In comments submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on April 17, LeadingAge urged the agency to reverse course on a proposal to change how it provides housing assistance to families with mixed immigration statuses in programs like Public Housing and Section 8.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status proposed rule, published on February 20 and commonly referred to as the “mixed status” proposed rule, is similar to a 2019 effort by the first Trump administration to prevent HUD from providing rental assistance to entire families in which not all family members demonstrate an eligible immigration status.

Current policy allows families to stay together: HUD-assisted communities prorate the amount of rental assistance available based on family members who have specifically demonstrated eligible immigration status, allowing for mixed status families to stay together without HUD paying subsidy to ineligible family members. The 2019 proposed rule would eliminate that option for mixed status families, impacting housing for tens of thousands of people (mostly children). In part due to broad pushback from the public and from Congress, the 2019 rule was never finalized.

The February 2026 proposed rule mirrors the 2019 effort by shortening the currently indefinite proration approach to 90 days while the families provide appropriate paperwork. Family members who are unable to contend immigration status would either need to split up from the family or would cause the entire family to be deemed ineligible for rental assistance. HUD’s data estimates that this will impact more than 20,000 families, with the heaviest impact falling on children whose parents cannot demonstrate eligible immigration status.

The February proposed rule differs from the 2019 effort in that it also proposes to change the way that HUD-assisted older adults demonstrate their immigration-based eligibility. Current HUD policy allows housing providers to accept self-certifications of immigration status from older adults because they frequently lack access to certain kinds of documents, like birth certificates or Social Security cards. The February 2026 proposed rule would eliminate the self-certification option, resulting in significantly increased burden for housing communities, while also potentially leading to housing instability for older adults, as well as members of their families with caregiving responsibilities.

In publishing the proposed rule, HUD requested public input on less burdensome ways to achieve the agency’s goals. Our comments highlight the increased burden for housing providers, cost for the federal government, and harm for families that would result from the policy change. “America has proven solutions to address the housing and services needs of older adults and the aging services workforce, and they center on stable, flexible, and truly affordable housing enhanced with supportive services and service coordination. Evicting families from stable, affordable housing will only result in higher costs for everyone,” we write in our comments.

We also outline the specific impacts on older adults and the aging services workforce, including particular harm on family caregivers and on direct care workers who are housing cost-burdened: “Lower wages make it difficult for the aging services workforce to support themselves and their families financially: A total of 35% of direct care workers are housing cost-burdened, and 46% rely on public assistance. Increasing housing instability for the aging services workforce further jeopardizes older adults’ ability to age in America. If a family does choose to split up to remove the ineligible household members, older adults within the family would very likely lose informal family caregivers on whom they rely for daily help to remain independent in community-based settings. This can result in higher costs for everyone due to premature and unnecessary placements of older adults in costlier care settings.”

Because the current approach is both effective and streamlined, LeadingAge urges the agency to withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety.

The next steps for the proposed rule are unclear; LeadingAge will keep members up to date on any changing rules and requirements.

Of note: The proposed rule only applies to programs subject to 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, which impacts Public Housing, Section 8 (including project-based Section 8 and Section 202/8), and Section 236, but excludes the Section 202 PRAC and Section 811 PRAC programs.

View our comments here.