By Kim Johnson, NLIHC
Congress has until October 1—the beginning of fiscal year 2026 (FY26)—to enact a final FY26 appropriations bill for HUD programs. Without either a new bill or a CR to extend funding for a specific period, funding for federal programs will lapse, causing a partial shutdown of federal government.
The Trump Administration, the House, and the Senate have all released their FY26 appropriations proposals for HUD programs. While the Trump Administration proposed drastic, harmful cuts to HUD, including zeroing out many programs and completely redesigning rental and homelessness assistance programs, neither the House nor Senate took up the president’s proposal in their FY26 spending bills. While the Senate provides more funding overall for HUD programs than the House, including a meaningful increase for rental and homelessness assistance, neither the House nor Senate proposal provide adequate funding to ensure all existing Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) contracts will be renewed. Under the House proposal, an estimated 411,000 fewer people would receive a housing voucher, while the Senate’s spending bill would serve an estimated 243,000 fewer people.
Importantly, neither the House nor Senate bill provides adequate funding to continue HUD’s Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program. Without additional funding, nearly 59,000 households who rely on an EHV to keep a roof over their
heads will be at imminent risk of housing instability, and in the worst cases, homelessness.
What are recissions?
“Recissions,” or a “recissions request,” is a request submitted by the president to Congress, asking Congress to rescind, or take back, money that it has already appropriated. Once a request is submitted, Congress has 45 days to vote on the request; if they do not, it is automatically considered “rejected” by Congress. As in reconciliation, rescission requests only require 51 “yes” votes in the Senate to pass, so a request can pass without bipartisan support, even though bipartisan support is needed to enact appropriations bills.
In July, President Trump submitted, and congressional Republicans passed, a recissions request clawing back $9.4 billion in spending that had previously been approved by Congress in bipartisan spending bills. HUD funding was not included in the recissions request. However, approving recissions along partisan lines sets a potentially dangerous precedent, and may make it harder for Congress to reach bipartisan agreements on appropriations bills in the future.
Recissions are also different from “impoundment,” which is when a presidential Administration freezes or refuses to spend money that has already been appropriated by Congress. The president or his Administration deciding alone to freeze appropriated funding is illegal under the “Budget Control Act of 1974,” which Congress passed to stop then-President Richard Nixon from impounding funds, set up guardrails around the practice, and reaffirm Congress’s “power of the purse.”
The impact of HUD staffing cuts
At the outset of 2025, the Trump Administration and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) set out to slash HUD staffing by as much as 50%, with some departments targeted for an over 80% reduction in force. Thanks to the hard work of advocates and champions in Congress, who made clear the essential role HUD staff play in ensuring the department can perform its core duties, the 50% staffing cuts never materialized. Still, HUD’s workforce has decreased by around 23% from the start of the year, with long-time employees opting for early retirement, and others taking DOGE’s infamous “fork-in-the-road” offer and leaving the federal workforce altogether.
Even before these reductions, HUD staff were already shorthanded and overworked. The loss of crucial personnel has impacted HUD’s ability to perform its basic functions, including administering grants and funding notices and providing communities with needed technical assistance.