(Image Credit: IMAGN) Keith Glasscock emerges from his tent at a Simi Valley encampment to talk with Jorge Escobar, a Simi Valley code compliance officer, during Ventura County's annual homeless count on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025.
Southern California – Across California, homeless service organizations and local governments have found themselves ensnared in what federal officials have cast as a cultural pushback: new, Trump administration–imposed restrictions on nearly $683?million in Continuum of Care (CoC) grants meant for housing, rental aid, and outreach to people experiencing homelessness. Authorities are asking recipients to sign off on prohibitions against using funds to promote ideas including “gender ideology,” “elective abortion,” or policies that “shield illegal aliens.” The penalties for non-compliance can be steep—tripling the grant amount—or even bring criminal liability.
These stipulations stem from executive orders signed by President Trump shortly after taking office, directing a purge of perceived “DEI extremism” from federal and federally supported programs. For service providers, signing the new conditions could limit their capacity to help communities they’ve long served. Failing to comply could result in funding loss or legal jeopardy. A few public agencies, such as Santa Clara and San Francisco counties, have chosen to fight back: they’ve joined a lawsuit filed in May alleging that the Trump administration’s actions overstep federal authority, bypass regulatory process, and impose vaguely defined, unconstitutional requirements.
Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti underscored the inherent ambiguity, noting that local governments routinely implement policies that support undocumented residents. It is unclear how a prohibition on “shiel[d]ing illegal aliens” would affect housing aid. LoPresti noted the policy “gives [the administration] an incredible amount of license to interpret … unconstitutionally and unlawfully”—all of which could jeopardize access to needed federal funds for essential services.
The stakes are substantial: San Francisco’s CoC grant totals roughly $50?million, Santa Clara’s $34?million, and in total more than 200 California entities received funding—amounting to nearly $683?million statewide. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court in Seattle granted an injunction on June 3, halting enforcement of the conditions while the court considers whether placing such ideological restrictions on Congress-appropriated funds violates separation-of-powers principles.
But not every recipient has the resources to litigate. Many nonprofits, notably smaller, community-based or faith-led organizations, feel compelled to sign the new agreements simply to meet immediate housing and rental assistance needs. Carol Roberts of Lutheran Social Services in Solano County likened the situation to accepting “ridiculous things” just to keep programs that currently house dozens afloat. Contra?Costa County officials worry that the language could undercut aid to vulnerable populations, including the transgender community and undocumented immigrants. Broad language around “gender ideology” could discourage programs that affirm trans identities, while prohibitions on sheltering the undocumented may force aid providers into untenable positions, said county director Christy Saxton.
Even some large nonprofits are resigning themselves to the changes in an attempt to maintain continuity of care. Abode Services CEO Vivian Wan described the conditions as “scary” and vague, yet “a lot of bark and not a lot of bite.” The organization intends to continue serving clients without stirring political conflict.
Yet the policy changes arrive against a backdrop of other federal pressures, including significant cuts proposed for HUD, mass layoffs, and the proposed dissolution of the CoC model in budget proposals. Contra Costa County estimates that if the conditions remain and federal support drops, 3,000 households could lose housing assistance—putting thousands more at risk of homelessness.
Legal experts and advocates emphasize that these conditions strike at the heart of administrative prerogatives. If the Trump administration can unilaterally attach ideological mandates to Congress?approved funds, they say, it sets a troubling precedent. For service providers, the critical question is whether the courts will uphold the right to deliver aid unencumbered by what many view as officially sanctioned cultural policing, or whether this new regulatory frontier will force them to choose between their mission and financial considerations.
