NLIHC Urges HUD to Withdraw Proposed Mixed-Status Rule with Over 13,000 Housing, Immigration Advocates; Congressional Leaders Comment and Introduce Resolution Opposing the Rule
Apr 27, 2026
By Kayla Blackwell, NLIHC Senior Housing Policy Analyst and Sarita Kelkar, NLIHC Policy Intern
NLIHC submitted a comment letter urging HUD to withdraw the proposed mixed-status rule, which was posted on the Federal Register for public comment from February 20 to April 21. Over 13,000 comments were posted to the Federal Register as of April 23, and opponents of the rule range from housing and immigrant advocates to elected leaders. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus submitted a joint comment letter with 75 congressmembers opposing the rule. Maxine Waters (D-CA), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, organized a comment letter with the Committee’s minority members. Representative Delia Ramirez (D-IL) also introduced a resolution (H.Res.1198) condemning the proposal with over 25 cosponsors.
Background
HUD’s proposed mixed-status rule, if finalized and implemented, would require families with mixed immigration statuses (mixed-status families) in certain HUD programs to choose between remaining together and losing their housing assistance. The proposal would also require all HUD-assisted tenants to verify their eligible immigration status, adding to burdensome paperwork requirements for housing providers. NLIHC worked with immigration and housing leaders to oppose the rule, supporting the Keep Families Together campaign organized by Protecting Immigrant Families (PIF) and the National Housing Law Project (NHLP).
While immigration status determines who is eligible for federal housing assistance, current policy allows for mixed-status families—households with eligible and ineligible members—to live together, albeit receiving a subsidy that only covers eligible members (known as prorated assistance). However, the proposed rule would end prorated assistance, mixed-status families’ ability to live together, and impose burdensome verification and documentation requirements. HUD’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) demonstrates the costs of these changes—necessitating action from organizations and individuals alike (see Memo, 4/20).
NLIHC, Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition Oppose the Proposed Rule
NLIHC’s comment letter describes the harmful impact of the proposed rule and urges HUD to withdraw the rule. The letter emphasizes how:
- Implementing the Proposed Rule will not address the need for more HUD-assisted units because mixed-status families are not driving the shortage. An estimated 8.9 million people participate in HUD-assisted housing programs. Family members who are ineligible due to their immigration status—a total of 24,100 people—“comprise less than one third of a percent of this total,” the letter states. “Displacing mixed-status families will not create a dent in the shortage of affordable housing units in the United States, which NLIHC research estimates to be a shortage of 7.2 million affordable and available rentals for extremely low-income households.”
The “immediate effect” of the Proposed Rule “would be a reduction in the number of households and eligible persons assisted.” This comes down to simple math, where the fully eligible households that would receive assistance instead of mixed status families would require a full subsidy—costing an additional $4,900 per person. HUD’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA; see Memo, 4/13) estimates that HUD would need an additional $300 million to serve the current number of families served, where these fiscal impacts could force housing providers to reduce housing quantity and quality.
The costs of documentation requirements “could potentially result in denial, termination, or delay of housing assistance,” and a significant proportion of these costs “falls on U.S. citizens and nationals.” This is wholly inconsistent with HUD’s stated goal of providing assistance to eligible tenants. Moreover, people of color lack ready access to citizenship documents at a higher rate (11%) than white Americans (8%).
Housing providers will face administrative burdens, as verification requirements for existing tenants alone would cost between $530,140 and $2.1 million. Expanded reliance on the SAVE system (see Memo, 2/23), moreover, raises the likelihood of a secondary verification process—creating a procedure that conflicts with HUD’s stated aim of making verification “more uniform for citizens and eligible noncitizens.” The proposal targets immigrants to the detriment of everyone living in HUD-assisted housing, requiring housing providers to police families’ documentation.
Current HUD regulations are consistent with Section 214. When Congress amended Section 214 of the “Housing and Community Development Act” in 1980, they did so with the express intent of keeping families together while reducing costs for housing providers. Conversely, changes that HUD is proposing rely on a strained or atextual reading of Section 214.
NLIHC also joined PIF’s comment letter with nearly 400 organizations nationwide. In a press release announcing the letter, PIF’s Executive Director Adriana Cadena states, “HUD’s claim that this is about ‘illegal immigration’ is yet another lie from the Trump administration—people who are undocumented are already denied housing subsidies.” She continues: “This plan will evict lawfully present immigrants and U.S. citizens in immigrant families.
NLIHC President and CEO Renee M. Willis stated in the same press release: “There is an affordable housing crisis across America, especially for those with the lowest incomes. Bullying low-income immigrant families by withholding the resources they rely on and forcing them to choose between staying together or losing housing assistance worsens this crisis and will increase housing insecurity. Instead of investing in proven solutions like rental assistance and vouchers, the Trump administration has deterred eligible immigrant families from seeking housing benefits and stoked fear in immigrant communities. The proposed ‘mixed-status’ rule is unlawful, cruel, and an egregious abuse of power. NLIHC is proud to stand with our partners in pushing back against the harmful implementation of this rule.”
The PIF letter contains similar sentiment as NLIHC’s, decrying how the proposed rule:
- Runs contrary to three decades of policy interpretation and fails to state “good reasons for the new policy” and consider whether the rule has “engendered serious reliance interests” to some groups.
Would bar children and other U.S. citizens who are eligible for housing subsidies from receiving them simply because they live with a family member with ineligible status—increasing their chances of housing instability, poverty, and the adverse effects these hardships have on their health and well-being.
Puts mixed-status families in an impossible situation, where they must choose between staying together and getting evicted or splitting the family up.
Uses the unreliable SAVE program, where reliance on SAVE puts both immigrants and U.S. citizens at risk of losing their housing.
Congressional Leaders Oppose Proposed Rule, Affirm Congressional Intent for Existing Law
Congressional leaders took action to oppose the proposed rule and affirm that Congress wrote Section 214 to keep families together and iterate that HUD’s proposal goes against statute.
Leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and Congressional Black Caucus (collectively, the “Tri-Caucus”) also sent a comment letter opposing the rule. The letter, signed by 75 members of Congress, affirms Congress’s intent in drafting Section 214, the primary statute impacting immigrant families’ eligibility for HUD-assisted housing. “Like other immigration policies from this administration, the proposed rule attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. It is based on the false premise that ineligible noncitizens are receiving housing assistance and diverting resources from citizens,” the letter states. “In reality, current HUD rules limit rental assistance to household members with eligible immigration status, and ineligible individuals are prohibited from receiving such aid.”
Rep. Waters, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, sent a comment letter with fellow Committee minority members, Representatives Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA), and Sylvia Garcia (D-TX). The members underscore Section 214 of the “Housing and Community Development Act” and note several additional concerns with HUD’s proposal, including that “it would exacerbate the current eviction and homelessness crisis, placing children, seniors, and people with disabilities at a disproportionate disadvantage.”
Rep. Ramirez introduced a resolution (H.Res.1198) “recognizing that stable housing keeps families together” and “condemns HUD Secretary Scott Turner for advancing policies that threaten family unity, worsen homelessness, and undermine the mission of HUD to provide safe, stable, and affordable housing for all.”
Read comment letters from NLIHC, PIF, and the Tri-Caucus.
Read Rep. Ramirez’s resolution here.
Learn more about mixed-status families’ access to housing assistance in Chapter 6 of NLIHC’s 2026 Advocates’ Guide.