LA County Resists Trump's Homeless Housing Cuts, Seeks Congressional Aid

Changes in Federal Funding for Homeless Housing Threaten Stability

A recent shift in how the federal government funds housing for the homeless could place approximately 10,000 people currently living in permanent housing in Los Angeles County at risk of returning to the streets. This change has raised concerns among county officials and advocates who believe it could undermine years of progress in addressing homelessness.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently altered the funding formula for states and counties, impacting the allocation of resources for programs that keep individuals in stable housing. The new rules affect the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), which outlines how funds are distributed. For Los Angeles County, the Continuum of Care (CoC) program receives around $220 million annually. Previously, 90% of this funding was used to transition individuals from homelessness into permanent housing, with support services such as case management and access to healthcare.

Under the Trump Administration’s revised HUD guidelines, only 30% of the funding can now be allocated for permanent housing, with the remaining 70% directed toward shelters or temporary housing solutions. This shift marks a departure from the "housing first" approach, which prioritizes providing stable housing before addressing other issues like employment or mental health.

The changes come during the middle of a two-year funding cycle, creating uncertainty for residents already in permanent housing. Unless local authorities step in to cover the shortfall, these individuals may lose their homes and face homelessness. This situation has left many in limbo, especially as the county’s share of homeless funding is set to expire in February.

After being sued by nonprofits and other counties, HUD temporarily withdrew its funding plans, reverting to a one-year cycle. While this move may provide a short-term reprieve, it does not resolve the underlying issue. Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath highlighted the instability caused by these sudden policy shifts, noting that the proposed cuts would have pushed housed individuals into homelessness.

Calls for Advocacy and Legislative Action

In response, Supervisor Horvath and First District Supervisor Hilda Solis introduced a motion approved by the Board, directing staff to draft a letter to HUD requesting that it honor the original two-year CoC funding cycle. The motion also urges the County Chief Executive Office and its legislative analyst to advocate for congressional legislation that ensures continued funding and compliance with the initial two-year commitment.

“This is a moment requiring fierce, urgent advocacy, so that the County can retain its CoC funding,” the motion stated. The push for continued funding has gained support from 28 Republican lawmakers, who argue that the Trump-led HUD is making a mistake by implementing these changes.

HUD Secretary Scott Turner defended the changes, claiming they aim to “stop the Biden-era slush fund that fueled the homelessness crisis.” However, critics argue that the policy shift undermines efforts to provide long-term stability for vulnerable populations.

Impact on Mental Health and Community Services

Esroruleh Mohammad, a clinical psychologist, expressed concern that the instability of HUD funding could negatively impact individuals who are working to reintegrate into society. She emphasized that the current housing program prevents avoidable transitions into homelessness, violence, addiction, hunger, hospitalization, or crisis.

The National Health Care for the Homeless Council also opposes the new restrictions, warning that they will increase homelessness nationwide. The group stated that the changes will end funding for over 170,000 people who rely on permanent housing to manage their health, stay connected to care, and remain safe.

Ongoing Efforts to Address Homelessness

While the immediate crisis may have been delayed, the long-term implications of these funding changes remain uncertain. Local officials continue to seek solutions to ensure that vulnerable residents are not left without support. In addition to advocating for federal action, communities are exploring alternative approaches to address homelessness, including expanding supportive housing initiatives and strengthening partnerships with nonprofit organizations.

As the debate over funding continues, the focus remains on protecting the progress made in reducing homelessness and ensuring that those in need have access to stable, affordable housing.