By Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation; Joshua Drumming, Staff Attorney; and Charisse Lue, Staff Attorney

On July 28, D.C.’s FY 2026 budget process concluded. From the start, the budget season was riddled with delays and extensions caused by a series of local and congressional budget actions. Unfortunately, the mayor’s proposed budget left much to be desired. Once again, it underfunded or failed to fund critical housing resources and programs within the Department of Human Services (DHS), setting up another fiscal year in which D.C.’s lowest-income residents have to split inequitable investments. Like last year, those who need the most support in the budget had to do the most advocacy to have their needs represented in D.C. Council’s final budget. While several months of advocacy resulted in a less harmful budget than originally intended by the mayor and some important investments, the final FY26 Budget was an extremely disappointing budget for housing resources. D.C. government and its residents will certainly feel the impact of the overall disinvestment in the year to come.

Over the last couple of years, despite increasing homelessness, the mayor funded no new housing vouchers in her proposed budgets. All vouchers that ended up in the budget were solely D.C. Council investments. This year, we were pleased to see an initial voucher investment by the mayor to fund 156 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)-Family vouchers (for families being terminated by the mayor’s administration from the Family Re-Housing Stabilization Program (FRSP)). However, the mayor included zero housing vouchers for homeless individuals. Of course, the best way to end homelessness in D.C. is by adequately funding vouchers of all types (PSH, TAH, and LRSP) for individuals and families. Fortunately, D.C. Council funded an additional 160 Targeted Affordable Housing (TAH) vouchers and twenty (20) PSH-Family vouchers in the final budget. Those vouchers will end homelessness for hundreds of households with minor children; however, a total of 336 housing vouchers is still less than nine percent (9%) of the family voucher need. Unfortunately, individuals experiencing homelessness were fully neglected in the final FY26 budget, receiving no funding at all for safe, permanent housing, for the first time in over a decade. This lack of investment in housing resources for individuals is particularly shameful and devastating as unsheltered residents are targeted by the local and federal government for simply existing in public spaces.

The dismantling of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) continued in this budget, and the mayor funded even less for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) than last year. Even with an additional D.C. Council investment, the final FY26 amount ($8.6 million) is approximately sixty-eight percent (68%) less than in FY25 (FY26 investment will increase to $11.6M if there is later revenue growth). The total FY26 investment to fund repairs and rehabilitation of DCHA’s aged and dilapidated public housing stock was also less than in previous years. While the mayor made a FY26 and FY27 investment, the FY26 final amount ($26.2 million) was significantly less than previous years and approximately forty-four percent (44%) of the annual recommendation. We were pleased to see the mayor return to fully funding the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) at $100 million, the recommended investment. In the final FY26 budget, D.C. Council increased the funding to $110 million, provided there is later revenue growth.

Two of the most notable housing advocacy “wins” in the FY26 budget were the removal of unexpected policies proposed by the mayor in the Budget Support Act (BSA). In one subtitle, the mayor attempted to quietly change the definition and eligibility for project-based LRSP, raising the limit from 0-30% AMI to 0-50% AMI and creating an incentive for further neglect of deeply affordable housing creation by developers. This change would have had a critical impact on D.C.’s affordable housing creation infrastructure, reversing the recent D.C. progress in HPTF funding of 0-30% AMI housing development. Fortunately, D.C. Council advocacy prevailed, and the proposed change was removed from the BSA. In another subtitle, the mayor attempted to reverse established law that requires D.C. to provide non-congregate (private) shelter to families experiencing homelessness. Hundreds of advocates and community members joined together to successfully convince D.C. Council to stop the mayor’s covert attempt to change long-standing D.C. policy and increase harm to families with minor children seeking emergency shelter. These policy proposals were removed from the FY26 BSA and are evidence that hard-fought advocacy works; however, they were advocacy “fights” that never should have had to happen.

Unfortunately, in the same BSA subtitle where the mayor attempted to roll back family shelter protections, she, for a consecutive year, successfully proposed legislation to further harm Rapid Re-Housing Program families and individuals by removing program protections so that participants could be terminated more quickly. In particular, participants will no longer have the right to stay in the program while they appeal an exit, meaning hundreds of households will face eviction for unpaid rent before they ever have a hearing on whether the exit was lawful.

D.C. is too well-resourced to continue the pattern of de-prioritizing the human service needs of its residents. Between the additional cuts to ERAP, D.C. Council limiting eligibility for emergency rental assistance (ERAP), underinvestment in housing vouchers, the termination of families and individuals from the Rapid Re-Housing Program, and further FY26 cuts to ERAP funding, homelessness and housing insecurity will undoubtedly increase. The yearly decision to prioritize slashing the funds and programming for critical human services and needs has real and debilitating consequences for D.C. residents and the homeless services system. The unfortunate reality is that D.C. government will have to pay for its disinvestment, one way or another. Insufficient investment in permanent affordable housing and eviction prevention now will result in more harm and increased need later. We must continue to urge D.C. government to prioritize the basic needs of its residents, elevate the resources and investments that keep people safely and permanently housed, and disrupt the pattern of disinvestment towards marginalized communities that has become all too familiar.

