Americans who face illegal treatment in the housing market are losing access to the federal investigators meant to protect their rights. A new report from the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) shows that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Justice Department refused to provide the annual housing‑discrimination complaint records for 2025, ending a reporting practice that began in 1996.

Missing data hampers transparency

The NFHA’s 2026 Fair Housing Trends Report documents 20,805 complaints handled by nonprofit fair‑housing groups and the Justice Department in 2025, down from 24,001 the year before. Those figures exclude any complaints processed by HUD or by state and local agencies that receive federal funding, because those agencies did not turn over their data.

Without the federal records, researchers cannot determine the total number of complaints filed nationwide. The report warns against interpreting the lower count as evidence that discrimination has declined. Many organizations that once investigated complaints are now operating with far fewer staff, reduced funding, and, in some cases, no ability to accept new cases.

Staff cuts at federal enforcement offices

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity saw a dramatic reduction in personnel. At least 3,188 HUD employees left in 2025, and the office’s January‑2025 workforce was reduced to roughly one‑third of its prior size. The Justice Department filed only 31 housing and civil enforcement cases in fiscal 2025, compared with 44 the previous year, with the majority of those cases filed before President Trump’s first full month in office.

Cases alleging patterns or practices of discrimination fell sharply, dropping from 21 to three. The shrinking federal workforce has also hurt nonprofit partners that test landlords and lenders, provide legal assistance, and conduct public education.

Impact on local fair‑housing groups

Among the 82 nonprofit organizations surveyed, 62 reported disruptions to federal funding. Fifty‑eight reduced services, 14 eliminated staff positions, 15 curtailed or suspended discrimination testing, and 11 stopped or limited new case intake. Four organizations temporarily closed their offices, and nine reported being unable to pay employees, borrowing money, or exhausting reserves.

Specific examples illustrate the strain. In Arizona, the Southwest Fair Housing Council lost more than half its workforce during an 18‑month funding disruption, leaving just four employees to serve a state of 7.6 million residents. The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center stopped accepting new cases three times in 2025, an estimated loss of 50 families receiving assistance. Conversely, a Louisiana organization handled 77 % more complaints despite a six‑month funding interruption that forced layoffs and reduced public‑education efforts.

Legal challenge to HUD funding changes

In July 2026, the NFHA and the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center sued HUD over a directive that would have consolidated $46 million of a $56 million fair‑housing program into five awards, replacing a system that historically distributed grants to more than 100 local organizations. Plaintiffs argued the change would exclude established enforcement groups and threaten their ability to remain open. A federal judge vacated the disputed fiscal‑2025 funding notices in August and reaffirmed the ruling in September.

What the missing data means for Americans

The report notes that more than half of the documented complaints involved people with disabilities (11,543 cases). Racial discrimination accounted for 2,327 complaints, and sex discrimination for 1,239. Rental housing made up 18,753 complaints, over 90 % of the total. Additionally, 1,892 complaints involved discrimination based on source of income, such as landlords refusing to rent to tenants who rely on housing vouchers.

“Discrimination is hard to detect and harder to document,” the NFHA authors wrote. “Many people who experience discrimination never report it because they are unable to detect it, doubt anything will be done about it, or they fear retaliation.” The alliance concluded, “Discrimination didn’t decline; the administration of appropriated resources to tackle it did.”

Administration’s stance

The Trump administration has not provided a public explanation for the discontinuation of the data‑sharing practice. Federal officials have cited ongoing budgetary reviews and a shift toward more localized enforcement mechanisms, but the NFHA and affected nonprofits argue that the lack of transparency hampers accountability and leaves vulnerable families without needed assistance.

Original reporting: The Washington Informer — read the source article.