HUD Secretary Turner Reverses Obama-Era Affordable Housing Rule Due to Unintended Negative Effects

In a major policy shift, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced the repeal of a Biden-era housing regulation, arguing that it has significantly contributed to the decline of affordable housing across the country. The regulation, known as the 2021 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, was initially put in place to enforce anti-discrimination measures in housing but has been criticized for its overreach into local zoning laws.

HUD Secretary Scott Turner formally announced the decision, calling the rule a “zoning tax” that has led to rising costs, bureaucratic red tape, and unnecessary federal interference in local decision-making. The repeal is the latest effort to roll back regulatory policies that the Trump administration had previously scrapped, only for them to be reinstated under President Joe Biden.

The AFFH rule was originally introduced in 2015 under President Barack Obama, modifying the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to expand federal influence over local zoning laws. The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. However, the Obama administration’s version of the rule went a step further, requiring cities and counties that receive federal housing funds to actively eliminate perceived barriers to fair housing—even if those barriers were the result of local zoning policies rather than intentional discrimination.

The 2015 AFFH regulation imposed a complex certification process on local governments, requiring them to complete an exhaustive 92-question survey and conduct detailed analyses of zoning policies, demographics, and economic disparities. Critics argued that these requirements were costly, time-consuming, and did little to increase housing availability.

During the Trump administration, HUD ended the rule in 2020, arguing that it violated local control, increased housing costs, and failed to achieve meaningful reforms. However, within his first year in office, President Biden reinstated the AFFH regulation, reviving many of its key provisions.

In announcing the repeal, HUD Secretary Scott Turner emphasized that the AFFH rule had done more harm than good, discouraging local development by creating unnecessary hurdles for cities and counties seeking federal funding.

“We recognize that many communities suffered neglect or negative impacts due to the demands of the recent AFFH rules,” Turner stated. “Our goal is to restore power to local governments, remove bureaucratic red tape, and allow market-driven development to flourish.”

The repeal is expected to lead to:
✅ Lower housing costs by reducing compliance expenses and delays.
✅ More local control over zoning and development decisions.
✅ Increased housing supply as fewer restrictions encourage new construction.
✅ Less federal interference in state and municipal housing policies.

Turner pointed out that the AFFH rule essentially penalized suburban and rural areas for having zoning policies that did not align with HUD’s federal guidelines. In some cases, communities were forced to revise zoning laws to accommodate high-density housing projects, regardless of whether those projects suited local needs.

Conservatives and free-market advocates have long argued that the AFFH rule was a prime example of federal overreach, forcing communities to comply with Washington’s vision of housing policy rather than their own. By repealing the rule, HUD is allowing cities and states to make their own zoning decisions without fear of losing federal funds.

According to Fox News, housing experts predict that the repeal will lead to a revitalization of the housing market, as developers and municipalities will no longer have to navigate extensive federal paperwork before breaking ground on new projects.

Newsmax also reports that the move is being welcomed by real estate professionals, who say that government-imposed restrictions stifle housing innovation and discourage investment. The belief is that a free-market approach will lead to more affordable options, rather than the government-mandated solutions that often come with unintended consequences.

Not everyone is on board with HUD’s decision. Liberal housing advocates and civil rights groups claim that repealing the AFFH rule could lead to an increase in discriminatory practices in housing markets. Without federal oversight, they argue, local governments may revert to exclusionary zoning practices, which historically kept minority and low-income residents out of certain neighborhoods.

The New York Times reports that opponents fear the repeal could widen racial and economic segregation in housing markets. Some Democratic lawmakers have already called for legal challenges to prevent the rule’s termination.

Additionally, The Washington Post points out that states like California, New York, and Illinois—which have some of the nation’s most expensive housing markets—could see the cost of affordable housing programs rise as federal funds become less conditional on zoning changes.

The debate over the role of the federal government in housing policy is deeply ideological, reflecting broader tensions between conservative and liberal governance.

Conservatives argue that heavy-handed regulations from Washington stifle development, discourage investment, and make housing more expensive. They believe the free market will naturally correct imbalances and increase affordability.

Progressives argue that without federal oversight, local governments may enact zoning laws that favor wealthier residents, making it harder for low-income families and minorities to access good housing and schools. They see strong federal policies as essential to ensuring fair housing access.

With the 2024 election approaching, the decision to repeal the AFFH rule could become a key campaign issue, especially as housing affordability remains a major concern for Americans.

🚨 If a Republican wins the White House in 2024, further deregulation of the housing sector is likely, with an emphasis on state and local control over zoning laws.
🚨 If Biden or another Democrat remains in power, expect attempts to reinstate and expand federal fair housing mandates.

The decision to eliminate the AFFH rule marks a significant shift in U.S. housing policy, moving away from federal intervention and toward state and local autonomy. While supporters argue it will lower costs and spur new development, critics warn it could lead to a resurgence of discriminatory practices.

Regardless of where one stands, the repeal of the AFFH rule is poised to reshape the nation’s housing landscape—for better or worse. The question remains: Will local governments use their newfound freedom to expand affordable housing, or will the absence of federal oversight create new barriers to fair access?