On May 21, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), along with 17 others, sent a letter to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner, urging him to rescind the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Establishing Flexibility for Implementation of Work Requirements and Term Limits,” which they say would likely increase evictions, homelessness and administrative costs.
In the letter, the senators argued that the proposed rule would exceed HUD’s statutory authority, as the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 limits how and when HUD or a public housing authority (PHA) can terminate assistance and limits the flexibilities HUD may permit. Specifically, the letter stated that HUD would exceed its authority by extending Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program flexibilities to all PHAs, while HUD’s authority to approve work requirements and time-limit policies is limited to 4 percent of all PHAs.
“The administrative flexibility allowed under the Housing Act of 1937 does not extend, as HUD argues, to the termination of leases or rental assistance on the basis of work requirements or time limit policies,” the letter stated. “In fact, HUD itself has recognized these limitations that when a PHA loses a waiver under MTW, it also loses the ability to utilize statutory and regulatory flexibilities, including to impose work requirements and time limits on assistance. The legal justification HUD provides in its NPRM directly contradicts Congressional intent as demonstrated under both the Housing Act of 1937 and MTW statute.”
The proposal also lacked “robust oversight and protections for the families that HUD serves,” the letter stated. “Under the MTW demonstration program, HUD must review, approve and oversee PHAs’ policies to ensure that they align with program requirements. Yet, the proposed NPRM allows PHAs and owners to implement policies without prior approval or robust oversight by HUD. … Even more troublingly, it is unclear if HUD will conduct reviews to determine whether implemented work requirements violate the Fair Housing Act by adversely affecting members of protected classes.”
The letter also noted that the proposal replied on outdated administrative data from 2024 to support its regulatory impact analysis, specifically regarding the statistics on the amount of individuals that are able to work who do not.
“While some studies have found positive effects of work requirements on employment or income, others have found that affected households are more likely to experience the following: modest employment increases that fade over time; significant barriers to employment, such as never finding work even after participating in ‘successful’ work programs; short-lived and minimal increases to rates of stable employment; and earnings that were still inadequate to lift families out of poverty,” the letter stated.
The senators also raised concerns that the proposal would likely increase evictions, homelessness and administrative costs.
According to the letter, “Experts estimate that as many as 3 million people may be removed from HUD-assisted housing as a result of the rule, if finalized. Notably, many of those families may lose access to housing not because they are not working, but because they are unable to keep up with new paperwork burdens or meet contradictory and sometimes impossible standards.”
HUD argued that the new policy is needed to “effectively leverage limited resources for assisted housing to address the shortage of affordable housing.” The letter noted that only one in four families who are eligible for rental assistance through Housing Choice Vouchers actually receive a voucher.
HUD also explained that rather than increasing the housing supply, the NPRM “will instead increase both administrative costs and costs on renters who lose assistance.” HUD’s regulatory impact analysis estimated that “the costs of unit turnover and administering the policy will be anywhere between $15.3 million and $255.8 million in the first year, and between $2 million and $29 million every year thereafter.” It also estimated that the implementation may cost PHAs up to an additional $54.3 million annually in comparison to the baseline costs of current regulations.