** Check out all of Legal Clinic’s 2025 funding and reform recommendations here.  

On Monday, July 14, the D.C. Council will take its first vote on our local budget and many legal changes that will impact the lives of D.C. residents. As we discussed here, the mayor’s budget proposal was regressive and harmful, hardly befitting a city where the vast majority of residents support progressive and humane economic and social policies. The Council has already reversed some of these harmful proposals, but when it comes to responding to the ever-growing gap between household income and the cost of rent, both branches of government are failing D.C. residents, particularly those who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness.

For individuals experiencing homelessness, there is not one dime in this budget to end homelessness. Not one permanent supportive housing voucher, proven time and time again to be the most effective intervention to permanently end one’s chronic homelessness. Not one local housing voucher for the thousands who have been waiting on the housing waitlist for decades. To compound the harm, despite there being very few shelter spaces available and no housing funded, the mayor is devoting $900,000 to fund encampment evictions.

For families experiencing homelessness, while there are some housing vouchers in the current version of the budget, the budget proposes terminating more families from housing than it does supporting them with housing—resulting in a deliberate, government-caused net increase in family homelessness. Here is a loose timeline leading up to today of the failures of the mayor and the Council in the past few years to solve family homelessness in a humane, nontraumatic way:

• Mayor Bowser announced, post public health emergency, that too many families were in rapid re-housing. She proposed solving this problem by terminating thousands of families from their housing.
• The Council agreed with families and advocates that that is not the right approach. Chairman Mendelson proposed fixing the program via the Rapid Re-housing Reform Amendment Act. (Some more information here, and yes, we were wrong to be so optimistic about the chance for reform.)
• The Council never moved the bill forward, despite near-unanimous support at the public hearing.
• The Council did, unanimously and repeatedly, pass emergency and temporary legislation ensuring that families be offered an opportunity for extensions in the program.
• The mayor claimed there are still too many families in the program. She proposed legislation to “fix” that problem—not by helping people secure more stable long-term housing, or by helping people increase their income so they can afford rent. Instead, the mayor proposed terminating even more families, but faster, by no longer providing extensions and by taking away most of the legal rights people have in the program, including fair hearings.
• The vast majority of the Council strongly opposed this legislation. The agency claimed there were tremendous cost savings to be had when gutting the legal rights of the people it serves. The legislation passed when the Council failed, despite their stated opposition, to secure enough money to pay for the removal from the Budget Support Act. More info here.
• Over three thousand families received termination notices over the next year. Only about half were able to transition into a permanent housing program. The rest will lose or have already lost all of their housing support and face rising rental debt and eviction.
• The Council passed legislation that makes families in rapid re-housing ineligible for emergency rental assistance when they lose their rental support, removing the very last safety net for avoiding eviction.

That brings us to present time. The mayor has decided that the Department of Human Services should be able to terminate people in rapid re-housing even more quickly, and that participants still have too many rights. She proposed yet another Budget Support Act subtitle eliminating more rights, making the program even more draconian. (Note: proposing such changes in the Budget Support Act ensures there will be no public hearing and that there will be no Racial Equity Impact Statement performed by the Council.) This time she proposed stopping the rent payments before someone even has their appeal heard. She stripped away the right to an extension, giving the agency director “sole and absolute discretion” on extensions.

Most likely recognizing that the impact of these mass housing terminations will surely soon be felt in increased family homelessness, the mayor chose once again not to solve that problem in a humane or even logical way–by keeping families housed. No, her solution is to remove health and safety protections in the law for family shelter—so she can place families with minor children in the same sleeping quarters as strangers.

As a reminder, Mayor Bowser ran on a platform of not placing families in congregate settings, stating that: “I will not treat our homeless families like emergency flood victims, housing them in city recreation centers.” The Council, including then Councilmember Bowser, has twice—in 2010 and 2014—unanimously rejected proposals to force families to share sleeping quarters.  When families filed a class action in 2014 after Mayor Gray placed homeless families in recreation centers, a judge concluded that: “As to those named Plaintiffs who have not been placed in apartments or private rooms the court finds that they, particularly the children, incur increased risk of communicable disease, are denied adequate privacy and physical security, are likely to experience emotional trauma and stress, hence are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a restraining order.”

In other words, so far, the mayor has proposed “solving” housing unaffordability for individuals by failing to fund any housing that would end their homelessness and instead increasing encampment evictions. For families, her solution is kicking families out of housing, eviscerating their legal rights, and then forcing children to sleep next to strangers. The Council so far, while sometimes opposing this approach in their words, has failed to effectively put a stop to this pervasive harm against unhoused D.C. residents. The Council must reject any language that puts children at risk in shelter and either fix rapid re-housing or fund enough housing vouchers so that families can exit the program without cycling back into homelessness.

