by Robbie Sequeira, Alabama Reflector
June 16, 2025

This story originally appeared on Stateline. 

The Trump administration is pushing to reshape the federal housing safety net by slashing spending and shifting the burden of housing millions of people to states, which may be ill-equipped to handle the mission.

President Donald Trump’s recent budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2026, a preliminary plan released in early May and known as “skinny” because a more robust ask will follow, outlines a 44% cut to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including a 43% reduction in rental assistance programs that support more than 9 million Americans.

Trump also wants to consolidate federal housing aid, which includes programs such as Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing, into block grants — or finite amounts of money that states would administer. The proposal also would cap eligibility for many aid recipients at two years, and significantly limit federal oversight over how states dole out housing aid to low-income, disabled and older renters.

The approach tracks suggestions outlined in the Heritage Foundation playbook known as Project 2025, in which first-term Trump advisers and other conservatives detailed how a second Trump term might look. The chapter on HUD recommends limiting a person’s time on federal assistance and “devolving many HUD functions to states and localities.”

To that end, Trump’s new housing aid budget request would put states in charge, urging them to create new systems and removing federal regulatory certainty that residents, landlords and developers rely on for low-income housing.

Trump’s request also proposes new rules, such as a two-year time limit on the receipt of Housing Choice Vouchers, formerly known as Section 8 vouchers, for households that do not include persons with disabilities or older adults. The vouchers, federal money paid directly to landlords, help eligible families afford rent in the private market.

Trump’s allies call the changes responsible, while detractors worry about rising homelessness among those who now receive aid.

Among the nearly 4.6 million households receiving HUD housing assistance in the 2020 census, the average household was made up of two people, and the average annual income was just under $18,000, according to a department report last year.

In testimony to Congress this month about the proposed fiscal 2026 budget, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said that HUD rental assistance is meant to be temporary, “the same way a treadway facilitates the crossing of an obstacle.”

“The block grant process will empower states to be more thoughtful and precise in their distribution and spending of taxpayer dollars,” Turner said.

The current budget reconciliation package, the tax-and-spending bill named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, doesn’t address individual Housing Choice Vouchers or send federal housing aid back to states. However, it would offer tax credits to developers of affordable housing and expand areas that could qualify for additional favorable tax cuts. That bill passed the House and is now undergoing consideration in the Senate.

Trump’s hopes for next year

The president’s fiscal year 2026 budget request serves as an outline of the administration’s vision for next year’s federal spending.

Congress — specifically the House and Senate Appropriations committees — must draft, negotiate and pass appropriations bills, which ultimately decide how much funding programs like rental assistance will receive.

Trump’s budget request provides sparse details on how much housing aid the federal government would give to each state, and how it would oversee spending. Housing advocates and state agencies are concerned.

“A big piece of the proposal is essentially re-creating rental assistance as we know it, and turning it into a state rental assistance block grant program,” said Kim Johnson, senior director of policy director at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Experts say any resulting aid cuts would disproportionately affect families with children, older adults and individuals with disabilities, many of whom rely on rental subsidies and support to remain stably housed in high-rent markets.

“It would completely change how households might be able to receive rental assistance of any kind,” said Sonya Acosta, a senior policy analyst with the center. “It combines five of these programs that millions of people rely on, cuts the funding almost in half, and then leaves it completely to states to decide how to use that funding.”

That’s a shift most states can’t afford, say housing advocates.

A state-by-state analysis by the National Alliance to End Homelessness shows the highest rates of housing assistance are in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, along with a few blue states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island.

“There’s no way to cut 43% of funding for rental assistance without people losing that assistance or their housing security,” said Johnson, of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

And it’s not just urban centers that would be hit; rural areas of Mississippi and Louisiana also have high rates of federal housing aid.

“A rural community who solely relies on federal funding would be even more impacted,” Johnson added.

While state housing finance agencies proved during the pandemic that they can rapidly deploy federal funding, Lisa Bowman, director of marketing and communications at the National Council of State Housing Agencies, warned that the budget’s shift to block grants would require sufficient funding, a clear transition plan and strong oversight to ensure success.

Housing authorities are requesting further guidance from the feds and members of Congress, and more detail is needed on how any block-grant process would work, Bowman wrote in an emailed statement to Stateline.

“There is still a risk of overregulation and micromanagement with a block grant,” she wrote. “That said, for any type of new block grant to the states to work, there would need to be a transition period both to ensure states can build the necessary infrastructure and oversight and to test and train new systems with the private sector, local government, and nonprofit organizations that would interact with it.”

In New York City, which operates the nation’s largest housing voucher program, officials didn’t outline what steps they would take if Trump’s proposed cuts become reality, but a spokesperson said the plans would hurt residents.

