Housing and Urban Development (HUD) layoffs as orchestrated by HUD Secretary Scott Turner are rooted in a longstanding critique of the agency’s size, mission, and effectiveness. Influential policy blueprints, such as the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” call for dramatic reductions in HUD’s workforce, a reorientation of its mission, and a shift toward privatization and state/local control. This approach is not simply about cost-cutting. It reflects a deeper ideological belief that housing policy should be less centralized, more market-driven, and less focused on direct federal intervention.
Key tenets of HUD’s approach
- Shrink the federal bureaucracy
- HUD leadership argues that HUD is bloated, inefficient, and has strayed from its core mission. They advocate for large-scale layoffs—potentially eliminating up to half the agency’s workforce—to streamline operations and reduce what they see as unnecessary federal oversight.
- Project 2025 recommends removing career staff from federal agencies via reforms like “Schedule F,” making it easier to replace them with appointees aligned with the administration’s priorities.
- Privatization and deregulation
- Policy proposals favor selling public housing to private developers, repealing regulations that they believe stifle market activity, and focusing HUD’s efforts on tax credits and mortgage incentives for developers and homeowners rather than direct aid to residents.
- There is a strong emphasis on cutting or eliminating programs viewed as perpetuating dependency, such as housing vouchers and public housing, and instead promoting independence through market mechanisms and opportunity.
- Shift responsibility to states and localities
- HUD leadership believes that housing policy should be primarily managed at the state and local level, not by Washington. Project 2025 and similar agendas call for transferring many HUD functions to state or local governments and converting funding into block grants with fewer federal strings attached.
- This approach is justified by the belief that local control allows for more tailored, efficient, and accountable use of resources.
- End “Housing First” and related policies
- Many are critical of the “Housing First” approach, which prioritizes providing housing to homeless individuals before addressing issues like addiction or mental health. They argue this has not reduced homelessness—in fact, after decades of Housing First programming, homelessness has increased while implementation costs continue to rise. HUD, instead, proposes making housing aid conditional on participation in treatment or work programs.
- Conservative think tanks, such as the Manhattan Institute and Cicero Institute, advocate for block-granting homelessness funds and requiring stricter eligibility criteria.
Arguments for HUD Layoffs
- Fiscal discipline: Reducing HUD staff and programs is framed as necessary to rein in federal spending, reduce the deficit, and shrink government’s footprint.
- Efficiency: Conservatives claim that a smaller, more focused HUD would be less bureaucratic and more effective, especially if it partners with the private sector and devolves power to states and localities.
- Market solutions: There is a belief that the private market, if unburdened by excessive regulation and federal intervention, can better address housing shortages and affordability.
Critiques of HUD’s current role
- Mission creep: Many argue HUD has expanded far beyond its original mandate, engaging in social engineering and progressive policy experiments (such as DEI, ESG, and anti-discrimination initiatives) that they see as unrelated to core housing needs.
- Ineffectiveness: Some contend that decades of federal housing programs have failed to solve homelessness or housing affordability, justifying a radical overhaul or even dismantling of HUD.
- Workforce protections: In working to remove entrenched bureaucrats, officials acknowledge that civil service protections make mass firings difficult, so alternative tactics (like relocating offices) may be used to encourage attrition.
Potential concerns
It is worth noting that some caution against overly hasty or indiscriminate cuts. They warn that:
- Slashing HUD staff without a clear transition plan could disrupt essential services, delay housing projects, and even increase costs due to inefficiency.
- FHA programs, which are self-sustaining and support first-time homebuyers, could be undermined by staff reductions, potentially harming the very market mechanisms many support.
- There is a risk of unintended consequences for local governments and private contractors who rely on HUD funding and contracts.
HUD goals vs. unintended outcomes
| Goal | Intended outcome | Risks |
| Shrink HUD workforce | Smaller government, lower costs | Service disruptions, knowledge drain |
| Privatize/marketize housing policy | Increased efficiency, private investment | Reduced access for vulnerable groups |
| Shift to state/local control | Tailored, accountable programs | Asymmetrical quality, funding disparities |
| End “Housing First” | Greater personal responsibility, reduced dependency | Lack of service for severely, uncooperative mentally ill |
The take away
HUD layoffs are not merely about trimming the budget but fundamentally reimagining the federal role in housing. It prioritizes downsizing the agency, privatizing functions, localizing power to the states, and shifting away from government assistance to market-based solutions.
HUD under Secretary Turner will focus on restoring fiscal discipline and government efficiency. Instead, public assistance will rely on a network of humanitarian aid by churches and social organizations. Such organizations are better able to provide a support network around the individual and address issues of accountability. Rather than enabling mental illness and addiction, it reorders the process to stabilize the individual—resetting the priority of “individuals first.”
