Skip to main content

Implications of Executive Order 14321 on HUD

 


On July 24, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14321 titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.”[1] The order is aimed at multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It calls on them to review and revise how federal funding is being used to support people experiencing homelessness, public safety, and mental health programs. 

The order claims to be attempting to reduce crime and restore order in American cities but it could have significant implications for housing and community development programs that rely on federal funding to operate, including the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), which gives local governments the flexibility to address their individual community needs.[2] A portion of CDBG funds are used to support programs that use the “Housing First” approach to address homelessness. The Housing First approach prioritizes providing permanent housing to those experiencing homelessness so they can then pursue other goals to improve their quality of life. It is based on the belief that there are basic necessities that are critical and that should come before anything else.[3] 

In Michigan, organizations such as MCREST (Macomb County Rotating Emergency Shelter Team) in Macomb County reflect this approach. For more than 30 years MCREST has worked to help people experiencing homelessness find stability by connecting them with emergency shelter, rental assistance, and long term housing resources.[4] Its mission is made successful through CDBG funding and it illustrates how these types of programs can change people’s lives. By linking together people experiencing homelessness and public disorder, this executive order is shifting how federal policies see successful housing initiatives. 

HUD’s Role

HUD programs have always tried to balance fostering community development while creating inclusive communities through affordable housing and supporting vulnerable populations. However, recent developments have placed additional stress on the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission. Reports have been circling of HUD’s workforce being cut by approximately 23% since January 2025.[5] Additionally, HUD has faced challenges in maintaining its field offices, hindering its ability to properly oversee and administer its housing programs.[6] This concern becomes even more of an issue under EO 14321 which asks HUD and other agencies to reassess how federal funding is being used to address homelessness and general public safety initiatives. Because HUD is already struggling with limited capacity, implementing the changes required in the EO is going to further strain them and make it harder for them to carry out their housing programs in the communities that need it the most. 

What the Executive Order (EO) Does

EO 14321 claims to be addressing the problem of public safety by taking on the “root causes” causing this “disorderly behavior” and making cities unsafe. It specifically focuses on people experiencing homelessness, untreated mental health conditions, and drug addiction as the primary causes of violent attacks and general public safety threats. It directs several federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to take immediate action. 

The EO lays out some specific directives for these agencies:

        Review discretionary grant programs and determine whether they can prioritize funding prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping or loitering, and urban squatting.

        Reevaluate existing policies on civil commitment of those who cannot care for themselves anymore.

        Assess and end “housing first” policies that provide housing without prior conditions such as sobriety.

 While the EO leaves the implementation methods up to the Attorney General and individual agencies, its tone suggests that it’s an overhaul of current federal unhoused and housing policy. They seem to be moving away from a social services framework towards a more enforcement oriented model. 

HUD’s Involvement

Under EO 14321, HUD is being tasked with reviewing its programs to ensure that it’s aligned with the EO’s goals. HUD usually plays the role of federal housing policy and community development.[7] Its programs capture a wide range of assistance from housing rentals and public housing to unhoused prevention and general quality of life improvement. 

There could be a number of effects on HUD’s policies based on EO 14321:

        Prioritization of Enforcement Oriented Policies: HUD may give higher priority to applicants that align with the EO’s objectives. Resources could be reallocated toward law enforcement initiatives at the expense of their current housing models.

        Reevaluation of Housing First: HUD has always used the Housing First approach as a best practice, arguing that stable housing makes other services more effective. The EO directly challenges that, labeling Housing First as ineffective, and urging a focus on behavioral change before assistance.

        Integration with Other Agencies: Coordination with other law enforcement could change the way HUD operates in terms of designing or funding local programs.

 The EO could also undermine HUD’s ability to manage and oversee federally funded housing programs effectively. While HUD staff are dedicated to what they do, the agency already faces shortages and limited resources. Implementing a hiring freeze could make it harder for HUD to bring on essential personnel and slow down its capacity to assist communities with their urgent housing needs.[8] 

None of these changes will occur immediately, but they are all shifting away from prioritizing housing stability as an end and HUD may be forced to tie funding more closely to behavioral outcomes.

