Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2130
Last Updated: June 17, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

ID: J000301

Follow the money

The bill

Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025

HR. 2130, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$88,830 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 545-547 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 439.

February 22, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to streamline the mortgage process for Native American communities on Indian land. The stated objective is to reduce processing times, increase transparency, and promote homeownership among Native Americans. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill introduces new deadlines for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to review and process mortgage packages. It also defines various terms, such as "applicable Bureau office" and "mortgage package," because, apparently, these concepts were too complex for our esteemed lawmakers to grasp without explicit definitions.

The bill establishes a 10-day preliminary review period, followed by specific deadlines for approval or disapproval of residential leasehold mortgages (20 days), right-of-way documents (30 days), and land mortgages (30 days). Oh, joy! More bureaucratic red tape to navigate.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Native American communities, lenders, the BIA, and various federal agencies are all impacted by this bill. But let's be real; the only stakeholders who truly matter are the politicians and special interest groups who will benefit from this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It attempts to address symptoms rather than the underlying disease: systemic corruption, incompetence, and bureaucratic inefficiency within the BIA. By introducing arbitrary deadlines and more regulations, this bill may actually exacerbate existing problems.

The real impact will be felt by Native American communities, who will continue to face obstacles in accessing affordable housing and credit. The bill's proponents will tout it as a victory for tribal sovereignty, but in reality, it's just another example of paternalistic policymaking that fails to address the root causes of these issues.

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to create the illusion of progress while maintaining the status quo. It's a testament to the boundless creativity of politicians in crafting meaningless legislation that serves only to further their own interests. Bravo, 119th Congress!

Related Topics

State & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$88,830
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$32,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$56,130

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$5,300
3
CONFEDERATED TRIBES COLVILLE RESERVATION
1 transaction
$3,300
4
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,300
6
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,000
7
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
2 transactions
$3,000
8
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,900
9
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000

No committee contributions found

1
SATHER, DUANE
1 transaction
$3,330
2
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
3
BURT, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
4
BURWELL, BLAKE
1 transaction
$3,300
5
CARSON, RUSSELL
1 transaction
$3,300
6
GAFFNEY, CHRIS
1 transaction
$3,300
7
GROSSMAN, JAY
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HUNT, WOODY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
JOHNSON, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
10
NEWMAN, HOWARD
1 transaction
$3,300
11
NEWMAN, MARYAM RAZAVI
1 transaction
$3,300
12
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
14
PULLMAN, DUSTIN
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
ZUBATY, AARON
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-1]

ID: Z000018

Top Contributors

10

1
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Feb 5, 2024
3
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Feb 5, 2024
4
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationPALA, CA
$2,500
Jun 6, 2023
6
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATION
OrganizationPABLO, MT
$2,350
Mar 20, 2023
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Oct 28, 2024
8
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationPLACERVILLE, CA
$2,000
Jan 16, 2024
9
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Mar 5, 2024
10
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

ID: C001053

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$52,900
Dec 8, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$46,300
Oct 21, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$25,000
Oct 21, 2024
4
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationMT PLEASANT, MI
$5,000
Dec 26, 2024
5
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$5,000
May 13, 2024
6
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
May 13, 2024
7
ISBELL FARMS
OrganizationMUSCLE SHOALS, AL
$1,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
KANADY, MICHAEL C
ECHO • FOUNDER
IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK
$100,000
May 6, 2024
9
SPITZER, TERRY
GLOBAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS • CEO
IndividualVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$30,000
Jun 6, 2024
10
PEROT, ROSS MR. JR
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$13,200
Jun 3, 2024

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

10

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 13, 2024
3
YUROK TRIBE
OrganizationKLAMATH, CA
$1,000
Feb 1, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Jun 9, 2024
5
EKLUND, PAUL
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Oct 3, 2023
6
EKLUND, PAUL
P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Sep 30, 2023
7
KLARMAN, SETH
THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
8
GROSS, DAVID
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
WEAVER, LINDSAY
SELF • ENGINEER
IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
BLOOM, BRADLEY
BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS
IndividualWELLESLEY, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024

Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3]

ID: L000273

Top Contributors

10

1
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$5,000
Jul 25, 2024
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
4
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
5
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION
OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
6
OHKAY OWINGEH
OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
7
PUEBLO OF SANTO DOMINGO
OrganizationSANTO DOMINGO PUEBLO, NM
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
8
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Oct 12, 2023
9
SNOQUAIMIE TRIBE
OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023
10
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023

Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]

ID: D000629

Top Contributors

10

1
HO-CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
2
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
3
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
4
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
5
PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL
OrganizationWELCH, MN
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
6
REDDING RANCHERIA
OrganizationREDDING, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 15, 2024
8
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
9
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
HO CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2]

ID: D000634

Top Contributors

10

1
REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
Sep 18, 2024
2
BILLION, JOSEPH C
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
3
BILLION, PEDER J
BILLION DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM • OWNER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
4
DURRETT, STEVEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$13,200
May 1, 2024
5
BARNARD, MARY
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
6
BARNARD, TIMOTHY
BARNARD CONST. CO. • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
7
GREGORY, JOSEPH R.
IndividualPINEY FLATS, TN
$6,600
Jul 15, 2024
8
PLANTE, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Sep 10, 2024
9
MENHOLT, DENNY
MENHOLT AUTO GROUP • AUTO DEALER
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$6,600
Aug 12, 2024
10
GALT, SHARRIE
IndividualMARTINSDALE, MT
$6,600
Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]

