H.R.50 amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to prohibit use of grants made under section 106 (the Community Development Block Grant program) to assist anyone who is neither a United States national nor a lawful permanent resident as defined in INA section 101(a)(20). It also bars the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from awarding CDBG grants to any State, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe that operates any housing or community development program that provides assistance to such persons.
The change is narrowly drafted (it cites fiscal year 2024 and later and references specific statutory definitions from the Immigration and Nationality Act), but it reaches broadly in practice: entire local CDBG programs — including housing rehabilitation, public services, homelessness assistance, and other community development activities — could lose federal funding if they provide aid to non‑LPR residents. That raises immediate operational questions for HUD, grantees, service providers, and communities with mixed‑status populations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a prohibition into 42 U.S.C. 5305 forbidding any amount from a section 106 grant to be used to assist persons who are neither U.S. nationals nor lawfully admitted for permanent residence, effective for fiscal year 2024 and after. It also amends 42 U.S.C. 5303 to prohibit HUD from making grants to states, localities, or Indian tribes that run programs providing such assistance.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CDBG grantees: state governments, entitlement cities/counties, urban counties, and Indian tribes that receive section 106 grants. Indirectly affects nonprofits, subrecipients, and service providers that deliver housing or community development services funded by CDBG and the non‑LPR residents who receive those services.
Why It Matters
Conditioning CDBG eligibility and allowable uses on immigration status changes how federal community development dollars are targeted and monitored. For many grantees, compliance will require new intake procedures, verification systems, and legal risk assessments — potentially altering which households receive assistance and how programs are administered.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R.50 modifies two provisions of the Community Development Block Grant framework. First, it adds a subsection to the statute that governs the permissible uses of section 106 grants, saying bluntly that no portion of those grants may be used to assist anyone who is neither a U.S. national nor a lawful permanent resident (the bill points to the INA definition of permanent residence).
Second, it adds a limitation to the section that authorizes HUD to make grants, instructing HUD not to award funds to any State, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe that runs any housing or community development program that provides assistance to those excluded individuals.
Because the bill ties the prohibition to both the use of funds and grantee eligibility, its practical reach extends beyond a handful of direct services. CDBG covers a wide range of activities — housing rehabilitation, neighborhood revitalization, public services, infrastructure, and some homelessness prevention — many of which serve people regardless of immigration status.
Under this bill, a local government that uses local, state, or other federal resources to assist a non‑LPR individual in a program that falls within the statutory scope could be at risk of losing section 106 funding unless it separates those activities materially or stops them.The statute points to fiscal year 2024 and later, so the restriction would apply to existing multi‑year grants made under section 106 in or after that fiscal year. The bill does not create a new verification regime or specify procedures for HUD to monitor compliance, nor does it carve out exceptions for emergency or disaster response, refugees, asylees, or other categories of non‑LPR lawfully present individuals — it relies on the binary rule tied to INA section 101(a)(20).
That omission creates immediate implementation questions for administrators and grantees about how to verify status, what counts as 'assistance,' and how to treat mixed‑status households.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 5305 by adding subsection (i) that forbids any amount from a grant under section 106 being used to assist persons who are neither U.S. nationals nor lawful permanent residents (referencing INA §101(a)(20)).
It amends 42 U.S.C. 5303 to add a new limitation preventing HUD from awarding section 106 grants to any State, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe that operates any housing or community development program that provides assistance to such excluded persons.
The prohibition applies to grants made in fiscal year 2024 and any succeeding fiscal year — the bill explicitly ties its effective scope to FY2024 onward.
Indian tribes are included in the entities that HUD may not fund if they operate programs providing assistance to non‑nation, non‑LPR persons, treating tribes the same as states and local governments for eligibility purposes.
The bill contains no waiver, emergency exception, or new administrative verification procedure; it establishes a blunt funding condition without specifying monitoring, appeal, or remediation mechanisms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — KAMALA Act
Gives the bill the short title "Keeping Aid for Municipalities And Localities Accountable Act" or "KAMALA Act." This section is formal and has no programmatic effect; it simply identifies the bill for citation and reference.