Concern & Support

Critics are worried that this approach will make the crisis much worse than it currently is. The data is there to back this up as Housing First has been shown to reduce people experiencing homelessness and improve long term stability.[9] After reviewing 26 studies, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) reported that in comparison to Treatment First programs, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41%.[10] 

Despite the overwhelmingly positive evidence in favor of Housing First programs, public reaction to EO 14321 has been divided. Supporters of the order argue that it finally holds people accountable for their criminal behavior and provides treatment for substance abuse while allowing them to emphasize rehabilitation as a successful strategy to anti-homelessness.[11]

 Navigating the Changing Landscape

Executive Order 14321 represents more than just a new view on people experiencing homelessness, it truly reflects a shift in how the federal government is viewing housing, mental health, and public safety. For HUD, this could mean rethinking the entire way they operate and who they are serving. For programs like the CDBG, the EO introduces uncertainty about what projects they’ll choose to prioritize going forward.

 Whether or not the EO leads to meaningful policy change depends on how HUD and the other federal agencies interpret and apply it to their programs. For now, it’s important to understand its potential impacts for anyone working in housing and community development, or more particularly, anyone using a Housing First approach to addressing homelessness.


By Urmi Suresh 


Links:

[0] "Robert Weaver Building - Dept of Housing and Urban Development - 2012-12-18" by Tim Evanson is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/?ref=openverse. 

[1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/ending-crime-and-disorder-on-americas-streets/ 

[2]https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/ 

[3]https://endhomelessness.org/resources/policy-information/protecting-the-use-of-housing-first/ 

[4]https://www.mcrest.org/mission 

[5]https://nlihc.org/resource/us-interagency-council-homelessness-staff-placed-administrative-leave-hud-workforce-drops?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 [6]https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/housing-shake-hud-and-fhfa-slash-staff-close-offices?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 [7]https://www.hud.gov/#close

 [8]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nlihc.org/resource/impacts-trump-administration-executive-orders?utm_source%3Dchatgpt.com&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760919221571344&usg=AOvVaw3GHQbdZhEe7qGl2XdhxfAA 

[9]https://www.owensborotimes.com/opinion/2025/09/unseen-barriers-how-childhood-trauma-fuels-the-cycle-of-homelessness-and-why-housing-first-is-under-fire/

 [10]https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Evidence.pdf 

[11]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3498066/trump-homelessness-executive-order/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760919221571099&usg=AOvVaw322DVBxYFc7F73zzsTIwvb


Popular posts from this blog

A Breakdown of Fair Use

Is your small business trying to spruce up your website by adding some new pictures? Want to raise money for your nonprofit by hosting a community movie night? Trying to update your marketing materials with a brand-new promotional video with cool background music? If so, you could be opening yourself up to potential copyright lawsuits and should read up on the doctrine of fair use! An important aspect of starting a small business or nonprofit is exposure, and as organizations work to market themselves and increase awareness of their goals and activities in the communities they serve, they could open themselves up to legal danger. Litigation is expensive, and the cost can be especially devastating to small businesses and nonprofits. In all promotional or informational materials (including brochures, flyers, websites, etc.), organizations need to be sure that they are legally protected from copyright infringement claims.   What is Fair Use? Fair use is a legal doctrine that per...

Navigating Liability Across Multiple Ventures for Michigan Businesses: Alternatives to Series LLCs

  The Problem: Managing Liability Across Different Ventures   Many business owners manage multiple ventures. This often entails dealing with different types of risks and liabilities. Whether selling different lines of products or operating multiple services within a business, it is really important to keep liabilities isolated to protect assets. For example, consider a business owner who owns both a restaurant and a catering business. In the event that a customer sued the restaurant for something like a slip-and-fall accident, the owner’s catering business could also be at risk if the ventures are not legally separated. Without proper legal structures, a lawsuit or financial issue affecting one part of the business could easily spill over, putting the entire business at risk. For this reason, business owners should look for ways to separate liability across their ventures and ensure that issues in one area don't threaten the stability and success of the others.   Liab...

The Bankruptcy Code and Black Business Owners: An Overview on the Racial Disparities that Exist in Bankruptcy Proceedings

"sisyphus paradox."   by   percipio symphony   is licensed under   CC BY 2.0   In a recent podcast for Bloomberg Law, University of Texas at Austin School law professor Mechele Dickerson discussed how the Bankruptcy Code favors white debtors over Black or Latino ones in various ways. [i]   Interviewer : “Is there a racist element in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code?” Professor Dickerson : “Intentional? No. But if you look at the way the Code is structured for human beings that file for bankruptcy, there are clear biases and it so happens that these biases favor a certain profile which I have called in the past an ideal debtor…” [ii]   This is a reality that has not gotten much attention in legal and business communities. Although there have been dozens of studies that have found Black debtors file for bankruptcy disproportionately more than other racial groups (yet get less permanent relief) there has been no definitive answer presented as to why. [iii] ...