Texas
Federal investigators were preparing two Texas housing discrimination cases — until Trump took over
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
The findings were stark. In one investigation, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development concluded that a Texas state agency had steered $1 billion in disaster mitigation money away from Houston and nearby communities of color after Hurricane Harvey inundated the region in 2017. In another investigation, HUD found that a homeowners association outside of Dallas had created rules to kick poor Black people out of their neighborhood.
The episodes amounted to egregious violations of civil rights laws, officials at the housing agency believed — enough to warrant litigation against the alleged culprits. That, at least, was the view during the presidency of Joe Biden. After the Trump administration took over, HUD quietly took steps that will likely kill both cases, according to three officials familiar with the matter.
Those steps were extremely unusual. Current and former HUD officials said they could not recall the housing agency ever pulling back cases of this magnitude in which the agency had found evidence of discrimination. That leaves the yearslong, high-profile investigations in a state of limbo, with no likely path for the government to advance them, current and former officials said. As a result, the alleged perpetrators of the discrimination could face no government penalties, and the alleged victims could receive no compensation.
“I just think that’s a doggone shame,” said Doris Brown, a Houston resident and a co-founder of a community group that, together with a housing nonprofit, filed the Harvey complaint. Brown saw 3 feet of water flood her home in a predominantly Black neighborhood that still shows damage from the storm. “We might’ve been able to get some more money to help the people that are still suffering,” she said.
On Jan. 15, HUD referred the Houston case to the Department of Justice, a necessary step to a federal lawsuit after the housing agency finds evidence of discrimination. Less than a month later, on Feb. 13, the agency rescinded its referral without public explanation. HUD did the same with the Dallas case not long after.
The development has alarmed some about a rollback of civil rights enforcement at the agency under President Donald Trump and HUD Secretary Scott Turner, who is from Texas. “The new administration is systematically dismantling the fair housing enforcement and education system,” said Sara Pratt, a former HUD official and an attorney for complainants in both Texas cases. “The message is: The federal government no longer takes housing discrimination seriously.”
HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett disagreed, saying there was precedent for the rescinded referrals, which were done to gather more facts and scrutinize the investigations. “We’re taking a fresh look at Biden Administration policies, regulations, and cases. These cases are no exception,” Lovett said in a statement. “HUD will uphold the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act as the department is strongly and wholeheartedly opposed to housing discrimination.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
The Harvey case concerns a portion of a $4.3 billion grant that HUD gave to Texas after the hurricane inundated low-lying coastal areas, killing at least 89 people and causing more than $100 billion in damage. The money was meant to fund better drainage, flood control systems and other storm mitigation measures.
HUD sent the money to a state agency called the Texas General Land Office, which awarded the first $1 billion in funding to communities affected by Harvey through a grant competition. But the state agency excluded Houston and many of the most exposed coastal areas from eligibility for half of that money, according to HUD’s investigation. And, for the other half, it created award criteria that benefited rural areas at the expense of more populous applicants like Houston.
The result: Of that initial $1 billion, Houston — where nearly half of all homes were damaged by the hurricane — received nothing. Neither did Harris County, where Houston is located, or other coastal areas with large minority populations. Instead, the Texas agency, according to HUD, awarded a disproportionate amount of the aid to more rural, white areas that had suffered less damage in the hurricane. After an outcry, GLO asked HUD a few days later to send $750 million to Harris County, but HUD found that allocation still fell far short of the county’s mitigation needs. And none of that money went directly to Houston.
HUD launched an investigation into the competition in 2021, ultimately finding that GLO had discriminated on the basis of race and national origin, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and possibly the Fair Housing Act as well.
“GLO knowingly developed and operated a competition for the purpose of allocating funds to mitigate storm and flood risk that steered money away from urban Black and Hispanic communities that had the highest storm and flood risk into Whiter, more rural areas with less risk,” the agency wrote. “Despite awareness that its course of action would result in disparate harm for Black and Hispanic individuals, GLO still knowingly and disparately denied these communities critical mitigation funding.”
GLO has consistently disputed the allegations. It contends that many people of color benefited from its allocations. The Texas agency has also argued that the evidence in the case was weak, citing the fact that, in 2023, the Justice Department returned the case to HUD. At the time, the DOJ said it wanted HUD to investigate further. The housing agency then spent more than a year digging deeper into the facts and assembling more evidence before making its short-lived referral in January.
Asked about the rescinded referral, GLO spokesperson Brittany Eck told ProPublica: “Liberal political appointees and advocates spent years spinning false narratives without the facts to build a case. Four years of sensationalized, clickbait rhetoric without evidence is long enough.”
