By: Ryan Totaro
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 24, 2025, President Trump published an executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.”[1] In this executive order, the President directed the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Eric Scott Turner, to withhold federal support from homelessness assistance programs that practice Housing First policies.[2] This directive proposed, “to the extent permitted by law, ending support for ‘Housing First’ policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.”[3] The executive order instead advocated for a Treatment First approach to the homelessness crisis.[4]
HUD attempted to enact this new policy in its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, released on November 6, 2025.[5] This NOFO for FY 2025 supplanted the NOFO for FY 2024 and 2025 and altered the federal funding system for homelessness assistance programs more quickly and profoundly than policymakers had anticipated.[6] Critics expressed numerous concerns about the NOFO for FY 2025, principally regarding its sixty-percent decrease in funding for permanent housing programs.[7] According to internal HUD documents described by POLITICO, these funding cuts could jeopardize the housing security of 170,000 people.[8] Altogether, the NOFO for FY 2025 would deal a devastating blow to Housing First programs across America.
State leaders swiftly organized to challenge the legality of the NOFO for FY 2025. On November 25, 2025, nineteen attorneys general and two state governors filed a complaint against HUD and Secretary Turner.[9] Their complaint alleged eight causes of action and sought an injunction halting HUD’s proposed funding changes.[10] The plaintiffs filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.[11] There, U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy granted a preliminary injunction against HUD and Secretary Turner on December 23, 2025, temporarily halting the proposed budget cuts.[12]
The controversy at the heart of the pending litigation — Washington v. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development — concerns whether Housing First interventions successfully reduce homelessness. The plaintiffs’ second cause of action, alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, questions why HUD would deviate from this long-established approach to homelessness without explanation.[13] Given Housing First approach’s well-documented success in reducing housing insecurity and the disastrous consequences HUD’s new proposal may cause, the Trump administration should restore funding for Housing First aligned programs.
II. BACKGROUND
Through the 1987 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Congress established the “Continuum of Care” (CoC) system to help entities — nonprofit, state, tribal, local, or otherwise — secure funding to house homeless individuals and families.[14] HUD awards funding to homelessness-assistance programs in the CoC through annual, competitive grants.[15] These grants have long subsidized Housing First, as opposed to Treatment First, homelessness assistance programs.[16] The latter approach prioritizes treatment of the ostensible “‘root causes’”[17] of homelessness, such as addiction or mental illness, by requiring the homeless “to complete a sequence of steps to demonstrate their ‘housing readiness.’”[18] Conversely, the Housing First approach advocates that the homeless be placed into permanent housing as soon as possible, such that “housing placement and tenure is not conditional on prerequisites such as sobriety or medication adherence.”[19] Proponents of the Housing First approach argue it has long enjoyed bipartisan support.[20] The 2009 Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act[21] effectively solidified the federal government’s commitment to a Housing First approach to the homelessness crisis, and it remains “the first and only major reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.”[22]
HUD’s NOFO for FY 2025 would abandon the Housing First approach and disrupt the stability in funding that the CoC Program has enjoyed since at least 2009. Prior to the NOFO for FY 2025, a program within the CoC “was all but guaranteed to retain about 90 percent of its previous year’s funding” — i.e., Tier 1 funding — “in order to ensure local stability.”[23] The majority of Tier 1 funding “went to renew existing programs, typically for permanent housing.”[24] Nonetheless, the NOFO for FY 2025 reduced Tier 1 funding to thirty, rather than ninety, percent of the previous year’s funding.[25] HUD’s NOFO for FY 2025 would mandate that funding for permanent housing drop roughly sixty-percent as well, with the funds directed instead to Treatment First programs.[26] The preliminary injunction against HUD and Secretary Turner temporarily halts this new agenda. Nonetheless, should it be realized, these changes to the CoC would fundamentally reshape the nation’s approach to homelessness.
III. ANALYSIS
Evidence suggests that Housing First policies promote housing security in a cost-effective manner, particularly for homeless veterans.[27] Scholars have identified numerous positive outcomes for homeless individuals participating in Housing First programs, including “reduced utilization of shelter, healthcare, and criminal justice systems and increased housing stability.”[28] Although Treatment First programs are understudied by comparison to Housing First programs, research suggests the latter produces superior outcomes in housing the homeless.[29] For instance, a review of homelessness response programs across America revealed “that 70-90% of Housing First participants remain stably housed two to three years after receiving services, compared to 30-50% of participants in traditional ‘housing ready’ or ‘Treatment First’ programs.”[30] Homeless veterans have especially benefitted from Housing First policies. In the past 15 years, “veterans’ homelessness has fallen by more than half, while homelessness overall has grown by nearly a quarter.”[31] These findings demonstrate that the Housing First approach to homelessness is evidence-based and efficient.
