Recent HUD letter on affinity-based housing signals enforcement risks for educational institutions
On June 23, 2026, Craig Trainor, assistant secretary for fair housing and equal opportunity at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), published a letter on his personal LinkedIn account warning colleges and universities that race-based affinity student housing programs may potentially violate the Fair Housing Act. Read alongside the recent Executive Order 14398, which we discussed here, the letter signals the administration’s continued focus on equal opportunity policies and practices.
While the letter acknowledges that the Fair Housing Act extends to various protected classes such as religion, sex, familial status, and disability, it solely focuses on racially based affinity housing. The letter alleges that affinity-based student housing encourages “institutionalized separatism” and “neo-segregation.” It states that “focused-group tested” justifications such as “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” “safe spaces,” and “intersectional allyship” would not support the creation or maintenance of such housing or programs. It warns that HUD will take action against institutions that support race-based housing and pursue remedies including compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.
The letter provides a broad pronouncement of HUD’s legal position and relies heavily on two news articles from 2016. At the same time, a footnote states that the guidance “does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.” The letter, nonetheless, states that it is intended to “provide clarity to the public regarding existing legal requirements.”
Close review of the letter reveals HUD’s strong view that racially segregated housing violates the law. However, the letter does not address areas where the agency would find institutions in compliance or steps institutions could take to fall within the bounds of the law. For example, the letter claims that labels such as “cultural celebration” would not support allegations that a program is lawful. However, language-immersion residences where students live together to practice German, French, or another language presumably celebrate those cultures through the study of those languages. While those programs are not race-based and could escape scrutiny, the letter’s silence as to what it views as lawful programs leaves room for potentially more aggressive positions in the future. Further, the letter does not address housing or programs that focus on racial affinity but are open to all students regardless of race. Again, such practices would not appear to violate the letter of the Fair Housing Act, but the letter’s silence on this issue could raise potential concerns.
The HUD letter follows a wave of recent actions by other administration agencies to target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. President Trump recently issued Executive Order 14398, requiring federal contractors to agree to abstain from engaging in “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced an investigation of Arizona State University related to DEI policies, and in October 2025, the University of Virginia reached an agreement with the DOJ ending an investigation into its DEI policies. Broader DOJ actions include investigating public employers, which we discussed here. Similarly, in May 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the DOJ released joint guidance documents warning against “unlawful DEI-related discrimination.” On November 20, 2025, the EEOC also filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to compel Northwestern Mutual to produce information about the firm’s DEI policies and practices.
Educational institutions should take note that, in addition to the DOJ and other regulators, HUD has entered the anti-DEI fray. However, HUD has done so with few details related to compliant policies and practices. At a minimum, educational institutions should ensure that opportunities to live in affinity housing remain open to all. Moreover, such institutions should review policies related to all cultural housing to determine whether any such programs are subject to grey areas that may trigger federal bias-related claims.
