Homelessness prevention policy involves communities across the country annually applying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funding to provide and maintain housing for homeless individuals. If state governors fail to act, the consequences will be visible on main streets by next spring. Of course, failing to pay rent mid-lease will destroy these relationships and paralyze local homeless systems for years. States cannot rely on courts to solve this crisis. In late November, a group of states filed a joint lawsuit against HUD's recent decision on permanent housing. Increasing pressure forced the department to withdraw its funding announcement on December 8, just 90 minutes before a court hearing on the lawsuit. However, this does not mean the crisis is over, as HUD's direction under the current administration means conservatives cannot assume it will protect vulnerable renters. During the pandemic across the country, state governments demonstrated they have effective tools to stabilize housing during crises, including issuing orders to halt evictions and utility shutoffs and distributing emergency rental assistance. State governments kept housing stable for millions of people. State governors must prepare temporary eviction moratorium orders for families affected by the loss of funding. It also requires the involvement of law enforcement in local administrative bodies, alongside stakeholders who approach homelessness from a different perspective. HUD has not provided substantial guidance on how to implement these measures. Thus, the administration's justification for such a radical policy shift is not supported by the evidence it cites in its documents. Therefore, two possibilities remain: either the administration grossly misinterpreted the evidence, or it is pursuing a political agenda unrelated to facts. Both interpretations are unsettling. But what is certain is that the damage will be widespread if the United States fails to take any useful action. Some communities have current funding expiring next January. If these communities cannot submit compliant applications—which HUD has made nearly impossible—about 100,000 permanent renters could lose their rental subsidies. Many will find themselves homeless, shelters will be overcrowded, and local jails will be left to deal with the fallout. Private property owners, whose cooperation is essential for homeless service recipients, may completely exit programs if they cannot rely on stable funding. These pictures should not be seen as proof of the failure to provide permanent housing or the inevitability of homelessness. They will be the expected result of the federal government's "flippancy" and states' inaction in the interest of permanent renters. Of course, not all causes of homelessness can be prevented, but a man-made catastrophe resulting from government inaction can be prevented. HUD typically issues its funding notice in the summer, which gives local agencies seven months to plan, write applications, coordinate with non-profits, and make system changes. It will also require the involvement of law enforcement in local administrative bodies alongside stakeholders who approach homelessness with different values. We cannot simply say, "Sorry, we have no place to house you." This crisis can be completely avoided. Administration officials claim these radical changes are necessary because permanent housing programs have failed, but this claim is not backed by HUD's own data. Instead of addressing these economic problems, HUD is reviving transitional housing models that attribute homelessness to personal failings. Although it held an online seminar on November 14, officials described it as merely a PR campaign that repeated specific points without answering the questions they desperately need to complete their applications. Officials from eight different homeless systems spoke in the past month; they were in a state of panic and confusion, but more importantly, they feared what would happen to their clients if they could not comply. One official, who provides assistance in a severely cold region, said: "People will die." For those for whom this is just numbers in spreadsheets, it means their homes, and the weather is cold. Perhaps most readers have not heard of Executive Order 14321, which "aims to end crime and chaos on American streets," but they will witness its effects when homeless camps begin appearing along main streets next year, if HUD proceeds with its plan, which has been temporarily stayed, and state governors do not act to mitigate the harm. The executive order directs HUD to significantly reduce "permanent housing," a service model that has helped provide stable housing to thousands of people without requiring treatment or addiction recovery as a precondition for leaving the streets. They must also be prepared to allocate emergency rental assistance to ensure no one loses their housing in the depths of winter, and cooperate with property owners to bridge the gap until legal appeals are resolved or Congress intervenes. If state governors fail to act, the consequences will be visible on main streets by next spring. In its funding notice, HUD concluded that transitional housing is necessary to address the root causes of homelessness. However, the report in question is an incomplete study covering only 15 states and explicitly warns that its results do not explain the causes of homelessness. Building these relationships may take years, while they can collapse in days. On July 24 of last year, the Trump administration quietly began a policy shift that could push 170,000 Americans into homelessness this winter. Finally, the changes include new performance metrics. Last year's funding agreements were set to end in 2026, yet the agency announced its intention to terminate those agreements before issuing the funding notice on November 13 of last year, which imposed radical changes to the status quo. These changes include a mandatory 40-hour work week requirement, which is unrealistic for financially struggling service providers, and they also exclude people with mental illnesses or substance use disorders from permanent housing programs. Garrett Granger, researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University, for The Hill. These methods were specifically abandoned because many randomized trials proved they were less effective and more costly. The administration cited a study stating that 75% of homeless people suffer from substance use disorders and 78% from mental health issues. Over two decades, this approach gained strong evidence-based support and was adopted by both Republican and Democratic administrations. But the latest executive order and the 2025 funding notice show that this consensus has ended. Abruptly and without warning, HUD was about to force local homeless service providers to completely restructure their systems to adopt "transitional housing" models that impose preconditions for housing assistance and facilitate the criminalization of homeless people through collaboration with law enforcement to ban encampments. The administration expected them to accomplish this within two months. To understand this decision, it's helpful to know how homelessness policy works. Communities across the country annually apply to HUD for funding to provide and maintain housing for homeless individuals. This funding supports thousands of people by providing emergency shelter and rental subsidies.
