Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027
- Sponsor
- Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jun 5, 2026
Bottom line
This omnibus appropriations bill provides critical funding for national transportation and housing programs for FY2027, alongside significant policy adjustments and financial reallocations from previous legislation.
What it actually does
This bill makes appropriations for the Departments of Transportation (DOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and several related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027. It allocates funds for various programs, including infrastructure projects, housing assistance, and safety initiatives, while also incorporating numerous policy directives, transfers of funds from prior acts, and rescissions of unobligated balances.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill provides essential funding to maintain and improve the nation's transportation infrastructure, ensure housing stability for vulnerable populations, and support critical safety programs. They would highlight targeted investments in high-growth areas, affordable housing initiatives, and efforts to enhance public safety and economic development across various communities.
Opponents contend
Opponents may criticize the bill for its extensive use of transfers and rescissions from prior acts, arguing that this undermines congressional intent for previously authorized projects and could disrupt long-term planning. Concerns might also be raised about specific policy riders that are unrelated to appropriations, potentially leading to contentious debates over non-germane provisions.
The bill is exceptionally long and detailed, containing numerous specific appropriations, provisos, and policy riders. A thorough understanding requires substantial time, which may be challenging given the typical compressed timelines for appropriations bill review.
Title I, Office of the Secretary
National Infrastructure Investments (RAISE/BUILD Grants)
Appropriates $550,000,000 for local and regional project assistance grants, with $350,000,000 for projects in high-growth metropolitan areas and $200,000,000 for projects selected based on specific criteria, with rural/urban allocation limits. Notably, these funds are transferred from unobligated balances of the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grants from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these grants are crucial for addressing critical infrastructure needs, promoting economic growth, and enhancing safety. The focus on high-growth areas and specific selection criteria ensures that funds are directed to projects with significant impact and strong benefit-cost ratios.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that transferring funds from specific IIJA programs, like culvert removal, diverts resources from their original, targeted environmental and resilience goals. They may also argue that the definition of 'high growth' could disproportionately benefit certain regions over others.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for broad infrastructure investment with targeted support for high-growth areas and specific project criteria. It also involves a tradeoff between maintaining original IIJA program funding and reallocating unobligated balances to new priorities.
Title I, Federal Aviation Administration
FAA Facilities and Equipment Funding and Transfers
Appropriates $4,000,000,000 for FAA facilities and equipment, with $3,000,000,000 from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and $1,000,000,000 transferred from unobligated balances of Highway Infrastructure Programs (IIJA). This funding is for acquisition, establishment, and improvement of national airspace systems and experimental facilities.
Title I, Federal Highway Administration
Highway Infrastructure Programs (Community Project Funding and Truck Parking)
Appropriates $1,139,161,350 for highway infrastructure programs, derived from unobligated balances of prior IIJA appropriations. This includes $729,161,350 for Community Project Funding, $200,000,000 for Tribal transportation programs, and $200,000,000 for Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects specifically for public parking for commercial motor vehicles.
Title I, Federal Railroad Administration
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grants
Appropriates $522,775,411 for CRISI grants, derived from unobligated balances of Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants (IIJA). This includes $22,775,411 for Community Project Funding and $500,000,000 for discretionary grants. The provision also expands eligible projects to include railroad systems planning and project development activities, and modifies certain federal share and recipient eligibility rules.
Title I, Federal Railroad Administration
Northeast Corridor and National Network Grants to Amtrak
Appropriates $650,000,000 for Northeast Corridor activities and $1,450,000,000 for National Network activities for Amtrak, both derived from unobligated balances of Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants (IIJA). The Secretary may retain funds for project management oversight and expenses for the Northeast Corridor Commission and State-Supported Route Committee.
Title I, Maritime Administration
Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP)
Appropriates $538,242,000 for PIDP grants to improve port facilities, with $500,000,000 for coastal seaports, inland river ports, or Great Lakes ports (minimum grant size $1,000,000) and $38,242,000 for Community Project Funding. These funds are transferred from unobligated balances of Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants (IIJA).
