The Department of Housing and Urban Development has circulated a proposed rule that would allow local housing authorities and participating private landlords to set strict time limits and work requirements on federal rental subsidies. Under the plan, jurisdictions could impose term limits as short as two years and require up to 40 hours of work per week. Elderly and disabled recipients would be exempt from the new requirements.
The proposal echoes provisions from President Trump’s 2025 White House budget—chiefly a two-year limit and deep cuts to aid—that Congress rejected. If finalized, HUD would be implementing similar policies administratively rather than through new legislation. Housing Secretary Scott Turner has framed the move as a way to promote self-sufficiency and reduce long-term dependency on federal aid; last year he and three other Cabinet members urged Congress to expand work requirements across safety-net programs.
About 9 million people receive federal housing assistance in the United States. Critics, including the National Housing Law Project and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, argue the rule rests on faulty assumptions and could put millions at risk, particularly while housing costs and homelessness are rising. They note most able-bodied participants already work, and point out that accumulating savings and transitioning off subsidies typically takes time and supportive services. Those critics warn hard time limits could force many families out of assistance and back onto lengthy waiting lists.
Supporters counter that rental assistance is limited, not an entitlement, and that term limits could stretch scarce resources to help more households. Advocates on the right, such as Howard Husock of the American Enterprise Institute, say limits might encourage upward mobility if paired with supports—examples cited include fixed rents and automatic savings mechanisms to help families build assets. Delaware’s housing authority has piloted a flexible 5–7 year limit combined with savings tools as an example of that approach.
The empirical record is mixed. Roughly 3,300 local public agencies administer federal housing programs; about 140 already have flexibility to test time limits and work requirements, and only a few dozen have implemented such policies. Joshua Meehan of the Moving to Work Collaborative says hard term limits have not consistently delivered the hoped-for income gains. Some agencies that tried five-year limits later abandoned them after finding participants had not raised earnings enough to avoid returning to waiting lists.
It is unclear how many housing authorities would adopt the option if the rule is finalized. Scholars also warn that forced, recurring turnover could unsettle private landlords who accept vouchers, complicating housing stability for tenants. The proposed rule has been posted for publication and will be open for a 60-day public comment period before any final action is taken.