Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jul 24, 2025
Bottom line
The bill provides substantial funding for federal transportation and housing programs for FY2026, alongside specific policy changes and reallocations of prior appropriations.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and several related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It allocates significant funding across various transportation modes, housing assistance programs, and community development initiatives, while also including numerous policy directives, program modifications, and rescissions of prior year unobligated balances. The bill addresses infrastructure, public safety, housing affordability, and support for vulnerable populations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides essential funding to maintain and improve critical national infrastructure, ensure public safety across transportation sectors, and address pressing housing needs, including homelessness and affordable housing. They highlight targeted investments in rural and disadvantaged communities, support for workforce development, and efforts to streamline program administration. The bill's focus on modernizing systems and addressing climate resilience is also cited as beneficial.
Opponents contend
Opponents may contend that the bill's spending levels are excessive or misdirected, potentially contributing to national debt. Concerns could be raised about specific policy riders that alter existing law without standalone debate, or about the reallocation of funds from previously authorized programs. Some may argue that certain allocations do not adequately address the most critical needs or that the bill includes too many congressionally directed spending items (earmarks) which can be seen as less transparent or merit-based.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Its omnibus nature and inclusion of numerous specific provisos, rescissions, and statutory amendments make it challenging for a casual reader to fully grasp its implications within a short timeframe.
Title I, Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses
Office of the Secretary Appropriations
This provision appropriates $185,965,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, detailing specific allocations for various sub-offices like the General Counsel, Policy, Budget, and Administration. It includes provisos allowing limited fund transfers between these purposes and requires congressional approval for larger changes. It also mandates reporting on the implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this funding is crucial for the effective leadership, policy development, and administrative oversight necessary to manage the nation's transportation systems and programs.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that administrative overhead could be reduced, or that specific office allocations are not optimally aligned with current priorities, though no specific opposition is typically raised against general administrative funding.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for robust administrative capacity with calls for fiscal efficiency and congressional oversight over internal fund movements.
Title I, Office of the Secretary, National Infrastructure Investments
Local and Regional Project Assistance Grants
This section appropriates $250,000,000 for a local and regional project assistance grant program, available until expended. It waives certain statutory requirements, mandates at least 5% of funds for historically disadvantaged communities, and prioritizes projects needing federal funds to complete financing. It also sets a 50/50 split for urban and rural projects and allows the Secretary to retain up to 2% for administration.
Title I, Office of the Secretary, Administrative Provisions, Sec. 109C
Rescission and Reappropriation of FY2022 National Infrastructure Investments
This section permanently rescinds unobligated balances from FY2022 National Infrastructure Investments (Public Law 117-58) as of September 30, 2026. An equivalent amount of new budget authority is immediately reappropriated for FY2026, available until September 30, 2031, specifically for completing the funding of awards made in FY2022 under the same program, without additional competition. These amounts are designated as emergency requirements.
Title I, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations
FAA Operations Funding
This provision appropriates $13,818,183,000 for FAA operations, with $13,127,000,000 derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, available until September 30, 2027. It details allocations for aviation safety, air traffic organization (including contract towers and a pilot program for conversions), commercial space transportation, finance, NextGen, security, and staff offices. It also includes specific staffing and reporting requirements for the Administrator.
Title I, Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-Aid for Airports
Airport Planning and Development Grants (General Fund)
This section appropriates an additional $319,368,000 from the general fund for grants-in-aid for airport planning and development, available through September 30, 2028. These funds are not subject to apportionment formulas or obligation limitations. It includes $269,368,000 for congressionally directed spending (earmarks) and up to $50,000,000 for discretionary grants, with $25,000,000 specifically for airports with scheduled commercial service in EAS markets and zero debt.
Title I, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Infrastructure Programs
Highway Infrastructure Programs (General Fund and Rescissions)
This section appropriates $1,136,425,000 for highway infrastructure programs, with $555,200,000 derived from unobligated balances of prior appropriations (Public Law 117-58) and the remainder from the general fund. It includes $581,225,000 for congressionally directed spending, $50,000,000 for the Appalachian development highway system, and various other allocations for regional commissions, pollinator-friendly roadsides, national scenic byways, Tribal high priority projects, and competitive bridge programs.