Title II, Public and Indian Housing
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Housing Choice Vouchers)
Appropriates $34,083,000,000 for tenant-based rental assistance (Section 8 vouchers) for FY2027, with an additional $4,000,000,000 available on October 1, 2027. This includes $35,453,000,000 for renewals, $300,000,000 for various special purpose vouchers (e.g., relocation, enhanced, choice neighborhood), $2,300,000,000 for administrative expenses, and $30,000,000 for the Family Unification Program (Melania Trump Foster Youth to Independence Initiative).
Title II, Public and Indian Housing
Public Housing Fund (Operating and Capital Funds)
Appropriates $7,068,650,000 for public housing, including $4,687,393,000 for operating funds and $2,286,257,000 for capital funds. It also includes $50,000,000 for need-based financial shortfall grants, $30,000,000 for emergency capital needs (including safety and security), and $15,000,000 for administrative/judicial receiverships and asset improvement grants.
Title II, Community Planning and Development
Community Development Fund (CDBG and EDI)
Appropriates $5,849,707,616 for community development activities, including $3,300,000,000 for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, $30,000,000 for activities authorized under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (opioid crisis), and $2,519,707,616 for Economic Development Initiative (EDI) grants, primarily for Community Project Funding.
Title II, Community Planning and Development
Homeless Assistance Grants
Appropriates $4,160,741,000 for homeless assistance programs, including $290,000,000 for Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), $3,778,741,000 for Continuum of Care (CoC) and rural housing stability programs, $10,000,000 for national homeless data analysis, and $82,000,000 for youth homelessness demonstration projects. It includes provisions for prioritizing high-performing CoCs and allowing youth to self-certify homelessness.
Title II, Housing Programs
Housing for the Elderly (Section 202)
Appropriates $1,061,930,000 for capital advances and project rental assistance for housing for the elderly (Section 202), including $122,000,000 for service coordinators and congregate service grants. It allows for 2-year agreements for service coordinators and permits the Secretary to waive certain terms and conditions for project rental assistance.
Title II, Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes Initiative
Appropriates $295,600,000 for lead hazard reduction and healthy homes initiatives. This includes $140,600,000 for lead-based paint hazard reduction grants (with a focus on high-need areas) and $155,000,000 for healthy homes initiatives, including a $10,000,000 pilot program for new financing mechanisms and $30,000,000 for home modification repairs for low-income seniors.
Sec. 130, Title I
Exemption for Livestock/Insect Transporters from Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Mandate
Prohibits funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce ELD requirements for operators of commercial motor vehicles transporting livestock or insects.
Sec. 194, Title I
Prohibition on New Scheduled Air Transportation to Cuban Confiscated Property
Prohibits funds from being used to facilitate new scheduled air transportation originating from the United States if such flights would land on, or pass through, property confiscated by the Cuban Government, as defined by the LIBERTAD Act of 1996. This applies to flights not regularly scheduled prior to May 2022.
Sec. 236, Title II
Prohibition on HUD Directing Zoning Changes for Fair Housing
Prohibits funds from being used by HUD to direct a grantee to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws as part of carrying out the interim final rule entitled "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions" (90 Fed. Reg. 11020 (March 3, 2025)).
Sec. 241, Title II
Prohibition on Enforcing Temporary Moratorium on Eviction Filings
Prohibits funds from being used to enforce the temporary moratorium on eviction filings (15 U.S.C. 9058).
Sec. 242, Title II
Prohibition on HUD Updating Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards for New Housing
Prohibits funds from being used by HUD to update minimum energy efficiency standards for new housing financed by the Department, as part of carrying out the notice entitled "Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards for New Construction of HUD- and USDA- Financed Housing," or any successor notice.
Sec. 425, Title IV
Restrictions on Drunk Driving Prevention Technology Mandate
Prohibits funds from being used to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which mandates drunk driving prevention technology, except for studying technology that does not include 'kill switch' capabilities, in-vehicle monitoring, remote data access, or other invasive/coercive technology violating driver privacy.
