportive housing for the elderly, and supportive housing for people with disabilities. These would be merged into a single block grant (shelterforce.org). This block grant would then be given to states to manage. However, it would be funded 43% below the combined amount the previous programs received in fiscal year 2025 (shelterforce.org). This is a significant cut. This contrasts with the current federal system where HUD directly manages these programs with specific rules and funds for each. The shift means states would have more control but also more responsibility in deciding how to use much less money (shelterforce.org).
Racial and Social Justice Concerns
While the proposal does not directly discuss racial and social justice, its potential impact on working families and the risk of increased homelessness raise serious concerns. Historically, housing assistance programs have been important in addressing housing inequality. Major changes to these programs could greatly affect vulnerable groups, including minority communities. These communities are often overrepresented in assisted housing. The move to block grants and reduced funding could worsen existing inequalities if states do not ensure fair distribution of resources (shelterforce.org). The Biden administration’s HUD Equity Action Plan, for example, aims to ensure housing assistance rights for LGBTQIA+ communities and address specific discriminatory concerns (bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov). This shows a recognition of social justice in housing. The proposed changes could reverse progress made in this area.
The argument that time limits reduce fraud and promote work lacks clear evidence from HUD. However, the idea is that a time limit would encourage tenants to plan for a future without subsidies. This implies a work requirement (aei.org). HUD has supported research on work requirement policies in Moving-to-Work (MTW) agencies. This shows an interest in understanding how such policies promote self-sufficiency (huduser.gov). However, without specific data or examples of how time limits reduce fraud, the claim remains vague. The focus on reducing federal spending and shifting responsibility to states could mean families are left to find their own solutions. There are no explicit details about alternatives or support systems for displaced families. The implication is that families would be encouraged to become self-sufficient and find non-subsidized housing within the two-year window (aei.org).
Potential Impact of HUD Time Limits
The Block Grant System
The proposed block grant system would be a major change from how HUD currently operates. Instead of federal oversight for each program, states would receive a lump sum of money. They would then decide how to distribute it. Proponents argue that block grants increase efficiency. However, data shows that block-granted programs typically receive less funding. They also lead to more inequality among recipients (shelterforce.org). The 43% funding cut means states will be “holding the bag” to decide who gets assistance and who does not (shelterforce.org). This could lead to a patchwork of policies across the country. Some states might prioritize housing assistance, while others might not.
This shift could have serious consequences for communities that rely heavily on federal housing aid. Without clear federal guidelines and reduced funding, states might struggle to meet the housing needs of their most vulnerable residents. This could lead to increased homelessness and instability, especially for working families and children. The lack of detailed guidance from HUD on how these time limits would be enforced or what exemptions might apply adds to the uncertainty. This leaves many questions unanswered for the millions of people who depend on these programs.
Key HUD Program Definitions
Affordable rental housing for low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. These properties are owned and managed by local public housing authorities.
Assistance for very low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities to afford safe and decent housing in the private market. Participants find their own housing, and the voucher covers a portion of the rent.
A lump sum of money given by the federal government to states for a broad purpose, allowing states more flexibility in how they spend the funds, often with less federal oversight and reduced funding.
The Human Cost
The debate over HUD’s proposed changes is not just about numbers and policies. It is about the lives of millions of people, many of whom are working hard but still cannot afford basic necessities like housing. The idea that people receiving assistance are “freeloaders” is a harmful stereotype. The reality is that many people in subsidized housing are employed. They simply do not earn enough to keep up with the rising cost of living (startribune.com). The nation has been facing a growing cost-of-living crisis. Rents, groceries, and gas prices have become unaffordable for many working people, not just those in subsidized housing.
The argument for “self-sufficiency” often overlooks the systemic barriers that prevent people from achieving it. For many, becoming fully self-sufficient in two years is an unrealistic expectation. This is especially true given the current economic climate. If the goal is truly to help families, then improving skills training programs and expanding educational assistance would be more effective. Instead, these proposed changes seem to be another attempt to punish the poor. The potential for widespread evictions and increased homelessness among children and working families is a grave concern. This policy could destabilize communities and worsen existing social inequalities.
Average vs. Proposed Housing Assistance Duration
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
