NAHRO Submits Comment Letter on 2026 Proposed Rule on Mixed-Status Families
By: Tushar Gurjal, Senior Policy Manager
April 24, 2026 – On April 21, NAHRO submitted its comment letter on HUD’s proposed rule titled “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status.” The comment letter articulated NAHRO’s three-tiered position on the proposed rule which stated that HUD should take one of the following three steps:
- Make no changes to the current eligible status verification regulations;
- If unwilling to follow the first recommendation, then restrict application of the new rule to new applicants of covered programs; and
- If unwilling to follow either of the first two recommendations, then take the steps and adopt the recommendations in NAHRO’s comment letter before implementing the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would require that housing agencies and owners participating in covered programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the Public Housing Program, and the Project-Based Rental Assistance Program, require that all program participant households be composed of eligible citizens or eligible noncitizens. Mixed-status households (i.e., those households that are composed of both eligible citizens or eligible noncitizens and ineligible noncitizens) would no longer be allowed to enter the programs and would be forced to leave the program after a certain deferment period. Alternatively, mixed-status households would be forced to have the noneligible noncitizens separate from their families and leave their housing.
Currently, housing agencies and owners prorate the subsidy payment (or change the level of rent in the Public Housing program) for mixed-status households depending on the percentage of the household composed of eligible citizens or eligible noncitizens. This system balances two interests. First, it ensures that no federal dollars are being spent on ineligible noncitizens. Second, it prioritizes keeping families together.
The comment letter is divided into several sections. The first section discusses how the use of artificial intelligence in responding to comments on a proposed rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The second section notes that the current regulations on mixed-status families appropriately implement the statutory text.
The third section notes that the proposed list contradicts the law and offers several example contradictions. First, it notes that the law requires proration of subsidy for mixed-status households and does not authorize a timeline limiting this prorated subsidy for most households. Second, the section notes that the law does not give HUD the authority to subject U.S. citizens to searches in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system. Third, it states that the law authorizes housing agencies and owners, not HUD, to decide on whether additional documentation beyond self-certification is required for citizens. Finally, the section notes that the law does not allow HUD the discretion to require additional documentation beyond the documentation that is currently collected for people at or over the age of 62.
The fourth section discusses disadvantages of the proposed rule, including how it increases costs and hurts American citizens. The comment letter notes that the proposed rule could likely adversely impact 2.29 American citizens or eligible noncitizens for every eligible noncitizen that is adversely impacted. The section discusses administrative burdens including document collection and verification, notice creation, the burden of re-housing families when family members leave and unit sizes must be changed, difficulties in enforcement, difficulties in changing agency policies, and the difficulties in new procedural requirements. The comment letter requests that HUD provide 6 months for housing agencies and owners to change policies if the rule were to be finalized. It also notes litigation risks and the possibility of judges not willing to evict households. The section notes that the proposed rule will also cause tensions with landlords and not significantly impact long waiting lists. This section also discusses increased costs that would be caused by the implementation of the proposed rule. Finally, the section provides certain other policy arguments against the proposed rule.
The fifth section of the comment letter discusses procedural defects with the proposed rule notes how the proposed rule contradicts several executive orders. The proposed rule contradicts an executive order on proper processes for creating new regulations. The executive order requires a regulatory impact analysis, but the regulatory impact analysis provided with the proposed rule does not analyze the proposed rule as written. The proposed rule also contradicts an executive order stating that federal agencies shall ensure that their policies address disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to children. The proposed rule does not address the risks to children that the proposed rule would make homeless. Finally, the proposed rule does not follow an executive order requiring 10 prior regulations be identified for elimination with the proposal of any new regulation.
Finally, the comment letter thanks the Department for the opportunity to submit comments and stresses that NAHRO looks forward to working collaboratively with it.
The full comment letter can be found here.