Title I, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Administrative Provisions, Sec. 130
Exemption from ELD Mandate for Livestock/Insect Transporters
This provision prohibits the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce electronic logging device (ELD) requirements for operators of commercial motor vehicles transporting livestock or insects. This effectively continues an exemption for these specific types of transporters from the federal ELD mandate.
Title I, Federal Railroad Administration, Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements
CRISI Grants (General Fund and Rescissions)
This section appropriates $151,524,000 for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grants. It includes $51,524,000 for congressionally directed spending and $100,000,000 for discretionary grants, with $44,800,000 of the latter derived from rescinded FY2026 Highway Infrastructure Programs funds. It also waives certain statutory requirements for eligible projects, expands eligible recipients to include holding companies of Class II/III railroads, and allows for transfer of funds for commuter rail projects.
Title I, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Infrastructure Grants
Transit Infrastructure Grants (General Fund)
This section appropriates $140,857,000 from the general fund for various transit infrastructure grants, available until expended. It includes $30,000,000 for ferry boat grants (with a set-aside for low/zero emission ferries), $58,857,000 for congressionally directed spending, $25,000,000 for rural ferry service, and $20,000,000 for public safety in transit systems. It also includes specific provisos for eligibility and allocation for rural ferry and public safety funds.
Title II, Public and Indian Housing, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
This provision appropriates $33,354,709,000 (plus $4,000,000,000 available Oct 1, 2026) for tenant-based rental assistance, primarily for renewals of expiring Section 8 contracts. It includes $33,974,000,000 for renewals, with specific rules for Public Housing Agency (PHA) allocations, inflation adjustments, and potential offsets from excess net restricted assets. It also provides $429,709,000 for relocation/replacement vouchers, $2,906,000,000 for PHA administrative expenses, $15,000,000 for incremental HUD-VASH vouchers, and $30,000,000 for the Family Unification Program.
Title II, Public and Indian Housing, Public Housing Fund
Public Housing Operating and Capital Funds
This provision appropriates $8,397,326,000 for public housing, available until September 30, 2029. It allocates $4,873,326,000 for operating funds, $214,000,000 for need-based financial shortfall assistance, and $3,200,000,000 for capital funds (with a 25% limitation on operating fund transfers, waivable by the Secretary). It also includes $30,000,000 for emergency capital needs (including safety/security), $65,000,000 for competitive grants to reduce residential health hazards (including lead-based paint), and $15,000,000 for administrative/judicial receiverships and asset improvement.
Title II, Community Planning and Development, Community Development Fund
Community Development Block Grants and Economic Development Initiative
This section appropriates $4,541,397,000 for community development activities. It includes $3,100,000,000 for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), with limitations on planning/management expenses and prohibitions on fund transfers between entities. It also provides $60,000,000 for competitive grants to remove barriers to affordable housing, $30,000,000 for activities under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (opioid crisis), and $1,351,397,000 for Economic Development Initiative (EDI) grants, primarily for congressionally directed spending.
Title II, Community Planning and Development, Homeless Assistance Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
This provision appropriates $4,530,000,000 for homeless assistance, available until September 30, 2028. It includes $290,000,000 for Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), $4,023,000,000 for Continuum of Care (CoC) and rural housing stability programs (with incentives for high-performing projects and specific allocations for rapid re-housing and domestic violence survivors), $10,000,000 for national homeless data analysis, and $107,000,000 for youth homelessness demonstration projects. It also includes $100,000,000 for one-time CoC awards for new permanent supportive housing construction/acquisition.
Title II, Housing Programs, Project-Based Rental Assistance
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
This provision appropriates $17,404,000,000 (plus $400,000,000 available Oct 1, 2026) for project-based rental assistance, available until expended. These funds are for expiring or terminating Section 8 project-based subsidy contracts, amendments, contracts under the McKinney-Vento Act, renewals for preservation projects, and administrative expenses. Up to $509,000,000 is for performance-based contract administrators. It also allows for the remittance of excess residual receipts from projects to this account.