Howard Husock, a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, believes the most innovative aspect of the Trump proposal is the introduction of time limits on housing assistance, a mechanism not currently used in HUD’s rental programs.

But he cautioned that a blanket two-year time limit — especially if applied to existing tenants — would be “a recipe for chaos,” particularly in high-need areas such as New York City. Instead, he supports a phased approach focusing on new, non-disabled, non-elderly tenants.

“Block grants would allow states to move away from one-size-fits-all and apply rules based on their own housing needs,” Husock said to Stateline in an interview.

Affordable housing advocates disagree.

“If passed, the president’s proposed budget would be devastating for all federally assisted tenants,” said Michael Horgan, press secretary for the New York City Housing Authority in a statement to Stateline. “Block grants, program funding cuts, and time limits will only worsen the current housing crisis.”

A recent analysis of 100 metro areas by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that households using housing vouchers are more likely to live in higher income areas than those with other federal rental assistance.

“There is a high share of these households using [other] federal rental assistance in higher-poverty areas,” Gartland, the center’s researcher, explained, noting that programs such as the Housing Choice Vouchers are a rare but essential tool for expanding housing mobility.

“If you’re cutting the programming by 40%, you’re just putting additional strain on that program and just limiting that potential.”

For housing providers, uncertainty is growing

For property owners and landlords, the proposed shift in federal assistance and housing aid to the states isn’t just a policy question, it’s a business risk.

Alexandra Alvarado, director of education at the American Apartment Owners Association, said many smaller landlords are closely following proposed changes to the voucher program.

“Section 8 is a stabilizing force, especially for mom-and-pop landlords,” she said. “Many have had loyal tenants for years and rely on that steady income.”

According to Alvarado, landlords — especially small operators — have come to view housing vouchers not just as a public good, but also as a reliable business model where rent is often on time and predictable.

But with the proposed changes placing administration in the hands of state governments, landlords fear a breakdown in consistency.

“If the administration is serious about shifting responsibility to states, landlords will need a lot more clarity, and fast,” Alvarado said. “These programs are supposed to offer certainty. If states run them inconsistently or inefficiently, landlords may exit the market altogether.”

The transition itself, she added, may be destabilizing.

“You’re turning an ecosystem upside down. Change too many parts of the system at once, and you risk unintended domino effects.”

While developers may benefit from new tax incentives in the budget, Alvarado said that doesn’t offset the instability small landlords fear.

“Most mom-and-pop landlords don’t want to evict or raise rent, especially during hard times,” she said. “They just want to provide stable housing and be treated fairly.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Housing advocates worry states can’t fill rental aid gaps if Trump cuts go through appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents a detailed report on the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to federal housing aid, primarily highlighting concerns from housing advocates, local officials, and policy analysts critical of the plan. While it includes perspectives from conservative voices like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, the tone and framing emphasize the risks and negative consequences of the proposed changes. The article’s reliance on quotes from advocacy groups and its focus on potential harm to vulnerable populations reflect a center-left bias, though it stops short of overt editorializing, maintaining a largely informative structure consistent with nonprofit journalism.

SUMMARY: Summer storms continue across Alabama this week, with hot and humid conditions prevailing. Scattered showers are expected, especially in central and southern areas, with potential for patchy fog and low visibility overnight. Afternoon storms could bring intense lightning and gusty winds, mainly between noon and 10 p.m. Temperatures will hover in the upper 80s to low 90s but may feel like the mid to upper 90s due to high humidity. Tropical moisture will keep rain chances elevated through next week, though they may taper off slightly by the weekend. Gulf Coast visitors should beware of a medium rip current risk.

Alabama’s Weather Forecast: Summer storms linger across the state this week, with highs near 90

Subscribe to WVTM on YouTube now for more: https://bit.ly/2jvAaUD

Get more Birmingham news: http://www.wvtm13.com
Like us: https://www.facebook.com/WVTM13/
Follow us: https://twitter.com/WVTM13
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wvtm13/

Source

by Lee Hedgepeth, Inside Climate News, Alabama Reflector
June 15, 2025

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

BIRMINGHAM — When Jilisa Milton received the grant termination letter, she wasn’t surprised. She suspected this day would come.

The language the Greater Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution (GASP) had used in its application to the Environmental Protection Agency had been clear. “We’re talking about helping a community,” Milton, GASP’s executive director, said last week, “where Black people have been disproportionately impacted.”

Black residents had breathed heavily polluted air from a nearby coke plant for decades, and their neighborhoods had been declared a federal hazardous waste Superfund site after it was determined that waste soil laced with arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene, a human carcinogen, from several nearby coke plants had been spread around their homes as yard fill.