The other HUD case involved Providence Village, a largely white community north of Dallas of around 9,000 people. Purported concerns about crime and property values led the Providence Homeowners Association to adopt a rule in 2022 prohibiting property owners from renting to holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, through which HUD subsidizes the housing costs of poor, elderly and disabled people. There were at least 157 households in Providence Village supported by vouchers, nearly all of them Black families. After the HOA action, some of them began leaving.
The rule attracted national attention, leading the Texas Legislature to prohibit HOAs from banning Section 8 tenants. Undeterred, the Providence HOA adopted amended rules in 2024 that placed restrictions on rental properties, which HUD found would have a similar effect as the previous ban.
Throughout the HOA’s efforts, people peppered community social media groups with racist vitriol about voucher holders, describing them as “wild animals,” “ghetto poverty crime ridden mentality people” and “lazy entitled leeching TR@SH.” One person wrote that “they might just leave in a coroner’s wagon.”
The discord attracted a white nationalist group, which twice protested just outside Providence Village. “The federal government views safe White communities as a problem,” flyers distributed by the group read. “The Section 8 Housing Voucher is a tool used to bring diversity to these neighborhoods.”
In January, HUD formally accused the HOA, its board president, a property management company and one of its property managers of violating the Fair Housing Act. The respondents have disputed the allegation. The HOA has argued its rules were meant to protect property values, support well-maintained homes and address crime concerns. The property management company, FirstService Residential Texas, said it was not responsible for the actions of the HOA.
The HOA and FirstService did not respond to requests for comment. The property manager declined to comment. Mitch Little, a lawyer for the HOA board president, said: “HUD didn’t pursue this case because there’s nothing to pursue. The claims are baseless and unsubstantiated.”
The Providence Village and Houston cases stretched on for years. All it took was two terse emails to undo them. “HUD’s Office of General Counsel withdrew the referral of the above-captioned case to the Department of Justice,” HUD wrote to Pratt this month regarding one of the cases. “We have no further information at this time.” That was the entirety of the message; neither email explained the reasoning behind the decisions.
The cases may have fallen victim to a broader roll-back of civil rights enforcement at the Justice Department, where memos circulated in January ordering a freeze of civil rights cases and investigations.
The development is the latest sign that the Trump administration may dramatically curtail HUD’s housing discrimination work. The agency canceled 78 grants to local fair housing groups last month, sparking a lawsuit by some of them. HUD justified the cancellations by saying each grant “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” (Pratt’s firm, Relman Colfax, is representing the plaintiffs in that suit.) And projections circulating within HUD last month indicated the agency’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity could see its staff cut by 76% under the new administration.
If HUD does not pursue the cases, the complainants could file their own lawsuits. But they may not soon forget the government’s about-face on the issue. “If there is a major flood in Houston, which there almost certainly will be, and people die, and homes get destroyed, the people who made this decision are in large part responsible,” said Ben Hirsch, a member of one of the groups that brought the Harvey complaint. “People will die because of this.”
Disclosure: Texas General Land Office has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Texas
Should Texas Football stop scheduling elite non-conference opponents?
There are two main theories in scheduling non-conference games. You test your mettle against one of the elite programs in America or you keep it as easy as possible. Texas Football’s philosophy for years has been to schedule at least one elite program a year. But will that cost them a spot in the CFP this season?
This year, Texas faced Ohio State in Week 1 of the regular season. Texas lost that game 14-7. The Longhorns will face the Buckeyes again next year and Michigan in 2027. Then UT will start a home-and-home Notre Dame in 2028.
For years, UT has been considered a model for college football scheduling. The Texas Athletic Department cooks up a good mix of smaller to medium size FBS teams with at least one huge marquee matchup with another college football power. Texas doesn’t play FCS (formerly I-AA) teams.
In the past, the Longhorns have played USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Alabama. Texas had scheduled Florida and Georgia in the future, but those were canceled after the Longhorns joined the SEC.
But this season it may have cost them. Where would Texas be ranked if they were 8-2 instead of 7-3? There are seven teams with 8-2 records ahead of Texas in the latest CFP rankings. One of those, Oklahoma, Texas has beaten.
The CFP committee seems to waffle on strength of schedule. Much of that is the make up of college football right now. You have two big conferences that play a tough opponent almost every week.
“But by the end of the season, we’ll play, of our 12 regular season opponents, five of those teams will be Top 10 teams when we played them. So nearly half our schedule.” – Texas coach Steve Sarkisian
Then you have the other conferences advocating for the committee to look primarily at record because there’s no way their strength of schedule holds up. How to you balance the two?