Title II, Housing Programs, Housing for the Elderly
Section 202 Housing for the Elderly
This provision appropriates $972,000,000 for housing for the elderly, available until September 30, 2029. It funds capital advances, project rental assistance, senior preservation rental assistance, supportive services (including $122,000,000 for service coordinators), and administrative expenses. It allows for 5-year initial contract terms for project rental assistance and the remittance of excess residual receipts to the account. Up to $4,000,000 is for preservation transactions.
Title II, Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, Lead Hazard Reduction
Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes Initiative
This provision appropriates $295,600,000 for lead hazard reduction and healthy homes initiatives, available until September 30, 2028. It allocates $155,600,000 for lead hazard reduction grants (with $105,000,000 for high-need areas) and $140,000,000 for the healthy homes initiative (including research, studies, and $30,000,000 for grants for home modifications for low-income seniors). It also allows for limited transfers to 'Research and Technology' and includes environmental review exemptions for certain activities.
Title IV, General Provisions, Sec. 405
Reprogramming and Transfer Authority Limitations
This section sets strict limitations on the reprogramming and transfer of funds within the Departments and agencies funded by this Act. It requires prior written approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for actions such as creating new programs, eliminating existing ones, increasing/decreasing funds by more than $5,000,000 or 10%, or reorganizing offices. It also mandates the submission of an operating plan within 60 days of enactment to establish a baseline for these authorities.
Title IV, General Provisions, Sec. 426
Limitations on Termination of Discretionary Awards
This section establishes new requirements for the Secretaries of DOT and HUD before terminating discretionary awards under specific federal regulations (2 CFR 200.340(a)(4)). It mandates written notification to Congress and the recipient at least 120 days prior to termination, with a minimum 90-day period for the recipient to restructure or re-scope the award. If terminated, eligible and qualified applications from such entities should be prioritized in future funding rounds. This applies to awards from this Act, prior THUD appropriations, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but not to awards announced after November 1, 2024, or non-discretionary awards.
Directs $6,000,000 for research on durability, resiliency, and sustainability of bridges and other infrastructure to a specific type of accredited university in the northeast United States, with particular experience and capabilities.
Title I, Office of the Secretary, Research and Technology, Proviso 2
Why it matters:This is a form of congressionally directed spending (earmark) that, while not explicitly naming an institution, uses criteria so specific that it effectively directs funds to a particular entity, a common practice to ensure local or regional projects receive funding without being labeled as a direct earmark.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this ensures critical research on infrastructure resilience is conducted by an institution with proven expertise, leveraging existing capabilities to address a vital national need. It directs funds to a specific area of excellence.
Case against: Critics might argue that such highly specific criteria limit competition and may not guarantee the most cost-effective or innovative research outcome. It could be seen as circumventing a fully open and competitive grant process.
Estimated impact: $6,000,000 directed to a specific university for infrastructure research.
Amends 49 U.S.C. 44502(e) to add limitations on the transfer of air traffic systems or equipment to the FAA. It specifies that eligible systems purchased by an airport must have been acquired on or after October 5, 2018, for certain types of equipment, and on or after October 1, 2024, for others. It also adds a limitation for basic or local general aviation airports.
Title I, Federal Aviation Administration, Administrative Provisions, Sec. 119D
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that makes a substantive change to federal aviation law regarding asset transfers. It's likely included in an appropriations bill to ensure its passage as part of a must-pass vehicle, potentially avoiding a more extensive legislative process in a standalone bill.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these limitations clarify the rules for transferring equipment, ensuring that only newer, relevant systems are transferred to the FAA, or that specific types of airports are appropriately managed in this process. It could prevent the FAA from inheriting outdated equipment.
Case against: Critics might argue that adding such specific dates and classifications complicates the transfer process, potentially hindering efficiency or creating unintended barriers for airports seeking to transfer equipment to the FAA. It could also be seen as micromanaging agency operations.
Estimated impact: Modifies the legal framework for asset transfers between airports and the FAA, potentially affecting future acquisitions and operational costs for both.
Amends section 5323(q) of title 49, United States Code, by striking 'Corridor preservation' and inserting 'Real property interests', and making conforming changes to refer to 'real property interests' instead of 'right-of-way'.
Title I, Federal Transit Administration, Administrative Provisions, Sec. 167
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that clarifies or expands the scope of what can be acquired or preserved for transit projects. It's likely included in an appropriations bill to update or refine existing law without requiring a separate legislative vehicle.
