KAMALA Act

- Section 3 amends section 103 to add a limitation that HUD may not make CDBG grants to any state, local government, or Indian tribe if that jurisdiction carries out any housing or community development related program that provides assistance to persons who are not U.S. nationals or lawful permanent residents. Importantly, this restriction applies to any such programs the jurisdiction runs, not just those funded by CDBG; it conditions eligibility for CDBG on the locality’s broader policy choices.

Who is affected by the beneficiary restriction: The operative text goes well beyond people who are unlawfully present. It would exclude from CDBG‑funded assistance many individuals who are lawfully present but not yet permanent residents, including refugees and asylees before adjustment, Temporary Protected Status holders, parolees (including many recent humanitarian parole entrants), DACA recipients, nonimmigrant visa holders (students, workers), and others. The bill’s section heading references persons not lawfully present, but the actual operative language covers anyone who is not a national or an LPR. That mismatch could be consequential in interpretation and implementation.

Scope of “assist” and program impacts: The bill does not define assist. CDBG rules already distinguish among activities that directly benefit low‑ and moderate‑income persons, activities that benefit an area, and bricks‑and‑mortar projects. Because many CDBG activities are open to all residents in an eligible area (parks, sidewalks, community centers) or fund services available to whoever walks in the door (homeless shelters, domestic violence services, fair housing counseling), the prohibition could force grantees to either redesign programs to screen for immigration status, wall off services, or stop certain uses entirely to avoid any benefit reaching ineligible persons. It also poses compliance questions for area‑wide activities that inevitably benefit a mix of eligible and ineligible residents.

Administrative and operational implications: Grantees would likely need to establish immigration status verification procedures (for example, using SAVE or document collection), train subrecipients, and build new recordkeeping systems. That can increase costs, create barriers to service, and deter mixed‑status families from seeking help. It could also raise privacy and safety concerns for victims of crime and domestic violence who currently can access CDBG‑funded shelters without disclosing immigration status.

Jurisdiction‑wide condition: The new limitation in section 3 is sweeping. A city or state that uses any of its own funds or other non‑CDBG funds for a housing or community development program that serves non‑LPR non‑nationals would lose eligibility for CDBG entirely. That makes the bill a lever against jurisdictions that operate inclusive local programs, including emergency migrant shelters, rental assistance, or legal aid regardless of status. Given CDBG’s size (roughly the low‑to‑mid billions annually in recent appropriations), many cities and nonprofits could face significant funding losses unless they change local policy.

Legal and policy context: Federal law (PRWORA, 1996) already restricts certain federal public benefits for noncitizens, while carving out categories of qualified aliens (such as refugees and asylees) and emergency services. H.R. 50 sets a stricter standard for CDBG by allowing only nationals and LPRs, with no exception for otherwise qualified lawfully present groups or emergencies. Conditioning CDBG on the absence of inclusive local programs could prompt Spending Clause debates about relatedness and coercion, though courts often uphold targeted conditions tied to the subject matter. The bill could also face challenges around retroactivity, as it purports to apply to grants made in FY2024 even if enacted later, potentially triggering recoupment or compliance disputes.

Bottom line: H.R. 50 would bar CDBG dollars from assisting anyone other than citizens/nationals and green card holders and would cut off CDBG to any jurisdiction that, with any funding source, operates housing or community development programs that serve non‑LPR non‑nationals. Its practical effect would be to force immigration‑status screening across many community programs or to prompt jurisdictions to curtail or redesign services; and to pressure cities and states to abandon inclusive local initiatives if they wish to retain CDBG funding.