Raise your voice. Tell the mayor and the Council that they must stop failing unhoused D.C. residents. Ask them to remove harmful Budget Support Act language (“Subtitle K”) that will increase rapid re-housing terminations and force families into shared sleeping quarters with strangers. Tell them to fund housing vouchers to end homelessness permanently.

Take action here!

Update: from our friends at Fair Budget Coalition, please come to the Wilson building (1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW) on Monday, July 14 at 9AM for a rally and at 11AM to pack the vote. RSVP here.

By Amber W. Harding, Executive Director, and Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation

In Washington D.C., the lack of statehood has become increasingly urgent and impactful. In a jurisdiction where 92% of voters are registered as Democrats, but where it is uniquely subject to the whims and consolidated power of President Trump and Congressional Republicans, D.C.’s elected leaders may feel stuck “between a rock and a hard place.” They must withstand a steady stream of misinformation, inflammatory statements, and pressure from Congress while feeling compelled to bite their tongues in fear of retaliation or the repeal of Home Rule, i.e., the ability to govern ourselves. Nevertheless, Mayor Bowser’s recent proposal for policy and spending priorities represents a far more regressive approach than can be explained by a reasonable fear of losing autonomy.

D.C. is, of course, a city with its own stated values and priorities. Our local human rights law is easily one of the most inclusive and expansive in the country. D.C. has declared itself a human rights city. Despite the economic displacement of Black and brown residents over the past few decades, D.C. remains a diverse and majority-minority jurisdiction. We are not a city without its struggles, but we have made progress over the years in embracing change, understanding and responding to systemic oppression in a humane way, rejecting myths and stereotypes, and supporting data-based solutions when crafting legislation and policy.

Now, because of the actions of the president and Congress, many more people in our community are suffering. Many have lost their jobs or are about to—so many that D.C. is on the brink of a recession. Many who were already searching for work find the job market flooded with people with decades of government experience. Immigrants, documented or not, are scared—they are seeing ICE show up masked and in plain clothes at their children’s schools and at their workplaces. People who are transgender are worried about losing their jobs, their healthcare, and more. People staying on the street are worried about being forced to move, losing all of their belongings, or being arrested for sleeping outside. Women are worried about losing reproductive and economic freedoms. Black and brown residents are worried about the increasingly overt racism and the loss of their civil rights.

When people are experiencing harm at the hands of the federal government, it is even more critical that they can trust their local government to stand up for their rights and to insulate them from further harm.  Mayor’s Bowser proposal, however, not only fails to insulate D.C. residents from the harmful federal actions, but it actually furthers the harm to those communities. For example, the proposal repeals sanctuary city protections, defunds the Office of Migrant Services, abolishes the D.C. Healthcare Alliance (the locally funded healthcare program that serves many immigrants who cannot qualify for Medicaid), and effectively excludes immigrant families seeking asylum from lifesaving emergency shelter and housing programs. Mayor Bowser’s proposal does not just capitulate to threats of losing federal funding; instead, it goes much further than even the most cautious and fearful political leader might suggest.

Beyond anything arguably responsive to federal pressures, the mayor’s budget proposal reverses decades of progress and reflects a very regressive view of D.C. and its residents. On the brink of a recession, when the job market is more competitive than ever and housing unaffordability is at its height, there are increased sanctions on families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), cuts to the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a stricter arbitrary time limit for participants in the Rapid Re-Housing Program. At a time when, both, the federal government and the local government are aggressively evicting people from encampments, there are no housing vouchers funded to move those unhoused individuals into housing. While there are funds proposed for D.C.’s public housing repairs and some voucher resources for families being terminated from the failing Rapid Re-Housing Program, the amounts are nowhere near the need. While money is allocated to the Housing Production Trust Fund for affordable housing creation, proposed policy changes threaten the future of housing production for residents at the lowest-income levels. Despite a news cycle that constantly reminds us of the harm that unchecked executive power can have and of the importance of due process, the mayor’s proposal gives unchecked discretion to herself in multiple areas, including “sole and absolute” discretion to refuse housing subsidy extensions, cut people off of housing benefits prior to any opportunity for review of the decision, and send unhoused D.C. families with children to crowded, congregate shelters.

What is to be gained by Home Rule if our local laws and lawmakers refuse to reflect our local values? D.C. residents deserve better than the mayor’s proposed budget. They expect elected officials to stand up for them through an unwavering commitment to asserted D.C. values. There is still time for D.C. Council to mitigate the harm of the mayor’s budget and ensure that the final budget “looks like” D.C. We must continue to urge D.C. government to prioritize the basic needs of its residents and elevate the policies, resources, and investments that keep people safe and protected in all aspects of their life.