NLIHC Urges HUD to Withdraw Proposed Equal Access Rule, Joins Housing Justice Network in Additional Comment Letter

By Kayla Blackwell, NLIHC Senior Housing Policy Analyst & Sarita Kelkar, NLIHC Policy Intern 

On June 29, NLIHC submitted a comment letter urging HUD to withdraw “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Revisions,” (see Memo, 5/4), a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks to roll back the Equal Access Rule (EAR). Additionally, NLIHC joined a comment letter led by the National Housing Law Project’s Housing Justice Network (HJN) in opposition to the NPRM. Over 23,000 comments were posted to the Federal Register as of July 1, 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.  

The EAR contains provisions that protect LGBTQ+ people’s access to HUD shelter and housing programs, where, among other proposed changes, 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  

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 In proposing changes to the EAR in 2020 (that were ultimately withdrawn) and halting ongoing or future enforcement actions for the 2016 rule in February 2025 (see Memo, 2/10/25), this history and mission fuels the current effort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.  

NLIHC, HJN Opposition to the Proposed Rule  

NLIHC submitted a comment letter opposing HUD’s latest attempt to restrict LGBTQ+ access to HUD-assisted housing. The letter, sent June 29, describes the harmful impact of the proposed rule, noting the lack of justification for the rulemaking as well as its consequences on LGBTQ+ people, individuals seeking housing, and states and localities.  

The letter emphasizes how: 

• Instead of addressing affordability, the Proposed Rule would further exacerbate the affordable housing crisis for LGBTQ+ people and households. By removing protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination across HUD programs, HUD removes shelter options and fails to provide safeguards against existing “discrimination that reduces housing affordability and increases housing instability and the risk of homelessness” for LGBTQ+ individuals.   
• HUD fails to justify its proposed removal of “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” language across HUD program regulations. Not only does HUD make “no effort to quantify how removing anti-discrimination protections within HUD programs broadly will contribute to increased housing instability and possible homelessness,” but its claim of alignment with Executive Order 14168 is insufficient. The EO has no discussion of sexual orientation—and moreover, does not supersede HUD’s statutory obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).   
• The Proposed Rule draws justification from false and harmful stereotypes regarding transgender people. Claiming that transgender women “may exploit the process of self-identification under the current rule to gain access to women’s shelters” not only implies that transgender women are inherently threatening but also ignores their own experience of violence and need for safe shelter. HUD additionally fails to “offer any examples of incidents of harassment or violence committed by someone who is transgender or gender expansive within HUD-assisted shelters.” 
• HUD invites intrusive questioning that puts shelter seekers at harm. HUD acknowledges that CPD grantees may be more “stringent” in seeking evidence, which will put additional burdens upon people seeking shelter, including identification and medical documentation. The letter states: “It is possible that shelter seekers who would be eligible even under the Proposed Rule would be dissuaded from seeking admission to shelter [due to invasive questioning] . . . [or] turned away for circumstances beyond their control, such as inability to afford government ID or lack of access to vital documents due to domestic violence or property loss.”   
• The Proposed Rule conflicts with state and local nondiscrimination laws without offering a clear framework for grantees to follow. While the rule “clearly threatens CPD funding for grantees solely for complying with state and local prohibitions on sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination,” it leaves CPD grantees uncertain and confused about how to navigate federal pressures amidst state and local liability.  

The Housing Justice Network’s letter, led by the National Housing Law Project, echoes similar sentiment as NLIHC’s letter—additionally stating that the proposed rulemaking promotes housing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and families “the 2012 EAR and 2016 amendments were designed to address” and will harm survivors of gender-based violence. Over 100 organizations also joined the letter, including many NLIHC members.  

These illustrated harms of the Proposed Rule span across HUD programs and create a legal landscape that weakens trust across communities, threatening the safety of LGBTQ+ individuals while diverting attention from solutions that create pathways to equitable housing. 

Read NLIHC’s and HJN’s comment letters.  

Read the proposed rule here.  

Explore NHLP’s detailed legal analysis of the Proposed Rule here. 

Learn how housing discrimination impacts transgender and gender-expansive people through NAEH and A4TE’s research report. 

Explore Chapter 6 of NLIHC’s Advocates’ Guide to learn about LGBTQ+ access to housing assistance.