Case for: Proponents would argue that updating the terminology to 'real property interests' provides greater flexibility and clarity for transit agencies in acquiring land for projects, potentially encompassing a broader range of property rights beyond just rights-of-way, which could streamline project development.
Case against: Critics might argue that expanding the definition of acquirable interests without explicit standalone debate could lead to unintended consequences, such as broader eminent domain applications or increased costs if not carefully managed. The change could be seen as a subtle expansion of authority.
Estimated impact: Clarifies and potentially broadens the scope of real property acquisition for federal transit projects under 49 U.S.C. 5323(q).
Authorizes the Secretary of HUD for FY2026 and FY2027 to transfer some or all project-based assistance, debt, and use restrictions from one multifamily housing project to another. This can be done in phases and is subject to conditions like maintaining unit numbers/bedroom sizes for occupied units, the transferring project being obsolete/nonviable, the receiving project meeting physical standards, tenant notification, and no increase in FHA-insured mortgage costs.
Title II, General Provisions, Sec. 208
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider that provides a new tool for HUD to manage its portfolio of assisted housing, allowing for the repositioning of properties. It's likely included in an appropriations bill to provide this flexibility quickly and efficiently, potentially bypassing a more lengthy authorization process.
Case for: Proponents argue that this authority is crucial for preserving affordable housing by allowing HUD to move assistance from failing or obsolete properties to viable, high-quality projects. It can prevent the loss of affordable units and improve living conditions for residents.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for displacement of tenants, the criteria for determining 'obsolete or nonviable' properties, and the oversight of these transfers. The broad authority granted to the Secretary could be seen as lacking sufficient checks and balances.
Estimated impact: Potentially affects the long-term viability and location of numerous project-based assisted housing units, and the financial structure of associated properties.
Prohibits Section 8 housing assistance for students enrolled at institutions of higher education who are under 24, not veterans, unmarried, without dependent children, not persons with disabilities (unless already receiving assistance as of Nov 30, 2005), not youth who left foster care at 14+ and are at risk of homelessness, and not otherwise individually eligible or whose parents are not eligible.
Title II, General Provisions, Sec. 209
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that restricts eligibility for a major housing program. It's a substantive policy change that might be included in an appropriations bill to ensure its passage, potentially avoiding a more focused debate on student eligibility for federal aid.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision ensures Section 8 resources are directed to the most vulnerable populations, rather than students who may have other avenues for financial support or whose families may be able to assist them. It aims to prevent perceived abuse of the program.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this provision creates barriers for low-income students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may genuinely need housing assistance to pursue higher education. It could disproportionately affect students who are financially independent from their parents but do not meet the other exemption criteria.
Estimated impact: Restricts Section 8 eligibility for a specific subset of college students, potentially impacting their ability to access affordable housing while pursuing education.
Amends sections 184 and 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to expand Indian and Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee programs. Section 246 expands eligibility for loan guarantees to include 'fee simple lands' for Indian families, Indian housing authorities, and Indian Tribes, and for Native Hawaiian families on fee simple lands in Hawaii. It also clarifies eligible housing types. Section 247 amends the loan terms to allow for a term not exceeding 30 years, except when there is a loan modification, the loan shall not exceed 40 years.
Title II, General Provisions, Sec. 246 and Sec. 247
Why it matters:These are policy riders that expand and modify federal housing programs for Native American and Native Hawaiian communities. They are likely included in an appropriations bill to update or improve existing law without requiring a separate legislative vehicle, leveraging the must-pass nature of the appropriations bill.
Case for: Proponents argue that these amendments expand homeownership opportunities for Indian and Native Hawaiian families by making federal loan guarantees available for housing on fee simple lands, addressing unique challenges faced by these communities. The extended loan terms provide greater flexibility for borrowers.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions aimed at expanding housing opportunities for Native American and Native Hawaiian communities. Some might raise general concerns about the expansion of federal loan guarantee programs or the potential for increased federal liability.
Estimated impact: Expands the scope and flexibility of federal housing loan guarantee programs for Indian and Native Hawaiian communities, potentially increasing homeownership rates and federal financial exposure.