House and Senate Democrats Send Letters to HUD Opposing Proposed Equal Access Rule
Aug 03, 2026
By Sarita Kelkar, NLIHC Policy Intern and Kayla Blackwell, NLIHC Senior Housing Policy Analyst
On July 27, over 110 U.S. Representatives, led by House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA), sent a letter urging HUD to withdraw its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Revisions” (see Memo, 5/4), a proposal which seeks to roll back HUD regulations that protect access to HUD programs for LGBTQ+ people codified in the existing Equal Access Rule (EAR). In June, 28 U.S. Senators, led by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), sent a similar letter to HUD prior to the end of the proposed rule’s comment period, framing the rule as “[advancing] cruel policy ideologies and [scoring] political points.” Over 23,000 comments were submitted in response to the rule, and though comments are not yet fully analyzed, the large response signifies strong engagement on a rule that would remove critical protections to shelter for LGBTQ+ people.
Among other proposed changes in the rule, HUD would require that access to HUD-funded shelters be determined by a person’s sex (as defined by HUD), removing the requirement that shelters serve individuals consistent with their gender identity. NLIHC strongly opposes this latest attempt by the administration to repeal critical protections for the LGBTQ+ community and urges HUD to withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety.
Background on Equal Access Rule
When one in three transgender people experience homelessness in their lives, LGBTQ+ youth make up 40% of the homeless youth population, and transgender people report feeling unsafe in emergency shelters, these realities demand an intentional commitment to creating pathways to safe, decent, affordable housing that addresses inequities. HUD’s 2012 EAR and updates in 2016 embodied an attempt to create key protections for transgender people experiencing housing discrimination. The 2012 rule required that access to HUD-assisted or -insured programs be made regardless of one’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, while the 2016 amendments largely focused on the barriers transgender and gender nonconforming people face in securing equal access to shelter.
However, both Trump administrations’ actions reflect the intent to weaken protections for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. In proposing changes to the EAR in 2020 (that were ultimately withdrawn) and halting ongoing or future enforcement actions for the 2016 rule in February 2025 (see Memo, 2/10/25), this history and mission fuel the current effort behind the Proposed Rule—going even farther to roll back LGBTQ+ protections in HUD programmatic regulations than the 2020 proposed rulemaking.
While HUD’s messaging around the current rulemaking focuses on shelter access, HUD’s proposal is much broader than that and would eliminate LGBTQ+ protections across a range of HUD programs. Components of the rule include removing all references to “gender,” “gender identity,” and “sexual orientation” and replacing them with “sex,” allowing facilities to “require reasonable assurances or evidence to establish a person’s sex,” and attempting to preempt any conflicting state or local laws that offer protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity within the context of HUD Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) programs.
House and Senate Letters to HUD
House members wrote a letter opposing HUD’s proposal, naming “serious concerns about the impact the proposed changes will have on the LGBTQ+ community and the proposed rule’s violation of existing law” while exacerbating homelessness and fair housing concerns.
With 119 House members signed on, the letter emphasizes how:
- With the prevalence of housing discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, there is a critical need to maintain the protections and guidance of the existing EAR. Not only does the EAR affirmatively further fair housing, but its development of more rigorous LGBTQ+ protections from 2012 to 2016 was a needed response when considering the disparities LGBTQ+ people face in accessing safe and affordable housing.
HUD fails to explain the effectivity of repealing the existing EAR—not only violating the “Administrative Procedure Act” but potentially putting trans people at “greater risk of exclusion, harassment, and sexual assault” by conditioning shelter opportunities on sex rather than gender identity.
The Proposed Rule would worsen the nation’s housing crisis by permitting discrimination while ignoring and dismantling established precedents and protections. In allowing for the “type of discrimination that courts have found to be illegal” through cases like Bostock v. Clayton County and interpretations of the “Fair Housing Act” that draw from Title VII of the “Civil Rights Act,” HUD “would dismantle essential guardrails that have allowed LGBTQ+ families to access HUD-assisted or insured housing for over a decade.”
The rule also forces states and localities to risk losing federal funding if they comply with nondiscrimination laws that conflict with the proposed rulemaking: offering no evidence that demonstrates alignment with congressional intent.
The Proposed Rule would create compounding challenges for anyone seeking shelter by inviting invasive questioning of an individual’s gender. With increased documentation requirements and violating physical examinations emerging as possible practices, the letter states: “Verifying gender through dehumanizing or burdensome processes will jeopardize the vital trust that people experiencing homelessness place in case managers, shelters, and other service providers... HUD’s proposed rule will discourage transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from seeking assistance, thereby elongating experiences with homelessness.”
Earlier, on June 24, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), joined by 24 Senators, called on HUD to withdraw the Proposed Rule. Their letter cites similar concerns, also noting how:
- Third parties, such as shelter providers and nonprofits, would experience an undue burden while complying with HUD’s directive to make determinations about shelter-seekers' gender identity—making their mission of facilitating safe and accessible housing more difficult.
The definition of “sexual orientation” would be stricken from HUD’s and housing programs’ regulations without offering a replacement for the term or acknowledgment of this major change.
HUD claims the Proposed Rule would protect women from “men [who] would exploit the self-identification process to gain access to all-female homeless shelters.” However, this reasoning allows for invasive investigations into residents’ biological sex that don’t discriminate between subjecting women and LGBTQ+ individuals seeking shelter to harm and instability.
When “LGBTQ+ people often have to choose between not having shelter or sharing quarters where they may face discrimination and harassment,” denying individuals their preferred accommodations and requiring them to find alternative shelter not only risks safety, but places stress on an already-limited housing supply.
Read HFSC Democrats’ and Senate Democrats’ letters to HUD.
Read the proposed rule.
Read NLIHC’s comment letter opposing the NPRM.
Explore NHLP’s detailed legal analysis of the Proposed Rule.
Learn how housing discrimination impacts transgender and gender-expansive people through NAEH and A4TE’s research report.
Explore Chapter 6 of NLIHC’s 2026 Advocates’ Guide to learn about LGBTQ+ access to housing assistance.