However, critics have raised numerous concerns about Housing First, including whether it reduces mortality rates among the homeless, improves their physical and mental health outcomes, or improves housing retention beyond two years.[32] Perhaps most importantly, critics have questioned how one could justify such an expensive intervention which, even if successful in promoting housing security at the individual level, has not mitigated overall homelessness levels.[33] Nonetheless, America’s growing homelessness crisis cannot be attributed solely to the failure of Housing First policies, even if they were a contributing factor. “[H]igh rates of addiction, the skyrocketing cost of living and the migrant crisis” all may have exacerbated the homelessness epidemic.[34] Furthermore, researchers advocating for Housing First consider the rise in homelessness not a problem of the policy’s substance, but of its scale: to compete with rising rents, stagnant wages and inaccessible federal housing aid, Housing First programs would have to increase significantly.[35] Moreover, scholarship suggests Housing First policies are cost-effective.[36] For example, chronically homeless individuals suffering from mental illness “incur higher public costs per year than those in permanent supportive housing, especially within the criminal justice and healthcare systems.”[37] Hence, despite lingering controversies, Housing First remains best practice for reducing homelessness, particularly as compared to Treatment First programs.
HUD’s NOFO for FY 2025 would not just reduce funding for Housing First programs but would also ensure short-term administrative chaos. HUD published the NOFO for FY 2025 “with little notice and only weeks before homeless service providers [had to] apply for new funding.”[38] Service providers have expressed concerns about (1) the practical and legal ramifications of changing their approach from permanent to transitional housing on such short notice[39], (2) the mandating of homeless individuals to leave transitional housing after two years, regardless of their ability to afford rent, and (3) the dearth of local governmental and charitable aid needed to make up for possible losses in federal funding.[40] If the NOFO for FY 2025 is approved, the housing security of 170,000 individuals could be compromised.[41] It is unclear how HUD’s proposal, by jeopardizing permanent housing for 170,000 individuals with winter fast approaching, would have conceivably mitigated America’s homelessness crisis.
IV. CONCLUSION
Nineteen attorneys general and two state governors have challenged HUD’s NOFO for FY 2025. At the heart of their lawsuit, Washington v. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, is a disagreement about the efficacy of Housing First — an evidence-based approach, long considered best practice for promoting housing security. As Judge McElroy’s grant of a preliminary injunction against HUD and Secretary Turner suggests, the plaintiffs raise valid concerns about HUD’s proposal. Although more research is necessary on Treatment First interventions, the long-term health and housing retention outcomes of Housing First program, and the politicization of Housing First after decades of bipartisan support, the research is clear that Housing First is an effective and relatively inexpensive intervention against homelessness. The Trump Administration should revise HUD’s NOFO for FY 2025 and sustain federal funding for Housing First programs across America.
[1] See generally Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets, 90 Fed. Reg. 35817 (July 24, 2025).
[2] See id. at Sec. 5(a).
[3] Id.
[4] See id. at Sec. 5(b).
[5] See FY 2025 Continuum of Care Competition and Youth Homeless Demonstration Program Grants NOFO, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev. (Nov. 20, 2025), https://perma.cc/SH7M-J6KP; Jason DeParle, Trump Administration Proposes a Drastic Cut in Housing Grants, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 12, 2025), https://perma.cc/7STS-UWUG.
[6] See Sarah Maslin Nir, New York Leads Effort to Stop Plan That Could Cut Housing for 170,000, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/JKW4-25Z3 (noting “the new rules… outlined changes that are to take effect faster and go deeper than anticipated”).
[7] See Katherine Hapgood, 20 states sue the Trump administration over cuts to homeless permanent housing funding, POLITICO: Finance & Tax (Nov. 25, 2025 at 05:33 ET), https://perma.cc/YX3H-C9KN.
[8] See id. (noting “[t]he funding cuts could put 170,000 people at risk of experiencing homelessness, according to internal HUD documentation previously obtained by POLITICO”).
[9] See generally Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, No. 1:25-cv-00626-MSM-AEM, 2025 WL 3721053 (D. R.I. Dec. 23, 2025) (order granting preliminary injunction).
[10] See id.
