Trump regime pushes "incomprehensible" policy change
By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current
The 85-page lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island seeks to stop the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) from slashing the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing, or subsidized units that provide a stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets.
Lead plaintiffs include the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition, along with Providence-based nonprofits Crossroads Rhode Island and Youth Pride Inc. — among other groups and cities across the country.
The plaintiffs are challenging changes to HUD’s Continuum of Care grant program announced Nov. 13 that shift over two-thirds of the $3.9 billion program toward transitional housing and other short-term interventions for people without shelter. The lawsuit claims the new policy is contrary to “well-established and proven strategies that reduce homelessness” and jeopardize the housing of more than 170,000 people across the nation.
The so-called “housing first” model prioritizes stable housing before offering case management, mental health treatment, substance use services, and supported employment services. Research has shown this approach leads to more long-term housing stability than programs that require residents to consent to treatment and abstain from using substances before receiving housing.
HUD’s new policy was announced a little over a month before the Dec. 12 deadline set for Rhode Island’s care operators to apply for the federal dollars, the lawsuit notes.
In federal fiscal year 2024, Crossroads Rhode Island, the largest homeless service provider in the state received four Continuum of Care grants totaling over $2.1 million — much of which goes toward subsidizing residents’ rents across the 375 permanent supportive housing units it operates across the state.
The loss of federally-funded subsidies could mean the residents Crossroads serves would be responsible for paying 100% of the rental cost.
Crossroads claims that following the new federal rules would jeopardize the organization’s professional ethical standards and increase the potential that it could “face enormous risks of litigation and government inquiry.”
“Our goal is simple: to protect the programs that keep families and vulnerable individuals safely housed and ensure that permanent housing initiatives remain accessible in every state in America,” Michelle Wilcox, Crossroads’ CEO and president, said in a statement Monday.
HUD’s new rules also prohibit future funds from being used to conduct activities that “rely on or otherwise use a definition of sex as other than binary in humans.” The lawsuit claims the policy violates the First Amendment and HUD’s own policy.
“HUD’s Equal Access Rule applies to CoC-funded programs and protects transgender individuals from discrimination,” the lawsuit states.
An ‘incomprehensible’ policy change
For Youth Pride, compliance with that rule would mean no longer using preferred names or chosen pronouns for the queer youth it serves at its Westminster Street headquarters in Providence. The group would also have to shut down its support programs for transgender and nonbinary youth and could be forced to terminate transgender and nonbinary staff or require them to hide their identities.
“Unhoused and housing-insecure youth are one of the most vulnerable populations in our communities,” Youth Pride Executive Director Rush Frazier said in a statement. “It’s incomprehensible that any administration can justify or endorse changes that leave young adults unhoused, diminishing their chances of completing college, finding long term housing, and risking their physical and mental health in the process.”
In federal fiscal year 2024, Youth Pride received a Continuum of Care grant of $183,260, according to the lawsuit.
Like all lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, attorneys for the coalition argue HUD’s new policy is “arbitrary and capricious” and claim the department violated the Administrative Procedure Act in the sudden issuance of a new notice of funding opportunity.
Because of those issues, the coalition is asking the court to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices. They’re the same demands being made by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, along with 18 other AGs and two governors, in a separate lawsuit filed Nov. 25. That case has been assigned to Judge Mary S. McElroy, who has not yet scheduled a hearing.
A HUD spokesperson did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Other plaintiffs in the suit filed Monday include the County of Santa Clara, Calif.; San Francisco; King County, Washington; Boston; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Nashville; and Tucson, Arizona.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.