Amends section 24112(c)(2)(B) of Public Law 117-58 (IIJA) by substituting '30 percent' for '40 percent' for competitive grants for Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail. It also allows the Secretary to use unutilized amounts for other grants if there are insufficient merit-worthy applications to meet the 30% requirement.
Sec. 109A, Title I
Why it matters:This is a technical adjustment to a prior law's funding allocation, often placed in administrative sections of appropriations bills to streamline legislative changes without standalone bills. It could also be a tactical move to reduce a specific set-aside that has been difficult to obligate.
Case for: Proponents argue that adjusting the percentage allows for greater flexibility in awarding competitive grants, especially if the original 40% set-aside for specific projects proved difficult to meet due to a lack of qualified applications. This ensures funds are utilized effectively.
Case against: Critics might argue that reducing the set-aside undermines the original intent of the IIJA to prioritize certain types of intercity passenger rail projects. It could be seen as a way to redirect funds from less politically favored projects to others.
Estimated impact: Reduces the mandated percentage of competitive grants for certain intercity passenger rail projects from 40% to 30%, potentially reallocating tens or hundreds of millions of dollars within the program.
Restricts the transfer of air traffic systems or equipment to the FAA Administrator unless such systems were purchased by the transferor airport on or after October 5, 2018, with government airport aid, or on or after October 1, 2024, for other systems.
Sec. 119F, Title I
Why it matters:This is a technical policy rider, likely inserted to address specific concerns about the types or age of equipment being transferred to federal control, or to ensure that only federally-assisted or very recent equipment is transferred. It could be a tactical move to prevent the FAA from inheriting outdated or unmaintained equipment.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures the FAA only accepts modern, well-maintained equipment, preventing the agency from inheriting costly liabilities or outdated technology that could compromise air safety and efficiency. It incentivizes airports to maintain their systems.
Case against: Critics might argue that these restrictions could hinder the FAA's ability to consolidate air traffic control systems or integrate equipment from smaller airports, potentially creating operational inefficiencies or leaving some airports with unviable equipment.
Estimated impact: Affects the transferability of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars worth of air traffic control equipment from airports to the FAA, influencing modernization efforts.
Prohibits funds from being used to plan, design, or implement the privatization or separation of the air traffic organization functions of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Sec. 119G, Title I
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider, likely inserted to prevent a controversial administrative or legislative action (privatization of air traffic control) that has been debated for years. Placing it in an appropriations bill ensures its immediate effect without a separate legislative process.
Case for: Proponents argue that privatizing air traffic control could compromise safety, increase costs, and reduce access for general aviation. They contend that the current federal system ensures public oversight and equitable access to the national airspace.
Case against: Critics argue that privatizing air traffic control could lead to greater efficiency, faster modernization, and reduced reliance on unpredictable appropriations cycles. They contend that a private entity could operate more nimbly and invest more effectively in technology.
Estimated impact: Prevents a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. air traffic control system, which has implications for billions of dollars in assets, thousands of employees, and the entire aviation industry.
Allows DOT to assist contracts under titles 49 or 23 U.S.C. utilizing geographic, economic, or other hiring preferences not otherwise authorized by law, or to amend rules forbidding such preferences, only if the grant recipient certifies specific conditions (e.g., readily available unemployed individuals, no displacement of existing employees, no cost increase/delays).
Sec. 190, Title I
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that addresses a contentious issue of local hiring preferences on federally funded projects. It's buried to avoid direct debate on the merits of such preferences, instead framing it as a conditional allowance. It's a tactical maneuver to allow local preferences under specific, limited circumstances.
Case for: Proponents argue that allowing local hiring preferences, under strict conditions, can boost local economies, create jobs for residents, and ensure that federal investments directly benefit the communities where projects are located. The certification requirements prevent abuse.
Case against: Critics argue that such preferences can lead to inefficiencies, increase project costs, and discriminate against qualified workers from outside the immediate jurisdiction. They contend that federal projects should prioritize merit-based hiring to ensure the best value for taxpayer money.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts hiring practices and labor costs on thousands of federally assisted transportation projects nationwide, affecting local workforces and contractors.