[11] See id.
[12] See id.; see also Jennifer Ludden, Judge blocks HUD homelessness overhaul, rebukes agency for causing ‘chaos’, NPR (Dec. 19, 2025 at 03:37 ET), https://perma.cc/FT9M-RCL7.
[13] See Washington, 2025 WL 3721053, at ¶ 182-194.
[14] See generally Thomas S. Foley, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100-558 (1987); Continuum of Care Program, U.S. DEP’T OF HOUS. AND URBAN DEV., https://perma.cc/8TQL-TQMV (last visited Dec. 31, 2025); see also Washington, 2025 WL 3721053,at ¶ 40.
[15] See Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Eligibility Requirements, U.S. DEP’T OF HOUS. AND URBAN DEV., https://perma.cc/7YNT-KAL3 (last visited Jan. 1, 2025).
[16] See DeParle, supra note 5 (noting that Housing First “has guided federal grant making since at least 2009”).
[17] Id.
[18] Patricia M. Chen, Housing First and Single-Site Housing, 8(4) MDPI: Soc. Sci. 129, 129 (2019).
[19] Id.
[20] See DeParle, supra note 5; Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration to Protect Billions of Dollars to Fight Homelessness, Off. of the N.Y. State Att’y Gen. (Nov. 25, 2025), https://perma.cc/LS9C-GBMU (noting that “[s]ince its origin during the Reagan administration, [Housing First] has had bipartisan support across presidential administrations and Congress”).
[21] See generally Gwen Moore, Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, H.R. Rep. No. 111-1877 (2009).
[22] Josh Leopold, Five Ways the HEARTH Act Changed Homelessness Assistance, Urb. Inst. (May 9, 2019), https://perma.cc/YVC8-9D22.
[23] DeParle, supra note 5.
[24] Id.
[25] See id.
[26] See Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, No. 1:25-cv-00626-MSM-AEM, 2025 WL 3721053, at ¶ 6 (D. R.I. Dec. 23, 2025).
[27] See Jade Vasquez, Celeste Hornbach & Annie Levers, Housing First: A Proven Approach to Dramatically Reduce Street Homelessness, N.Y.C Comptroller 3, 9 (2023); Jason DeParle, Trump Says ‘Housing First’ Failed the Homeless. Here’s What the Evidence Says., N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 26, 2025), https://perma.cc/S28W-27WJ (“Extensive research shows that Housing First places large shares of its clients in housing. It also appears to have played a major role in cutting homelessness among veterans, which has fallen by more than half.”).
[28] Chen, supra note 18, at ¶ 5.
[29] See DeParle, supra note 27; see also Stefan G. Kertesz & Guy Johnson, Housing First: Lessons from the United States and Challenges for Australia, 50 Australian Econ. Rev. 220, 220 (2017).
[30] Vasquez, Hornbach & Levers, supra note 27, at 3.
[31] DeParle, supra note 27.
[32] See generally id.
[33] See generally id.
[34] Nir, supra note 6 (citing an interview with Stephen Eide).
[35] See DeParle, supra note 27.
[36] See Chen, supra note 18, at ¶ 5.
[37] Vasquez, Hornbach & Levers, supra note 27, at 6.
[38] Ludden, supra note 12.
[39] See id.
[40] See DeParle, supra note 5.
[41] See Ludden, supra note 12.
About the Author:
Ryan Totaro is a first-year J.D. Candidate at Penn State Dickinson Law. He is originally from Ewing, NJ and graduated summa cum laude from Haverford College with a Bachelor of Arts in English and minors in Psychology and Film Studies. Prior to law school, Ryan taught cinema history and production at Community High School of Arts & Academics in Roanoke, VA, and later taught humanities courses at the Pennington School in Pennington, NJ. At Penn State Dickinson Law, Ryan serves as the first-year representative for the American Constitution Society, competes with the P.A.D. 1L Mock Trial Team, and enjoys learning about entertainment, criminal, and administrative law.
Suggested Citation: Ryan Totaro, 170,000 at Risk: Why the Trump Administration Should Retain Housing First Policies, Penn St. L. Rev.: F. Blog (Feb. 25, 2026), Suggested Citation: Angela Osimen, The Widest Latitude or the Broadest Remedy? Comparing Federal and State Approaches to Injunctive Relief for Constitutional Violations, Penn St. L. Rev.: F. Blog (Feb. 9, 2026), https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/the-forum/170000-at-risk-why-the-trump-administration-should-retain-housing-first-policies/