Most teams are giving up on scheduling elite opponents. In fact, almost the majority schedule at least one game with a teams from the FCS (formerly Division I-AA). That is something Texas doesn’t do. UT has played one FCS opponent in the past and that was as a replacement.
But if you look at some of the opponents in just the SEC this week you’ll see Samford against the Aggies, Charlotte at Georgia, Eastern Illinois at Alabama, Mercer at Auburn.
A few programs schedule in a similar way to Texas, like Michigan and Ohio State. But in a world where making the CFP is the minimum expectation for the Longhorns, there should be discussions in the University of Texas athletic office about whether it is the smartest way to build a schedule.
Texas
Texas hemp regulation proceeds despite federal restriction
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission moved forward on Tuesday with its efforts to regulate the sale of consumable hemp products as questions swirled around the future of the industry due to federal restrictions on the products approved by Congress last week.
A provision of the funding bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture that ended the longest government shutdown on record also undid a provision of the 2018 farm bill that first allowed Texas’ $8 billion hemp industry to thrive.
The funding bill bans the sale of hemp-derived products with more than 0.4 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive element also found in marijuana. That provision, which criminalizes almost all consumable hemp products sold across the country, will put Texas’ law in direct conflict with the federal law when it takes effect next November.
In spite of the impending federal restrictions, TABC intends to proceed with the adoption of permanent regulations on the hemp industry in Texas that will replace emergency rules adopted by the commission in September that barred the sale of THC products to anyone younger than 21. Advocates and trade representatives who testified at the TABC meeting Tuesday said they do not expect the federal restrictions to be the final word on the debate.
“What we understand is this is still a conversation that is happening at (the federal) level,” Shaun Salvaje, a veteran who uses consumable hemp products and an advocate for cannabis reform, told the commission. “You have a unique opportunity to regulate an industry that is built by Texans for Texans.”
The commissioners are following the executive order Gov. Greg Abbott issued in September that directed both TABC and the Department of State Health Services to impose stricter regulations on the hemp businesses they license, like an age restriction on sales to minors and mandatory ID verification at the point of sale.
That executive order came after Abbott in June vetoed a legislative ban on the products and the Legislature was unable to come to a consensus on regulations during two special sessions this summer.
DSHS in October approved its own emergency rules that require sellers of consumable hemp to verify with a valid ID that a customer is at least 21 years old, violations of which may lead to the revocation of a license or registration.
TABC’s latest proposed rules
TABC’s proposed permanent rules were introduced at the Tuesday meeting, and commissioners also voted to begin a public input period that will conclude on Jan. 4. The commission will vote on the formal adoption of the regulations in January.
TABC’s proposed rules are largely aligned with the emergency rules it approved in September, but pulls back on some of the stricter measures. The new proposal removes a “one strike” provision that allows TABC to revoke the license of any business found to have sold the products to a minor or failed to check ID. The permanent rules allow for the agency to temporarily suspend licenses for less egregious violations.
Two trade group representatives of convenience stores in the state testified that they support a less punitive approach to potential violations, arguing the automatic cancellation under the emergency rules risks putting stores out of business over a simple mistake.
TABC’s permanent rules would apply to businesses that have liquor licenses and sell hemp products, such as restaurants and bars that sell THC drinks and convenience stores that sell both alcohol and THC products.
Further public comment will take place over the coming weeks both submitted and at a public hearing planned for Dec. 11, TABC staff said.
Another fight for the hemp industry
Commissioner Hasan K. Mack said the agency intends to act “regardless of the actions at the federal level.”
“We’re going to do what the governor tells us we need to do … that’s all we can do right now until we get further guidance from the governor’s office,” Mack said. “There is no benefit in allowing underage Texans to consume hemp products.”
Abbott has not provided additional guidance to the agencies since the federal restrictions were approved, and his office did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
The federal restrictions signed by President Donald Trump last week invoke a sense of déjà vu in Texas, where advocates and trade groups sprung into action following the legislative approval of a ban on the sale of the products this spring. After weeks of lobbying the governor’s office, Abbott split from more conservative members of his party and vetoed the ban, citing the industry’s economic impact.
The industry is gearing up for a similar fight, this time in Washington.
“Hemp is too vital to the American economy and to the livelihoods of millions to be dismantled by rushed, politically driven legislation,” the Texas Hemp Business Council said in a statement last week. “As we proved in Texas, we will continue to pursue every legal and legislative option to overturn these harmful provisions and restore a fair, science-based system that continues to protect minors, ensure product safety and preserve the economic opportunities Congress created in 2018.”