Prohibits use of section 106 funds for non‑nation, non‑LPR recipients
Adds subsection (i) to 42 U.S.C. 5305 to bar any amount from a grant under section 106 from being used to assist persons who are neither U.S. nationals nor lawfully admitted for permanent residence under INA §101(a)(20). The statutory language is categorical — it does not limit the prohibition to particular program types or amounts, nor does it define 'assist,' leaving interpretation to HUD and courts. The inclusion of the INA cross‑reference ties the scope to a specific immigration classification (lawful permanent resident) rather than to broader categories of lawful presence.
Bars HUD from awarding grants to grantees that assist excluded persons
Revises the HUD grant‑making authorization by converting the existing authorization into subsection (a) and adding subsection (b), which forbids HUD from making grants to any State, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe that 'carries out any housing or community development related program' that provides assistance to persons who are neither nationals nor LPRs. Practically, that creates an eligibility condition: a grantee's separate programs, if they assist excluded individuals, can jeopardize all section 106 funding. The amendment does not specify monitoring, audit, or cure processes, nor does it define temporal or geographic limits on the 'carries out' language.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Lawful permanent residents and U.S. nationals: The bill explicitly preserves eligibility for CDBG‑funded assistance for these groups by excluding them from the prohibition.
- Taxpayers and constituencies favoring targeted federal spending: Entities and advocates that argue for restricting federal community development dollars to citizens/LPRs will see CDBG funds more tightly aligned with that policy goal.
- Grantees that exclusively serve citizens/LPRs: Local governments and tribes that already limit program eligibility to citizens/LPRs will face fewer compliance changes and reduced risk of losing funding under the bill.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑LPR residents (including many refugees, asylees, parolees, visa holders, and DACA recipients): Individuals who are not U.S. nationals or lawful permanent residents would be excluded from receiving CDBG‑funded assistance even if they are lawfully present in the U.S. under other immigration categories.
- State and local governments and Indian tribes with mixed‑status populations: Grantees will face programmatic choices — segregate funds and services, restrict eligibility, or risk losing HUD grants — and will incur administrative costs to attempt compliance or create parallel programs.
- Nonprofit subrecipients and service providers: Organizations that rely on CDBG pass‑through funding to provide housing repair, emergency rental assistance, or public services may lose revenue or have to redesign intake and documentation systems to avoid serving excluded individuals.
- HUD and federal administrators: The agency will bear the burden of interpreting 'assist' and enforcing the prohibition without additional statutory guidance or resources, increasing monitoring and potential litigation exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances a federal interest in conditioning discretionary community development funds on immigration status against local governments' operational need to provide housing and public‑safety‑related services to all residents; enforcing a categorical bar simplifies federal targeting but risks undermining local programs, increasing administrative burdens, and excluding many lawfully present non‑LPR individuals whose safety and stability bear on community welfare.
Several consequential implementation and legal questions arise from the bill's terse language. First, 'assist' is undefined; it could be interpreted narrowly (direct cash rental assistance) or broadly (programs that indirectly benefit excluded people, such as neighborhood infrastructure or a public service open to all).
That ambiguity matters because a broad reading could strip CDBG support from programs that are not targeted at immigration status but nonetheless help mixed communities.
Second, the bill ties the definition of eligible recipients to INA §101(a)(20) (lawful permanent residents) and 'nationals of the United States.' Many other categories of lawfully present noncitizens — refugees, asylees, certain parolees, and some with temporary lawful status — would be excluded even though federal law elsewhere gives them protections or access to certain benefits. The bill also contains no new verification standards, reporting duties, or appeals process; HUD would need to craft compliance rules and auditing practices against a backdrop of privacy concerns and practical limits on accurately verifying status at scale.
Finally, the bill's blunt funding condition could produce significant administrative strain on local governments and tribes that provide integrated services to residents. The lack of emergency or disaster relief exceptions, and the equal treatment of Indian tribes as grantees (despite tribal sovereignty considerations), raise both operational and legal tensions that HUD and grantees would need to resolve through rulemaking, policy guidance, or likely litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.