ID: F000482

Top Contributors

10

1
THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES
OrganizationNEW TOWN, ND
$2,000
Jun 11, 2024
2
UTHUS, JACKIE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNAPLES, FL
$6,600
Mar 5, 2024
3
HOFFMAN, SHEILA
IndividualWILLISTON, ND
$6,600
Mar 19, 2024
4
HOFFMAN, DAVID
IndividualWILLISTON, ND
$6,600
Mar 20, 2024
5
ROMMESMO, OLE
TRUENORTH STEEL • CEO
IndividualFARGO, ND
$6,600
Apr 24, 2024
6
VESEY, PATRICK
SELF • REAL ESTATE
IndividualFARGO, ND
$6,600
May 8, 2024
7
FRANK, TENA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPARK CITY, UT
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
8
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024
9
MCMAHON, LINDA
SELF • EXECUTIVE
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Jun 14, 2024
10
HUBBARD, STANLEY
HUBBARD BROADCASTING • CEO
IndividualSAINT PAUL, MN
$5,000
Sep 17, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 81 nodes and 45 connections (73 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $251,230

Top Donors - Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.90

    Section 3(a) establishes deadlines for processing mortgage packages on Indian land, which will facilitate residential and business mortgages, thereby benefiting real estate developers, lenders, and related services operating on tribal trust lands.

  • +Commercial Banksconfidence 0.85

    Section 3(a) requires timely processing of mortgage packages, including land mortgages for home acquisition and economic development, which will increase lending activity and benefit commercial banks that provide such loans on Indian land.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.70

    Section 3(a)(1)(D) includes mortgages for 'economic development,' which could support infrastructure projects on tribal lands, potentially benefiting electric utilities involved in such development.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 5 contributions
    • VEENIS, JON$3,000
    • DOLD, MINDY$2,000
    • HEWITT, CHARLES$250

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill improves mortgage processing on tribal trust land, directly supporting the Project 2025 objective of strengthening Indian housing programs within the Department of the Interior and enhancing efficiency, homeownership, and economic development in tribal communities."

Key themes:Indian housing programsDepartment of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairmortgage processing efficiencyhomeownership and economic developmentfederal agency reform

— 512 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise housing model. At best, any new public investments will provide maintenance funds to bring substandard housing units and properties up to livability standards but will still fail to address larger aims of upward mobility and dynamism for local housing markets where land can be sold by PHAs and put to greater economic use, thereby benefiting entire local economies through greater private investment, productivity and employment opportunities, and increased tax revenue. Any long-term view of HUD’s future must include maintaining the strong financial operations and reliable reporting that are needed to run a $50 billion- per-year agency. Before the Trump Administration, HUD effectively did not have a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for eight years, and HUD’s financial infrastructure inevitably deteriorated. The department’s auditors were unable to conclude that HUD’s internal operations were producing accurate financial reporting. The audi- tors had identified multiple material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the department’s internal financial controls. Overall, the deterioration of HUD’s financial infrastructure led to a lack of accountability with respect to the use of taxpayer funds as well as to pervasive difficulties with operations and program implementation. However, by hiring a new CFO from the private sector with a proven track record of visionary leadership, HUD was able to implement an agencywide governance structure that improved its financial processes and internal controls and harnessed the power of innovative new technologies to bring a modernized business mindset to the agency’s financial infrastructure. By the end of the Trump Administration, for the first time in nearly a decade, HUD was able to address all of its previously identified material weaknesses, and the auditors were able to issue their first clean audit report on HUD’s financial statements and internal controls. Finally, and more fundamentally, Congress could consider a wholesale overhaul of HUD that contemplates devolving many HUD functions to states and localities with any remaining federal functions consolidated to other federal agencies (for example, by transferring loan guarantee programs to SBA; moving Indian housing programs to the Department of the Interior; moving rental assistance, mortgage insurance programs, and GNMA to a redesignated Housing and Home Finance Agency). Generally, this reform path could consolidate some programs, elimi- nate others that have failed to produce meaningful long-run results, and narrow the scope of many programs so that they are closer to what they were when they were created. — 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Moderate
Vector: 65%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on reducing regulatory delays in housing processes, particularly through streamlining mortgage approvals on tribal land to improve access and efficiency. While it does not directly address DEI/CRT concerns or foreign market interference, it supports administrative reforms that reduce barriers to homeownership, which overlaps with HUD reform goals."

Key themes:administrative reformmortgage processing efficiencyhomeownership accessregulatory streamliningtribal housing development

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing regulatory delays in housing processes by streamlining mortgage approval timelines on tribal land, which supports broader housing supply and affordability objectives. However, it does not directly address DEI/CRT/ESG reforms, foreign market interference, or specific HUD pilot programs mentioned in the policy section."

Key themes:regulatory reformhousing supplymortgage processing efficiencyadministrative streamlining

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills