The Brief

The Department of Housing and Urban Development wants to limit the amount of time people can get federal rental subsidies and add work requirements as a condition of funding, according to an internal document seen by NPR.
Only a few local housing authorities currently have the authority granted by Congress to impose such restrictions if they choose. The agency is writing a rule that would vastly expand that number — bypassing Congress in the process.

A HUD spokesperson offered no confirmation or details on the proposal, but pointed to the two-year time limit in President Trump's recent budget proposal, "which will be immensely helpful to empower families and individuals to achieve self-sufficiency and economic independence."
Any rule would be subject to a public comment period before being finalized, and could potentially face a legal challenge over the lack of congressional approval.

Millions of people could be subject to new restrictions

Some nine million people in the U.S. get federal housing assistance. Most are elderly or disabled, and would be exempt from the new policies, according to a HUD employee familiar with the plans for a time limit rule, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.

But that still leaves millions who could face harsh consequences, especially at a time when the cost of rent is increasingly unaffordable for large numbers of Americans. "It would have a devastating impact on families," said Deborah Thrope, deputy director at the National Housing Law Project.

She and other housing policy experts say there's little evidence that either time limits or work requirements increase employment or help people move off subsidies. The policies, Thrope said, "don't make housing more affordable. … They're not increasing the wages for those families."

Several housing experts said a time limit alone could be considered an implied work requirement. But last month, Housing Secretary Scott Turner and three other Cabinet members wrote a New York Times opinion piece calling on Congress to expand work requirements across safety net programs. They said an increasing share of public benefits are not going to the "truly needy," but to able-bodied adults who don't work.

The HUD rule would be a different way to push more people to work more hours, instead of going through Congress.

Advocates say most who receive federal rental assistance and can work already do, and those who don't may be caring for family members with a health problem, or have small children and are unable to afford daycare.

The case for time limits on housing subsidies

Supporters say time limits could spread limited rental aid among more people.

Rental assistance is not an entitlement, and demand far outstrips the funds available. For the lucky minority who do get a housing voucher or a spot in public housing, often after waiting for years, they can keep it as long as needed.
"There's a whole lot of people who qualify for this kind of aid who don't receive it. So there's an inefficient use of our housing, because people can stay so long," said Howard Husock, a senior fellow in domestic policy at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

He said time limits could also encourage upward mobility, but should not be imposed "in a vacuum." To be effective, Husock said, a time limit should include a fixed rent and automatic savings accounts, so people can get ahead as their income rises.
It's not clear that HUD's rule would include such things. Trump's own budget proposal called for gutting a self-sufficiency program that promotes savings accounts, and for slashing HUD's rental assistance by 43%.

The track record is mixed, and some places have dropped time limits

There are about 3,300 local housing authorities nationwide, but fewer than 140 have the flexibility to try out different things like time limits and work requirements. Even among those few, the policies are not popular.
"I just don't necessarily think that a hard term limit has generated the sort of outcomes that people are looking for," said Joshua Meehan, president of the Moving to Work Collaborative, which advocates for this smaller group of housing authorities. Since Moving to Work was created in the mid-1990s, the collaborative said only 40 housing authorities have tried time limits or work requirements at some point, and 20 currently have one or both.
Meehan also leads the Keene Housing authority in New Hampshire, which used to have a five-year time limit. But when the deadline to drop people's assistance approached, it was clear their incomes hadn't increased by much.
"I think it's fair to assume they would have wound up back on our waiting lists," he said.
Keene Housing is among those that have chosen to drop their time limits.

Shorter-term rent vouchers might disrupt the affordable housing market

Given that track record, it's not clear whether a significant number of housing authorities would choose to adopt time limits. But if they did, forcing millions of people to give up their subsidy every few years could rattle the landlords who lease to those with a housing voucher.
Many have left the program as the housing market has grown intensely competitive in recent years, and time limits could push out more, according to the HUD employee who requested anonymity.
This person also worried the ripple effect of cutoff dates could make the severe lack of affordable housing even worse.

"Private investors and lenders would not invest in much needed affordable housing development due to the high turnover and vacancies that would come from a two-year term limit," the employee said. "Ultimately, this proposal would result in increases in street homelessness in communities across the country."
Copyright 2025 NPR

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.