Proposal Shortchanges Many Core HUD Programs
On March 11, President Biden released his fiscal year FY 25 budget request. The request includes $72.6 billion in discretionary HUD funding, which is a 3.6 percent increase from FY 24 enacted levels. Despite this modest increase, though, the President has proposed flat or reduced funding for several core HUD programs, including:
- An 8% cut from FY 24 levels for the public housing operating fund.
- Flat funding for the public housing capital fund.
- A modest 2.7% increase to renew existing Housing Choice Vouchers.
- A 7.0% increase for voucher administrative fees, after this account had its funding reduced in FY 24.
The table below provides more details on the budget request. Interested members can find the full budget request, detailed HUD budget estimates, and a HUD budget fact sheet on the White House website.
As noted in the most recent edition of the Advocate, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) established strict discretionary spending caps in both the FY 24 and FY 25 budgets. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that the President’s budget request cuts funding to the public housing operating fund and—for the second year in a row—does not increase desperately needed public housing capital funding.
Additional Mandatory Funding Requests
Similar to last year, the President also included new mandatory funding requests. Mandatory funding represents accounts that are not subject to the yearly Congressional appropriations process, such as entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Approximately three-quarters of all federal spending is classified as mandatory.
Mandatory spending requests in the President’s budget include:
- $9 billion to guarantee voucher assistance to youth aging out of foster care.
- $13 billion to guarantee voucher assistance to all veterans.
- $7.5 billion to modernize aging public housing communities.
- $7.5 billion for new project-based rental assistance contracts.
While PHADA appreciates the President identifying these key priorities for mandatory funding and they help illustrate the vast needs, the Association considers it highly unlikely that this Congress will fund these programs.