At the Cato Institute, Chris Edwards makes the case for cutting HUD, citing new Cato research by Howard Husock that describes the damage caused by federal intervention in the housing market. Edwards writes:

Congress has passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, which trims spending on Medicaid and food stamps. More spending cuts are needed—both because we have large budget deficits and because many federal activities would be better handled by the states and the private sector.

The Trump administration has proposed reforms to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including cuts to rental subsidies and public housing. These two activities cost federal taxpayers more than $50 billion a year.

We’ve posted a new study by Howard Husock on rental subsidies and public housing. Howard describes the history of federal intervention, the damage caused, and the advantages of devolving activities to the states.

Affordable housing is a big concern in many parts of the nation, but the states have the power to tackle housing problems with their own tax and regulatory reforms. The Trump budget proposal for 2026 prioritizes federalism, and most HUD activities are unneeded intrusions into state, local, and private affairs.

Read more here.