Eviction Crisis Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The Eviction Crisis Act of 2026 seeks to address the national eviction crisis by improving data collection, funding prevention programs, and strengthening tenant protections.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a national evictions database under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to collect comprehensive data on court-ordered, administrative, and illegal evictions. It also creates grant programs for eviction diversion initiatives, illegal eviction data collection, and emergency financial assistance to very low-income households at risk of housing instability. Additionally, it amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to enhance tenant protections regarding screening reports and establishes an advisory committee on eviction research.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step to address the widespread and costly eviction crisis, which disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. They contend that comprehensive data will enable evidence-based policymaking, while diversion programs and emergency assistance will prevent homelessness, reduce burdens on the justice system, and provide a vital safety net for families facing temporary crises.
Opponents contend
Critics may raise concerns about the significant federal spending authorized by the bill, the administrative burden placed on state and local governments, courts, and landlords for data collection, and potential privacy implications of a national database. Some might also argue that changes to tenant screening reports could limit landlords' ability to assess risk, or that emergency assistance programs could create dependency.
The bill is substantial but well-structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 4
Eviction Diversion Programs and Community Courts Grants
This section authorizes the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to award grants to states and local jurisdictions. These grants are intended to support the establishment or expansion of eviction diversion programs and landlord-tenant focused community courts. The goal is to provide services that help tenants meet their obligations or transition to stable housing, thereby diverting cases from traditional eviction courts and reducing costs for all parties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these programs are highly effective in preventing unnecessary evictions, which benefits both tenants by maintaining housing stability and landlords by avoiding costly and time-consuming court processes. They also reduce the strain on the judicial system and social services.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while well-intentioned, these programs could introduce additional administrative layers or perceived delays for landlords seeking to recover property, despite the bill's explicit language stating they are not intended to lengthen legitimate eviction processes or curtail landlord rights.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to balance the goal of eviction prevention and tenant support with the need to ensure landlords can efficiently resolve legitimate disputes and recover their property, while also managing the administrative burden on local justice systems.
Section 5
National Evictions Database Establishment
This section mandates the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish and maintain a national database of evictions within one year. This database will collect detailed, self-reported and procedural data on court-ordered, administrative, and illegal evictions, including tenant demographics, landlord information, reasons for eviction, and case outcomes. The database is designed to be accessible for research and policy development, with strict privacy safeguards for personally identifiable information.
Section 6
Grant Program to Collect Data on Illegal Evictions
This section directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish a grant program. These grants will be awarded to local governments and nonprofit organizations specifically to set up programs for collecting data on illegal evictions from landlords across the United States. This aims to capture a segment of the eviction crisis that often goes unrecorded through formal court processes.
Section 8
Emergency Assistance Program
This section establishes a competitive grant program through HUD to provide financial assistance and housing stabilization services to very low-income households. The goal is to prevent evictions, homelessness, and other housing instability caused by short-term crises. Assistance is generally limited to 4 months within a 3-year period, but can extend to 12 months during periods of high unemployment or major disasters, with potential for additional extensions.
Section 9
Fair Credit Reporting Act Amendments for Tenant Screening
This section amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to introduce new protections for rental applicants. It requires consumer reporting agencies to provide a copy of a tenant screening report to a consumer if a landlord procures one. Additionally, it prohibits the reporting of eviction judgments that were decided in favor of the tenant, aiming to prevent such outcomes from negatively impacting future housing opportunities.
Requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for protecting the privacy of personally identifiable information in the national evictions database, specifically incorporating confidentiality measures for tenants who are survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Section 5(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include specific operational details within the broader framework of a program's guidelines. However, its importance for vulnerable populations might be overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this is an essential safeguard, acknowledging the heightened risks and vulnerabilities faced by survivors of violence and ensuring that data collection does not inadvertently expose them to further harm or discrimination.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against robust privacy protections, especially for vulnerable populations, though some might argue about the complexity and cost of implementing such detailed confidentiality measures.
Estimated impact: Provides critical protection for a significant subset of the tenant population, potentially encouraging reporting without fear of reprisal or exposure.
Establishes standards for local officials to identify and designate social services agencies that may access the national evictions database to provide targeted social services to tenants.
Section 5(d)(6)
Why it matters:This is a functional detail of how the database's data can be leveraged for direct intervention, placed logically within the operational guidelines. It's a practical application that might not be highlighted in a high-level summary.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a key benefit of the database, enabling proactive outreach and support to tenants identified as at risk, thereby moving beyond mere data collection to direct, preventative action.
Case against: Concerns might be raised about the scope of access granted to social services agencies, the potential for mission creep, or the need for strict protocols to prevent misuse of data, even for benevolent purposes.
Estimated impact: Facilitates direct intervention and support for tenants identified through the database, potentially preventing evictions and improving housing stability for individuals.
Provides an exception to the normal 4-month limit on emergency financial assistance, allowing for up to 12 months of assistance (with potential for an additional 3 months) during periods of high unemployment (5.5% or higher) or declared major disasters/emergencies.
Section 8(e)(2)
Why it matters:This is a contingency clause, designed to adapt the program to severe economic or disaster conditions. While critical for the program's flexibility and responsiveness, it's a detail within the broader program structure.
Case for: Proponents would argue this flexibility is vital, ensuring the program can adequately respond to widespread crises like economic downturns or natural disasters, where short-term assistance may be insufficient to restore housing stability.
Case against: Critics concerned about program costs might view this as a mechanism for significant, open-ended spending, especially given the broad triggers for extended assistance. They might argue for stricter limits or more precise triggers.
Estimated impact: Potentially increases the total cost and duration of assistance provided by the emergency program by up to three times under specific, widespread crisis conditions, significantly expanding its reach and impact during such times.
Requires eligible grantees of the emergency assistance program to allow eligible households to use self-certification or self-attestation to meet statutory or regulatory requirements, to the greatest extent possible.
Section 8(o)
Why it matters:This is an administrative efficiency measure, intended to streamline access to aid. While critical for reducing barriers, it's a procedural detail rather than a core program feature.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential for ensuring rapid and equitable access to assistance, particularly for vulnerable populations who may struggle to gather extensive documentation. It reduces administrative burden on applicants and speeds up aid delivery.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for fraud or abuse if documentation requirements are too lenient, arguing that robust verification is necessary to ensure funds are properly allocated and accounted for.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces administrative hurdles for very low-income households seeking emergency assistance, potentially increasing program accessibility and speed of aid delivery, but also raising questions about verification rigor.