The Brief

California is fighting back after President Donald Trump’s administration instigated homeless housing cuts that local service providers said would be "devastating."

Two recently filed lawsuits accuse the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of illegally going over Congress’ head to make massive changes to the way federal homelessness funds are distributed.

“HUD’s new grant rules would effectively defund permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing programs across the nation, eliminating proven tools that help residents exit homelessness sustainably,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said in a statement. “This is another instance of the Trump administration prioritizing its political agenda above the needs of our most vulnerable community members.”

Santa Clara County and San Francisco sued the Trump administration this week, in conjunction with the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition. A separate lawsuit was filed last week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and a handful of other states. It marked the 47th time California sued the Trump administration in 44 weeks.

Now, homeless service providers are waiting anxiously to see how the litigation plays out and wondering if the impending legal battle will further delay the money they desperately need.

“It’s just the matter of how long it’s going to take that concerns me,” said Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health, which coordinates the county’s homelessness response. “Because while we’re waiting for these issues to get resolved, we have programs that are going to run out of money to support people.”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement last month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the changes are aimed at “stopping the Biden-era slush fund that fueled the homelessness crisis, shut out faith-based providers simply because of their values, and incentivized never-ending government dependency.”

At issue are changes the Trump administration made to its funding policy last month. Jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds now can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a significant decrease. Los Angeles County, for example, currently spends more than 80% on permanent housing. Instead, the federal government wants localities to prioritize emergency shelter and temporary housing programs that require participants to be sober or participate in treatment.

While shelters offer a temporary respite from the streets, permanent housing can end someone’s homelessness. For years, the federal government has prioritized funding permanent housing using the “housing first” method — a strategy that moves people into housing as quickly as possible, without requiring them to first get sober or agree to addiction treatment. Veering away from both of those principles marks a major policy shift.

Last year, California communities won more than $683 million in federal homelessness funds through what is called the Continuum of Care program. About 90% of that went to permanent housing projects, which currently house tens of thousands of Californians, according to Newsom. The new rule threatens to put those people back out onto the street, he said in a news release.

The new policy also prohibits the use of federal funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely. And it gives preference for projects in cities, counties and states that ban homeless encampments.

Both lawsuits allege that the Trump administration’s funding changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by defying the rules Congress set out for distributing the funds. Congress authorized a two-year grant cycle in 2024, meaning local jurisdictions wouldn’t have to reapply for funds in 2025. The Trump administration flouted that decision when it suddenly forced jurisdictions to reapply, the lawsuits allege.

The lawsuits also claim the administration didn’t go through proper protocol before enacting the changes to its funding strategy, which would have included giving cities and counties more time to comply with the new rules, and allowing stakeholders to comment on the changes.

In Santa Cruz County, Ratner is of two minds about the lawsuits. On one hand, he believes the abrupt way the Trump administration rolled out the funding changes was “very inappropriate.” But he worries a lengthy court battle could tie up funds his county needs to pay people’s rents.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness sued the Trump administration over similar allegations tied to a smaller, $75 million pot of homelessness funding in September. A judge sided with the Alliance, and temporarily barred the federal government from distributing those funds. But now that money is frozen, unable to help unhoused residents as the case moves forward.

Ratner worries that could happen again in this case. Santa Cruz County is set to start hitting serious financial problems as soon as February, Ratner said. That’s when a $1.2 million supportive housing grant, which currently houses about 50 people in different apartments around the county, is set to expire.

The Trump administration doesn’t expect to start awarding Continuum of Care money until May. It’s unclear how the lawsuits will affect that timeline.

In the meantime, Ratner and other homeless service providers are trying to remain optimistic.

“At this point, we don’t know how long the litigation process will take, but we’re hopeful it leads to a more workable path forward,” Sacramento Steps Forward CEO Lisa Bates said in a statement. “Of course, any delay in federal funding would have real impacts on communities across the country, including ours, to operate shelters, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and essential system coordination.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.