# A Trump-appointed judge dismantles his own anti-homeless policy > Introduction: when the courts contradict the White House - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Investigation - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/une-juge-nommee-par-trump-demonte-sa-propre-politique-anti-sans-abri ## Introduction: when the courts contradict the White House ### An unexpected judicial setback On **Monday, June 29, 2026**, federal judge **Mary S. McElroy**, of the **District of Rhode Island**, struck down changes imposed by the **Trump** administration on the federal **Continuum of Care** program, a **$4 billion** fund meant to finance housing for people experiencing homelessness. This ruling is all the more notable because Judge McElroy is herself a **Trump appointee**, which makes her verdict hard to dismiss as mere partisan bias. The judge ruled that the **Department of Housing and Urban Development** (**HUD**) had acted in an **"arbitrary and capricious"** manner in attempting to eliminate, on an **accelerated timeline**, the so-called **"Housing First"** approach, which prioritizes direct access to **permanent housing** over temporary solutions. ### What the ruling says exactly In her decision, Judge McElroy wrote that the **administrative record** demonstrated HUD's failure to account for the **harm** caused by the **funding disruptions** created by its rushed attempt to eliminate the Housing First approach. She called this rush **"the very definition of unreasoned decision-making."** *When a judge appointed by the president himself concludes that his own administration acted unreasonably, that's no longer a matter of political opinion. It's an unforgiving legal finding about the neglect of a decision-making process meant to protect the most vulnerable.* ## The Continuum of Care program, explained ### A pillar of anti-homelessness funding The **Continuum of Care** program is a **critical** source of funding for hundreds of local organizations across the United States that provide **housing** and **support services** to people experiencing homelessness. The program has relied for decades on the **Housing First** approach, which means offering stable housing as a priority, even before addressing other issues such as addiction or mental health. For fiscal year **2026**, Congress had approved **$4.04 billion** for this program. It is this funding that the Trump administration wanted to redirect toward **temporary solutions** rather than permanent housing. ### The course change sought by HUD In **June 2026**, HUD announced it would continue to **limit resources** earmarked for permanent housing, preferring instead to redirect funding toward **temporary shelter** and related services. Housing Secretary **Scott Turner** stated that this reform represented a **"fundamental shift"** in how HUD measures success and allocates its funding. *Redirecting funding meant to house people toward temporary shelter amounts to treating a symptom while never addressing the cause. Permanent housing isn't an administrative luxury — it's the basic condition for a homeless person to even begin stabilizing their life.* ## The rhetoric behind the reform ### "Housing First has failed," according to HUD A HUD spokesperson stated that the **data are clear**: the Housing First approach had allegedly **failed**, justifying, in the agency's view, a **"paradigm shift"** toward **recovery** and **self-sufficiency**. HUD also said it wanted to stop **"warehousing homeless individuals dependent on the government in permanent housing,"** a phrase that drew sharp criticism from housing advocates. Secretary Turner specified that funding would now be allocated based on **merit** and **results achieved**, and that success would be measured by the number of Americans reaching **self-sufficiency**, rather than by dollars spent or housing units built. ### A decade of consensus swept aside without adequate consultation The Housing First approach has enjoyed **broad consensus** among social policy researchers for more than a decade, backed by numerous studies demonstrating its effectiveness in durably reducing chronic homelessness. The court specifically faulted HUD for failing to sufficiently justify, in its **administrative record**, the sudden abandonment of this well-documented approach. *Sweeping aside a decade of solid evidence in a few months, without a rigorous consultation process, isn't reform — it's ideology dressed up as public policy. Judge McElroy essentially confirmed exactly that in her ruling.* ## Who brought this case to court ### The National Alliance to End Homelessness on the front line The lawsuit was brought notably by the **National Alliance to End Homelessness**, whose president and CEO **Ann Oliva** said her organization remained **deeply concerned** about what she called the administration's **"continued interference"** in the awarding of federal grants, including similar changes planned for fiscal year 2026 funding. Oliva said her organization is currently reviewing all available **legal and advocacy options** to protect communities that would be affected by these changes, both current and future. ### A legal battle underway since November Legal action against HUD's changes has been ongoing since **November 2025**, with plaintiffs raising **serious concerns** from the outset about the new conditions being imposed and the **significant cuts** to permanent housing funding. This months-long battle illustrates the determination of community organizations to challenge a reform seen as dangerous for the most vulnerable populations. *It took seven months of legal battle for a court to acknowledge what frontline organizations had been saying from the start: this reform put real human lives at risk, not just abstract budget lines.* ## A partial victory, not a total one ### What the ruling covers Judge McElroy's decision specifically addresses the policy changes applied to **fiscal year 2025** funding, part of which still has not been fully **disbursed** to recipient organizations. HUD's published status reports also show a **notable slowdown** in the issuance of grant agreements: only **29** agreements were issued the week before the ruling, compared with **80** the week before that. This slowdown raises a direct question: did the administration deliberately hold back the disbursement of funds in anticipation of a legal challenge, or is this simply an administrative delay? No official, documented answer allows this question to be settled as of now. ### 2026 funding escapes the challenge for now Plaintiffs had also asked that **fiscal year 2026 funding**, subject to similar changes, be included in the current lawsuit. Judge McElroy **rejected** that request, meaning the contested reform could continue to apply to next year's funding, absent a new, separate legal challenge. *This victory is real, but it's incomplete. As long as 2026 funding remains beyond the reach of the current ruling, the administration keeps an open path to apply the exact same contested logic, just one year later.