Prohibits funds from being used to license, facilitate, coordinate, or otherwise allow officials of a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism within the past 3 fiscal years to observe, tour, visit, or confer with DOT employees in an official capacity.
Sec. 195, Title I
Why it matters:This is a policy rider reflecting broader foreign policy concerns, likely inserted to prevent perceived security risks or to send a strong political message against state sponsors of terrorism. Placing it in an appropriations bill ensures its immediate effect without a separate legislative process.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision protects national security by preventing officials from hostile states from gaining insights into U.S. transportation systems and operations. It also sends a clear message that the U.S. will not engage in such cooperation with state sponsors of terrorism.
Case against: Critics might argue that such blanket prohibitions could hinder intelligence gathering or diplomatic channels, even with adversarial nations, which might be necessary for de-escalation or crisis management. They may also contend that it's an overreach of an appropriations bill into foreign policy.
Estimated impact: Affects diplomatic and technical engagements between DOT and officials from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism, potentially impacting intelligence sharing or technical cooperation.
Prohibits funds from being used by DOT to use artificial intelligence to transcribe or record for meetings, phone calls, and video teleconferences with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Sec. 197, Title I
Why it matters:This is a policy rider, likely inserted to protect the confidentiality and integrity of communications between federal agencies and congressional appropriations committees, particularly concerning sensitive budget negotiations. It's a tactical maneuver to ensure unrecorded communication channels.
Case for: Proponents argue that this protects the confidentiality and candor of discussions between agencies and appropriators, which are crucial for effective oversight and legislative drafting. It prevents potential misinterpretations or misuse of AI-generated transcripts.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision reduces transparency and accountability, as AI transcription could provide an accurate record of discussions. They may contend that it shields agencies from scrutiny or limits the ability to review past conversations.
Estimated impact: Affects the recording and transcription practices for all meetings, calls, and VTCs between DOT and the Appropriations Committees, ensuring these interactions remain unrecorded by AI.
Authorizes HUD, for FY2027 and FY2028, to transfer project-based assistance, debt, and low-income use restrictions from one multifamily housing project to another, under specific conditions (e.g., no reduction in units for occupied units, physical obsolescence of transferring project, tenant notification).
Sec. 208, Title II
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider that grants HUD broad authority to restructure project-based assistance, which can be controversial due to its impact on tenants and property owners. Placing it in an appropriations bill allows for its passage without a standalone legislative process that might attract more scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue that this flexibility is crucial for preserving affordable housing by allowing HUD to move assistance from obsolete or economically nonviable projects to new or rehabilitated ones. It helps modernize the affordable housing stock and ensures long-term viability.
Case against: Critics might argue that such broad transfer authority could lead to tenant displacement, reduced housing options, or a weakening of affordability restrictions if not carefully managed. They may also contend that it could be used to favor certain developers or projects over others.
Estimated impact: Potentially affects thousands of units of project-based affordable housing and billions of dollars in federal housing assistance, influencing the long-term availability and quality of affordable housing.
Establishes strict eligibility criteria for Section 8 housing assistance for students enrolled at institutions of higher education, generally excluding those under 24, unmarried, without dependent children, not veterans, and not persons with disabilities (unless already receiving assistance as of Nov 30, 2005) or foster youth.
Sec. 209, Title II
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that codifies existing restrictions on student eligibility for federal housing assistance, often included in appropriations bills to ensure its continued enforcement. It's a tactical maneuver to prevent federal housing funds from subsidizing college students who are not considered truly low-income or vulnerable.
Case for: Proponents argue that Section 8 assistance is intended for the most vulnerable low-income populations, not for college students who may have other forms of financial aid or family support. They contend it ensures federal housing resources are directed to those most in need.
Case against: Critics argue that these restrictions can disproportionately affect low-income students, particularly those who are independent or lack family support, potentially increasing their risk of homelessness or housing instability. They contend that some students are genuinely in need of housing assistance.
Estimated impact: Affects the eligibility of potentially thousands of college students for Section 8 housing assistance, directing federal housing resources away from this demographic.