HUD Data Privacy Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance privacy protections for individuals receiving federal housing assistance by strictly limiting how HUD and its partners can share personal data, particularly regarding immigration status, to prevent its use in civil immigration enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from sharing information collected from individuals receiving housing assistance for any purpose other than verifying benefit eligibility or determination. It explicitly states that such information cannot be used for civil enforcement of immigration laws, with exceptions for deidentified data for research and data related to ongoing criminal investigations or imminent threats to life.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is essential for protecting vulnerable populations, especially immigrants, from potential discrimination or adverse actions based on their immigration status, thereby ensuring they can access critical housing assistance without fear of data misuse. They believe it fosters trust between communities and government agencies, improving program effectiveness and housing stability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that restricting data sharing could hinder inter-agency cooperation necessary for comprehensive law enforcement or national security efforts, potentially creating loopholes that could be exploited. They might also argue it could complicate efforts to verify eligibility in certain complex cases, even though the bill explicitly allows sharing for benefit eligibility.
The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension by any interested reader.
Section 2(a), (b), (e)
Restriction on HUD Data Sharing for Housing Assistance Recipients
This provision mandates that HUD can only share information collected from individuals receiving housing assistance with other agencies or third parties for the sole purposes of verifying benefit eligibility or benefit determination. It explicitly states that such information cannot be used for civil enforcement of immigration laws. Any agency or third party receiving this information is similarly restricted in its use, reinforcing the privacy protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for ensuring that individuals, especially those with precarious immigration statuses, feel secure in applying for and receiving housing assistance without fear that their personal data will be used against them for immigration enforcement. This promotes access to essential services and prevents a chilling effect.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this restriction could impede legitimate government functions, such as identifying individuals who may be in the country illegally and are receiving federal benefits, or could complicate efforts to ensure program integrity if data cannot be cross-referenced with other federal databases.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the privacy rights and access to housing assistance for vulnerable populations against the government's interest in comprehensive data sharing for various enforcement and oversight purposes.
Section 2(c)
Permitted Data Sharing for Research and Public Safety
This provision carves out two specific exceptions to the general data sharing prohibition. First, it allows for the sharing of deidentified information between HUD and other entities for statistical or research purposes. Second, it permits data sharing as part of an ongoing criminal investigation or to prevent an imminent threat to life, ensuring critical public safety functions are not hindered.
This subsection clarifies that nothing in the Act should be interpreted to permit the sharing of information for the purpose of civil enforcement of immigration laws, reinforcing the bill's core intent.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent misinterpretation and explicitly state legislative intent, rather than being evasive. It ensures the bill's primary purpose is unequivocally clear.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is essential to prevent any ambiguity and ensure the bill's primary goal of protecting individuals from immigration enforcement based on housing data is unequivocally clear.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this explicit prohibition further restricts legitimate government data sharing that could aid in comprehensive immigration enforcement, even if civil in nature.
Estimated impact: Reinforces the privacy protections for potentially millions of housing assistance recipients by explicitly barring data sharing for civil immigration enforcement.