Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers at Nashville symposium warn HUD funding shifts could undercut housing-first; litigation and advocacy urged
Summary
At Nashville's 2026 State of Homelessness Symposium, national and policy experts warned that recent HUD funding notices and related federal proposals risk diverting money away from proven housing-first programs; presenters urged litigation, congressional pressure and local tactics (encampment prioritization, hospital partnerships) to protect renewals and services.
Donald Whitehead Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, and Dr. Richard Cho, managing director at Manet Health, used keynote addresses at the State of Homelessness Symposium in Nashville to sound an alarm about recent federal actions they say could weaken long-standing housing-first investments.
Whitehead opened by thanking Nashville for joining a multi-jurisdictional lawsuit challenging newly released federal policy changes and said those changes carry the "threat of maybe at least 97,000 people losing their housing" if enacted as proposed. He described a national trend of sustained homelessness flows, growing numbers of people 55 and older among the unsheltered, and federal proposals that, he said, include time limits, work requirements and conditions that would reduce housing-first effectiveness.
Dr. Richard Cho framed recent Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) actions as a shift in tactics rather than a sincere programmatic redesign. Cho summarized last year's HUD notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) that proposed caps and eligibility changes for permanent supportive housing renewals and said a newer notice uses a $1.7 billion set-aside for transitional and supportive-services-only projects in a way that effectively reduces renewal dollars for existing projects. Cho said coalitions of states, national organizations and local jurisdictions (including Nashville) sued on Administrative Procedure Act grounds and that litigation has so far changed HUD's approach.
Both speakers identified three core defenses for communities: pursue legal challenges where the agency exceeds statutory authority, press Congress through constituent advocacy to preserve renewals and appropriations, and protect local program stability by diversifying funding and prioritizing projects that are most at risk.
"Litigation works," Cho said, noting that litigation helped force HUD to revise the most disruptive parts of last year's NOFO. Whitehead urged attendees to "have your voices heard by your elected officials" and to organize constituents to counter policy changes that would criminalize poverty.
Speakers emphasized practical local responses: prioritize rapid connections for people in visible encampments, invest in in-place behavioral health interventions that adhere to housing-first practice models, and seek partnerships with hospitals and other institutions that may have surplus real estate or capacity to invest in housing. Cho and Whitehead both warned that set-asides or other funding shifts should not be treated as routine agency discretion when Congress has not specified them.
Ending note: presenters recommended a three-part local strategy — legal defense of federal funding rules, sustained constituent advocacy in congressional offices, and operational preparedness to protect renewal-dependent projects — while also calling for sustained storytelling from programs that demonstrate housing-first outcomes to counter ideological attacks.
