Heather Colley and her two children moved four times in five years, fleeing rising rents in eastern Tennessee. Like much of rural America, the area has been hit hard by soaring housing costs.
In 2021, a family gift of a small plot of land gave Colley hope for homeownership. But as a 45-year-old single mother and manicurist earning $18.50 an hour, building a house seemed impossible — until she qualified for a $272,000 grant from a nonprofit through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. The funding allowed her to build a three-bedroom home, where she moved in last June.
Related posts
“Every time I pull into my garage, I pinch myself,” Colley said.
Now, former President Donald Trump wants to eliminate the HOME program, and House Republicans left out funding for it in their budget proposal. Experts and state housing agencies warn the move would stall tens of thousands of future affordable housing projects nationwide, especially in Appalachian towns and rural counties where government aid is limited and private investment is scarce.
Since its launch in the 1990s, the program has helped build or repair over 1.3 million affordable homes, including at least 540,000 in rural or semi-rural congressional districts, according to an Associated Press analysis.
“Maybe they don’t realize how far-reaching these programs are,” Colley said, noting that she voted for Trump in 2024. AP found that 84% of the homes built with HOME funding were in districts that supported him.
“I understand we don’t want excessive spending and wasting taxpayer dollars,” she added, “but these proposed budget cuts across the board make me rethink the next time I go to the polls.”
The HOME program, created under President George H. W. Bush, has survived decades of budget battles but has struggled with rising construction costs and stagnant funding, resulting in fewer affordable units. Since its inception, HOME has provided over $38 billion nationwide, filling critical funding gaps, supporting housing development, and offering rental assistance.
HOME’s Future Remains Uncertain
To offset the proposed cuts, House Republicans plan to redirect nearly $5 billion from a related pandemic-era fund intended for homelessness prevention. But housing agencies say the available funds may be much lower, as many projects aren’t yet logged in the HUD tracking system.
A HUD spokesperson argued that other programs are more effective and deserve funding priority. In contrast, Senate Republicans included HOME funding in their draft budget, raising the possibility of a compromise to reduce but not completely eliminate the program.
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle avoided direct questions, saying only that Trump’s focus on cutting red tape aims to make housing more affordable. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to streamline HOME’s paperwork, which even supporters admit slows construction.
Rural Communities Face the Greatest Impact
In Owsley County, Kentucky — one of the nation’s poorest — coal mine closures and declining tobacco revenues have left residents struggling. Affordable housing is scarce, and large-scale developers avoid the region.
For more than a decade, Cassie Hudson’s nonprofit, Partnership Housing, has relied on HOME funding to build most of its affordable homes. But with limited funding, they now construct only a quarter of the single-family homes they once did.
“Particularly for deeply rural places and persistent poverty counties, local housing developers are the only way homes and new rental housing gets built,” said Joshua Stewart of Fahe, a coalition of Appalachian nonprofits.
HOME plays a critical role in filling funding gaps when construction costs exceed a home’s market value — a common barrier in poor regions. Nonprofits often reinvest profits from HOME-funded projects to build more affordable units, but experts warn that eliminating the program would severely weaken these efforts.
In Hazard, Kentucky, the Housing Development Alliance used HOME funds to help Tiffany Mullins, a single mother of four earning $14.30 an hour at Walmart, purchase a house after devastating floods. She moved in this August.
Mullins sees the program as preserving a way of life. “We used to own homes and land, had gardens, chickens, and cows. Now you don’t see much of that,” she said.
A Long-Term Ripple Effect
Experts say HOME is a vulnerable target during budget negotiations because cuts don’t cause immediate housing loss. Instead, the effects appear years later in reduced housing supply.
When funding dropped to $900 million in 2015, the consequences were still felt a decade later, said Tess Hembree of the Council of State Community Development Agencies.
HOME also supports the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the largest federal program for affordable rentals. About 12% of LIHTC-funded units — roughly 324,000 — rely on HOME grants. While Trump’s recent spending bill increased LIHTC funding, experts warn that slashing HOME would make the credit less effective.
“It’s LIHTC plus HOME, usually,” said Tim Thrasher, CEO of Community Action Partnership of North Alabama, which builds affordable housing for low-income families.
Similarly, in eastern West Virginia, Woodlands Development Group depends on HOME to develop workforce housing. “It’s one of the only programs available that lets us build homes for nurses, teachers, and first responders,” said executive director Dave Clark.
Sarah Halcott, who administers grants for Creative Compassion in east Tennessee, said losing HOME would be devastating for working families struggling with rising costs.
“This is just another nail in the coffin for rural areas,” Halcott said.
This article has been carefully fact-checked by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and eliminate any misleading information. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in our content.
