Summary#
The HOME Reform Act of 2025 would amend the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, which governs the federal HOME Investment Partnerships program. Its stated goal is to encourage more decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing, with primary attention to rentals. The bill is not law; it was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- It would define “infill housing project” and set a 100%-of-area-median-income limit in several listed HOME assistance provisions.
- It would limit when the Secretary may restrict participating jurisdictions’ choice of eligible housing uses, and allow some nonentitlement jurisdictions to use HOME funds for nearby housing-related infrastructure.
- It would change rental and homeownership affordability rules, including rules for voucher tenants, long-term affordability, military homeowners and heirs.
- It would remove a deadline for drawing certain HOME funds and require funds reserved for community housing development organizations to be released to the jurisdiction for other eligible uses if uninvested for 24 months.
- It would exempt specified housing activities from federal environmental review under NEPA, and seek to prevent some duplicative reviews.
- It would also change labor-requirement thresholds, exempt HOME activities from Build America, Buy America requirements, and exempt some small projects from specified HUD Act requirements.
What it means for you#
- Participating jurisdictions: The Secretary generally could not restrict your choice among listed eligible housing uses unless another part of the law explicitly allows it. Some jurisdictions that do not receive assistance under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 could use HOME funds for water and sewer lines, sidewalks, roads and utility connections directly related to and within or immediately beside qualifying housing. The Secretary must issue rules for this within one year of enactment.
- Tenants using Section 8 vouchers: A rental unit could qualify as affordable under HOME if the tenant’s rent contribution stays within the Section 8 limit and the public housing agency approves the total rent.
- Homebuyers and homeowners: The bill raises a specified homeownership threshold from 95% to 110%, and adds ways to maintain affordability for future eligible buyers. A jurisdiction may waive or suspend income qualifications for certain deployed military owners. Qualifying housing may also continue to count as affordable when a deceased owner’s heir or beneficiary lives there and assumes the owner’s duties tied to HOME funds.
- Housing developers and workers: The labor-requirement threshold in the amended provision would rise from projects with 12 or more units to projects with 24 or more. Qualifying projects with 50 or fewer units would also be exempt from specified requirements under section 3 of the HUD Act if assistance goes to a state recipient or a jurisdiction with an allocation below $3 million in the most recent fiscal year.
- People affected by housing projects: The bill would remove NEPA review for listed categories, including qualifying infill projects, acquisitions for affordable housing, certain rehabilitation, and new construction of 15 units or fewer. It does not remove other environmental laws.
- General public: The bill changes rules for an existing program; it does not create a new independent agency or guarantee that housing will be built or become available to any particular person.
Money#
No cost estimate is in the supplied material. No publicly available information.
- The bill would allow HOME funds to pay for certain infrastructure improvements and would redirect some uninvested reserved funds to other eligible activities.
- It sets no new appropriation or estimate for staffing, rulemaking, or added costs to jurisdictions.
- The bill would remove the second sentence of an existing per-unit investment limitation, but the provided material does not show that sentence or its cost effect.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the current Act, so the existing rules—and the exact effects of several amendments, including the removed per-unit limitation—could not be verified against current law.
- The bill does not explain how the new 100% income limit changes each listed assistance provision in practice, or how the 110% threshold affects homeownership qualifications and asset recycling.
- The Secretary must set rules for some changes, but the bill does not give details such as application processes, decision timelines, appeals, or oversight.
- “Substantially surrounded” is to be determined by the Secretary. The bill does not give a test for that determination.
- The bill gives no general start date. Passage is uncertain; it is an introduced bill.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give local jurisdictions more flexibility to choose housing uses and address infrastructure near affordable housing.
- Allowing certain voucher-supported rentals to qualify could make it easier for HOME-supported housing to serve voucher tenants.
- Longer-term affordability options could help keep some homes affordable for future eligible buyers.
- Removing duplicative reviews and exempting specified projects from NEPA review could reduce review steps for some housing projects.
Case against#
- Some housing projects would receive fewer environmental reviews, and the bill does not explain what safeguards would replace those reviews or how effects on nearby communities would be addressed.
- Raising the labor threshold and exempting some projects from other requirements could reduce protections or requirements that currently apply; the supplied material does not detail the practical impact.
- Releasing reserved funds after 24 months without requiring community housing development organization participation could reduce those organizations’ role in how the funds are used.
- The bill expands allowable uses and changes eligibility and review rules without providing cost estimates or enough detail to judge how jurisdictions will apply them.