In light of this history and continued industrial pollution, GASP had obtained a $75,000 air monitoring grant from the Biden EPA in 2023.

Milton received the letter earlier this month from officials in President Donald Trump’s EPA terminating the grant because it no longer aligned with the agency’s priorities.

“I knew at some point they would notice the language of our grant,” Milton said, in that it made reference to services intended to help Black people.

Still, she said she doesn’t regret the way GASP characterized the situation on the ground in north Birmingham—that the need for air monitoring stemmed from the city’s history of corporate exploitation of majority-Black workers and residents.

Growing up in Birmingham, Milton said her grandparents often discussed the legacy of workers in the Magic City—so-nicknamed because of the seemingly supernatural economic boom spurred by steel production following the end of the Civil War.

“The majority of these workers were Black, and we can see the disparate impact that still has today,” Milton said. “And it’s really important for Birmingham to talk about our legacy and our history.”

Sanitizing that history, then, to comply with the Trump administration’s stated opposition to all things DEI and environmental justice—as if they were the same thing, just because they both often involve Black people—doesn’t sit well with her.

“I think the narrative work is gone then,” Milton said. “And we have to think about history so we don’t live it again.”

The grant, awarded through EPA’s small grants program, was set to fund GASP’s efforts to train residents in using air monitoring equipment to help establish a community air monitoring program, allowing those in north Birmingham access to critical information about the pollutants filling their lungs every day.

In addition to what is now the 35th Avenue Superfund site, encompassing the neighborhoods of Collegeville, Harriman Park and Fairmont, north Birmingham remains home to several polluters, leaving its residents in the 90th percentile for particulate matter, according to EJ Screen, a government tool also recently shuttered by the Trump administration.

That context of present and past pollution was what made securing funds for air monitoring so important, Milton said, giving residents an opportunity to learn more about the continued impact of industry on their health.

“For decades, residents of North Birmingham and other historically marginalized communities have been forced to live in the shadow of toxic industries with little support or transparency,” Milton wrote in a statement after receiving the termination letter. “The grant made it possible for us to monitor and document the pollution people live with everyday. Revoking this support sends a message that the health of Black, Brown, and low-income communities in Alabama is disposable.”

In its letter, EPA officials said the agency no longer supported the grant’s objectives.

“The purpose of this communication is to notify you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby terminating Assistance Agreement No. EQ-02D22522 awarded to GASP,” the letter said. “This EPA Assistance Agreement is terminated in its entirety effective immediately on the grounds that the award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities. The objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.”

GASP’s isn’t the only environmental justice effort in Alabama nixed by federal officials. In April, Trump announced the termination of what the administration termed an “illegal DEI” settlement aimed at addressing sewage issues in the state’s black belt that have left its majority-Black residents sometimes unable to flush their own toilets.

The agreement, reached under the Biden Administration, required the state’s Department of Public Health to improve sanitation efforts in the region. It’s still unclear what that termination will ultimately mean on the ground.

In the end, Milton said the impact of the administration’s decision to terminate the north Birmingham air monitoring grant is racist.

“Look at the way they talk about environmental justice,” she said of administration officials. “They say it’s illegal to address these issues. So you hear the things they say, and it’s reasonable to discern from that that the impact is racist, and that what they’re doing is intentional.”

People of all races are forced to face the consequences of polluted air and water, Milton emphasized, but ignoring the reality that people of color have borne and continue to bear the brunt of industrial exploitation isn’t helpful. In fact, she explained, doing so could undermine the relationship organizations like hers have built with residents of color living through the impacts of pollution every single day.

“I don’t want to sacrifice the trust we have in communities that want to be heard because they notice that we start to change the way we talk about these issues,” she said. “Because they are the most important stakeholders. They’re who we’re here to serve.”

Moving forward, GASP plans to appeal the termination with EPA officials, Milton said, though she suspects the agency is unlikely to change its mind. If that’s the case, the nonprofit will do what they’ve always done—look to individual donors to fill in the gaps. It’s work that can’t be abandoned, Milton said. Not if she can help it.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post In polluted Birmingham community, Trump terminates funding for air monitoring appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Left-Leaning

This article exhibits a Left-Leaning political bias through its framing, language, and emphasis on environmental justice, racial disparities, and criticism of the Trump administration’s policy decisions. While it is presented under the banner of a nonprofit, non-partisan outlet, the narrative foregrounds the disproportionate impact on Black communities and casts recent Republican-led actions—particularly the termination of air monitoring and civil rights-related initiatives—in a negative light. It frames these decisions as racially motivated and harmful, aligning with progressive values on environmental equity and systemic injustice, without offering counterarguments or perspectives from the opposing side.