* ## What this reveals about Trump governance ### A pattern of administrative haste This ruling fits into a broader pattern observed since the **Trump** administration's return to power: major policy changes imposed quickly, often without fully complying with the requirements of the **Administrative Procedure Act**, which governs how federal agencies must adopt new rules. This is not the first time a federal court has faulted an administration agency for acting too fast, without sufficient justification. The fact that a judge appointed by the president himself reached this conclusion strengthens the credibility of the finding: this is not partisan judicial resistance, but a documented failure to follow the basic rules of **administrative governance**. ### The human cost of a poorly prepared reform Behind the legal terms and budget figures, this case directly concerns **tens of thousands of people** experiencing homelessness across the United States, whose access to stable housing depends directly on the **continuity of federal funding**. A funding disruption, even a temporary one, can translate concretely into suspended programs and families without a roof over their heads. *We are talking here about human lives hanging on bureaucratic decisions made in haste. Every month of administrative confusion on this file translates, somewhere in America, into one more person left on the street instead of getting a roof.* ## The legal precedents weighing on this case ### Case law already unfavorable to the administration This ruling did not come out of nowhere. As early as **April 1, 2026**, another federal court had already ruled that the **Trump** administration could not unilaterally change the **funding conditions** attached to grants meant to combat homelessness, according to a ruling reported by **Reuters**. That precedent had already established a clear principle: federal agencies cannot rewrite the rules of the game midstream without following a **rigorous legal process**. Judge **McElroy's** decision therefore fits into a **judicial continuity**, not as an isolated case. Two separate courts, just months apart, reached similar conclusions about how **HUD** attempted to impose its reforms. This convergence considerably strengthens the message sent to the administration. ### A warning sign for other federal agencies Administrative law observers note that this kind of ruling extends well beyond the single issue of **housing**. It sends a signal to all **federal agencies** tempted to bypass the **Administrative Procedure Act** to speed through ideological reforms without adequate consultation or documented justification in the **administrative record**. For rights advocacy groups, such as the **National Alliance to End Homelessness**, this case law now becomes a reusable legal tool to challenge other similar attempts, whether in housing, health, or social assistance. *Two courts, two rulings, one single message: you don't rewrite the rules of the social safety net on the back of a napkin without paying a legal price for it. It's a welcome reminder that ideological haste always eventually runs into the wall of the law.* ## What Scott Turner isn't saying in his statements ### The rhetoric of merit versus the facts on the ground Secretary **Scott Turner** defends his reform by emphasizing the notions of **merit** and **self-sufficiency**, but this rhetoric carefully avoids answering the central question raised by the court: where is the **solid evidence** justifying the sudden abandonment of an approach backed for more than a decade by social policy research? Judge **McElroy's** ruling specifically highlights this lack of documented justification. HUD may keep repeating that the **Housing First** approach has **"failed,"** but no major independent study publicly cited by the agency convincingly backs up that claim. It is precisely this factual void that the court found **"arbitrary and capricious."** ### Communication aimed more at public opinion than at facts The phrase about ending the **"warehousing of homeless individuals dependent on the government in permanent housing"** reads more like a **political communication strategy** than an evidence-based public policy. It aims to frame the debate around **dependency** rather than around the program's measurable results. This rhetorical approach, which favors symbolism over rigor, illustrates a recurring pattern seen across several **Trump** administration reforms: presenting a radical change as common sense, while avoiding a debate over the data that would contradict it. *There's a fundamental difference between governing with data and governing with slogans. This case shows just how much the second approach ends up shattering against the first, the moment a court demands evidence instead of talking points.* ## Conclusion: a battle far from over ### An important ruling, but not a final one Judge McElroy's ruling represents a **significant victory** for social housing advocates and for the **Housing First** approach, but it does not settle the debate for good. Fiscal year 2026 funding remains exposed to the same contested policy direction, and the **Trump** administration could try new approaches to achieve the same budget-redirection goal. The **National Alliance to End Homelessness** has already signaled it is reviewing its options to also challenge the changes planned for 2026, suggesting a **new legal battle** is likely in the months ahead. ### What the public should watch for The key question to watch remains 2026 funding: if the administration applies the same changes without correcting them, a new legal challenge seems nearly inevitable. This case illustrates, once again, the ongoing tension between the Trump administration's budget priorities and the legal protections surrounding the country's **most vulnerable populations**. *This case will be worth watching closely, because it touches on something bigger than a budget line: whether a government can, without solid evidence, pull a safety net out from under people who already have almost nothing left. The courts have applied the brakes, but this isn't the final word yet.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Federal judge strikes down HUD's homelessness policy shift — Politico, June 30, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/30/hud-homelessness-policy-ruling-00981804) - [HUD Continuum of Care ruling on Housing First funding — Smart Cities Dive](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/hud-coc-grant-housing-first-ruling-homeless-funding/824352/) - NAEH v. HUD fact sheet — Public Rights Project ### Secondary sources - [Trump administration cannot alter homelessness funding conditions, US court rules — Reuters, April 1, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-administration-cannot-alter-homelessness-funding-conditions-us-court-rules-2026-04-01/) - [Court finds Trump-Vance administration violated law in rush to politicize housing grants — National Alliance to End Homelessness](https://endhomelessness.org/media/news-releases/court-finds-trump-vance-administration-violated-law-in-rush-to-politicize-housing-grants/) - [HUD appeals ruling on Housing First homelessness policy — Multifamily Dive](https://www.multifamilydive.com/news/hud-appeals-ruling-housing-first-homelessness/814479/) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/une-juge-nommee-par-trump-demonte-sa-propre-politique-anti-sans-abri