The Protecting Homeowners from Squatters Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 17, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to deter squatting by withholding federal housing and development funds and mortgage support from municipalities deemed to be permissive of the practice, thereby incentivizing local action against illegal property occupation.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and federal mortgage support for residential loans in any unit of general local government that permits squatting or confers special tenancy rights to individuals engaging in squatting. It defines 'squatting' with slightly different consecutive day thresholds for the CDBG and mortgage support provisions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect property owners' rights, safeguard the value of real estate collateral for federal loans, and ensure that federal benefits do not inadvertently reinforce or condone illegal property occupation. They contend it will encourage local governments to adopt and enforce stronger measures against squatting.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, including those experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, by incentivizing hasty evictions without adequate due process. They may also contend that withholding federal funds could severely impact communities in need of development and housing assistance, and that it represents an overreach of federal authority into local governance.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)
Congressional Findings on Squatting
This section outlines the legislative intent, stating that unlawfully entering and residing in a property for consecutive days without permission or rent should not grant tenant status. It asserts that local law enforcement should expeditiously remove and prosecute squatters, and that federal benefits and mortgage support should not incentivize squatting or create undue risks for property values.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings clearly articulate the problem of squatting and the federal government's role in discouraging it, providing a strong foundational statement for the bill's operative sections and justifying the subsequent prohibitions.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these findings oversimplify complex housing issues and could be used to justify policies that harm vulnerable individuals, potentially conflating squatting with other forms of housing insecurity without sufficient nuance.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the clear assertion of property owner rights with potential concerns about the broader context of housing access and the precise definition of lawful occupancy, which can be complex in practice.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding
This provision amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to require the Secretary of HUD to prohibit CDBG funds for any local government that permits squatting or grants special tenancy rights to squatters. It defines 'squatting' for this section as residing in a property for 10 or more consecutive days without permission or rent. The bill also mandates a process for local governments to take corrective actions and requires HUD to publicly list non-compliant jurisdictions.
Section 2(c)
Prohibition on Federal Mortgage Support
This section prohibits federal support, including FHA, VA, and USDA insurance/guarantees, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac purchases/securitization, for residential loans in any local government unit that is prohibited from receiving CDBG funds due to permitting squatting. It defines 'squatting' for this section as residing in a property for 14 or more consecutive days without permission or rent. The bill mandates joint regulations from covered agencies (HUD, FHFA, VA, USDA) to implement this prohibition.
The bill provides two slightly different definitions for 'squatting.' For the CDBG funding prohibition, squatting is defined as residing in a property for '10 or more consecutive days' without permission or rent. For the Federal mortgage support prohibition, it is defined as '14 or more consecutive days' without permission or rent.
Section 2(b)(3) and Section 2(c)(3)(C)
Why it matters:The difference in timeframes could be an oversight, a deliberate distinction based on the specific nature of the federal support being withheld, or an attempt to make one prohibition slightly less stringent than the other. It is not overtly evasive but introduces a subtle complexity.
Case for: Proponents might argue that the slight difference in days reflects the varying policy objectives or administrative considerations of the two distinct federal programs, allowing for a degree of flexibility in application.
Case against: Critics could argue that inconsistent definitions create unnecessary confusion for local governments, property owners, and federal agencies, making compliance and enforcement more complex and potentially leading to disparate outcomes depending on which federal program is being considered.
Estimated impact: This inconsistency could lead to administrative complexities for local governments attempting to comply with both prohibitions and for federal agencies tasked with enforcement, potentially causing confusion regarding the exact threshold for 'squatting' depending on the federal program context.