NHC has been clear that enactment of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, includes legislation that will make a historic contribution to the nation’s affordable housing and community development needs. The bill includes a major increase in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), permanent reauthorization of the New Markets Tax Credit, permanent preservation of the mortgage interest deduction, reinstatement of the mortgage insurance premium deduction, and an expanded and permanent Opportunity Zones (OZ) incentive that includes much needed reporting requirements absent in its 2017 version. However, the House Appropriations Committee’s proposal to eliminate funding for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program in FY2026 is a fundamental misstep, which if accepted by the Senate, would undercut the achievements of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and hamstring federal efforts to address the housing affordability crisis currently being experienced across the country.
HOME is the only federal grant program that gives local leaders the resources and flexibility they need to tackle their communities’ unique housing crises. HOME enables states and cities to increase the supply of affordable homes through tailored approaches: building and rehabilitating affordable rental housing, driving homeownership with down payment help, and providing tenant-based rental assistance where it’s needed most. It is also a critical source of gap financing for LIHTC projects. The millions of new affordable units anticipated to be developed under the expansions to Housing Credit in OBBBA depend on the continuation of HOME funding.
HOME’s locally-directed funding supports both homeownership and rental development, and offers tenant-based rental assistance—allowing local agencies to target resources, not just fill federal quotas. Since the program’s inception in 1992, HOME funds have been used to build or preserve more than 1.35 million affordable homes, provide direct rental assistance to 430,000 households, and help countless working families buy their first home.
For every federal dollar, HOME attracts an average of $4.76 in additional public and private capital—the kind of leverage we want and need in an era of increasingly constrained budgets. According to the latest HOME Coalition analysis, the program has generated over $140 billion in local income and created upward of 2 million jobs.
State by state, HOME is the difference-maker for local markets:
- In Mississippi: over 11,000 homes built or preserved since the program’s start, leveraging $1.9 billion in investments, supporting over 18,500 local jobs, and generating $1.2 billion in income.
- In Arkansas: more than 15,000 homes built or preserved, nearly $2.1 billion in leveraged investment, and 20,000 jobs supported.
- In South Carolina: 22,000 homes, $2.8 billion in investments leveraged, over 26,000 jobs supported, and $1.7 billion in local income.
For communities trying to stabilize rising rents, keep seniors in their homes, or provide safe, attainable paths to homeownership, HOME is the irreplaceable gap-filler.
Why did the House Committee zero out HOME? The Committee’s report says existing funding for the temporary HOME-ARP program will suffice for the coming year. Unfortunately, that reasoning doesn’t hold up. HOME-ARP and HOME are not interchangeable. HOME-ARP was designed as a one-time emergency COVID-19 response, focused on homelessness and populations below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI). It can’t be used for homeowner programs, new construction, or the kind of broad-based, locally designed efforts communities count on from regular HOME funding. It is also temporary funding and does not allow for long-term planning.
HOME, by contrast, is the only ongoing, flexible housing block grant that addresses both rental and ownership challenges. Its eligible uses stretch well beyond what HOME-ARP allows—serving families up to 80% AMI, promoting homeownership, enabling necessary repairs for aging in place, and targeting assistance where it best fits shifting local demand. HOME-ARP was saddled with a unique, one-time regulatory regime—so complex that HUD gave grantees until 2030 to spend down their allocations. Local agencies are making careful, multi-year plans for those dollars; counting them as an annual replacement is simply inaccurate and short-sighted. Anecdotally, some states have shared that dollars have already been obligated, if not disbursed, but are not reflected as such due to processing delays locally and with HUD.
We can’t ignore the downstream impact on other housing investments. Congress recently expanded the LIHTC, a critical driver of affordable rental housing. But without gap financing from HOME, many LIHTC projects will simply stall out. The full magnitude of recent LIHTC expansion will not reach communities unless Congress restores adequate annual funding for the core HOME program.
HOME brings communities together. It has broad bipartisan support among mayors, governors, non-profits, developers, and the business community. Over 800 housing and community groups have urged Congress to restore and expand HOME funding. They understand that eliminating HOME would endanger local projects for both renters and owners, undermining supply at the worst possible time. This would only worsen cost burdens for working families, seniors, and those on the economic margins.
The housing market is already under tremendous supply strain. Without renewed investment in HOME, state and local leaders will lose the only funding they can direct where it’s most needed. The program is proven, flexible, and effective—everything Congress says it wants in affordable housing policy.
That is not to say the program is perfect. It isn’t. HOME regulations can be too bureaucratic, delaying vitally needed projects, which unnecessarily increase costs. Many of these regulatory burdens are required in the HOME statute. That is why congressional authorizers from both parties in both chambers are working on changes to HOME that would streamline requirements and improve its effectiveness. House Financial Services Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Chair Mike Flood (R-NE) has been working with Subcommittee Ranking Member Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) on legislation to reauthorize and strengthen HOME, and dozens of experts from communities across America are assisting them in this work. Flood released a draft bill and held a hearing on it this week, where he emphasized that his interest in HOME began because it is a program that is specifically geared towards building housing supply, which is the best way to address continued affordability challenges. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) has also authored the HOME Investment Partnerships Reauthorization and Improvement Act. Environmental reviews need to be streamlined, ending duplicative requirements in different programs. Multiple wage reporting systems add complexity and cost. Build America Buy America requirements inflate costs and add delays. And property inspection requirements are often duplicative and unnecessary. This important bipartisan work should not be undercut by slashing the HOME program.
There is no substitute for robust annual funding for the core HOME program. One-time emergency interventions can’t replace steady, locally-controlled investment in solutions that work for America’s communities. Congress must provide no less than $1.5 billion in final FY26 appropriations for HOME. Anything less is a retreat from the commitment this country made to ensuring every American has access to a quality, affordable home in a thriving community.
On July 17, the ACTION Campaign’s Steering Committee sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to protect HOME funding for their FY 26 appropriations bill. ACTION does not typically weigh in on appropriated programs, but HOME is an essential source of gap financing for LIHTC. They have noted that 15-20 percent of LIHTC units per year rely on HOME funding.
Now is the time to make sure our Senators understand how we use HOME in their states. When they are home during the August recess, they need to be invited to meet at the projects where HOME has been successful and hear from developers, homebuilders, building owners and constituents why we need to keep this vital program well-funded.