It is also unclear how aggressively the federal restrictions will be enforced once they go into effect. Since 1970, marijuana, hemp’s cousin, has been classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the most restrictive classification, but that prohibition is generally not enforced in states where it is legal. There are 40 states, including Texas, that have medical marijuana programs. In 24 states, marijuana is legal for recreational use.
Like in Texas, all branches of the federal government are controlled by the Republican Party, which has historically been more hostile to recreational cannabis use. However, political winds have changed in recent years.
U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, and Troy Nehls, R-Richmond, both voted in favor of the funding bill that included the restrictions, citing the need to end the government shutdown as quickly as possible. They both also said they oppose the federal restrictions on the hemp industry and hope Congress will address the issue again.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was one of two Republican senators to vote in favor of a failed amendment that would have removed the restrictions from the funding bill.
Even Trump, who the White House said was supportive of the restrictions in the funding bill, in September endorsed Medicare coverage of CBD — a cannabidiol substance derived from the cannabis plant that would also likely be federally banned by the new restrictions.
As cannabis and hemp-derived products have become more common throughout the country, Texas Cannabis Policy director Heather Fazio said much of the taboo around their use has fallen away, allowing for the issue to become more bipartisan. The debate at the federal level comes at a moment where the industry is maturing and ready to wade into the world of political lobbying, Fazio said.
“We’ve come to a place, at least in Texas, where THC is a legal commodity that responsible adults are enjoying, and it came about in a way that was much different than many of us would have expected,” Fazio said. “Now, to have this big wall that we hit at the federal level, thank goodness for the one year lead time we have because I think we’re going to have some significant lobbying efforts step up. For the industry, we need to treat this like a political movement.”
Source link
Texas
More North Texas families seek help as Salvation Army sees rising need
Debbie Rose said she had to go. So, last year she did.
“I think the biggest thing was I fled a domestic violence situation in Montana,” Rose said. “I put my dog in one seat, myself in another.”
The Plano native came back to what she knew, Texas. She made her way in a two-seater and, eventually, got a job as a recruiter. In February, she was laid off.
According to the 60-year-old, she did not want to be a burden on her family’s table. So, she went to the Salvation Army in Hood County.
“It was devastating,” she said. “It was very difficult. Very difficult.”
Rhagrean Frey with the Salvation Army in Hood County said it’s difficult for families to come into their offices in Granbury to ask for help. She said more are coming in the door.
“Since I’ve been here, a lot of job layoffs. We’ve seen an increase with utilities or just living expenses,” Frey said. “Rent has gone up in the area. And so these families who are used to living paycheck to paycheck, having that budget, having that increase, it hurts.”
Frey said their emergency financial assistance is $90,000 for community assistance. Last year, she said that number jumped to $99,000. They’ve already set it at $100,000 for next year.
According to Frey, they assisted 126 families or elderly persons with rent, 203 people with utility bills, 57 got gas vouchers, and 28 additional people got funding for lodging. The disbursements are from October 2024 through September 2025. Frey approves the applications for funding.
“And I hope that when those families do come in and they have little ones, that they don’t get affected by it and they don’t even realize that it’s going on, because I couldn’t imagine as a mom going home and telling my kids, you know, ‘our utilities aren’t on right now,’” she said.
Red Kettle fundraising, Frey said, will mean more this year. It’s the Salvation Army’s marquis fundraiser. The money helped Debbie Rose, who wants to get through this rough patch and back on her own. Her rebuild is a challenge.
She called it a Godsend.
“They helped me with my rent so that particular month I wouldn’t become homeless. And it helped me to find a more affordable situation where I could handle the monthly payments,” Rose said. “They connected me to other resources within the community.”
-
Vermont1 week agoNorthern Lights to dazzle skies across these US states tonight – from Washington to Vermont to Maine | Today News
-
New Jersey1 week agoPolice investigate car collision, shooting in Orange, New Jersey
-
West Virginia1 week ago
Search for coal miner trapped in flooded West Virginia mine continues for third day
-
Business1 week agoDeveloper plans to add a hotel and hundreds of residences to L.A. Live
-
Business3 days ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
World1 week ago
The deadly car explosion in New Delhi is being investigated under an anti-terrorism law
-
Culture1 week agoTest Yourself on the Settings Mentioned in These Novels About Road Trips
-
Washington, D.C1 week agoBarack Obama surprises veterans on honor flight to DC ahead of Veterans Day