MAGA-ites have leaned on Ben Carson’s bland invocations of color-blindness in the wake of George Floyd’s murder so it’s a good time to re-up on Brendan Williams’ lucid account of Carson’s deplorable record at the Department of Housing and Urban Development…
“With Ben Carson wanting to hit his mother on head with a hammer, stab a friend and Pyramids built for grain storage––don’t people get it?”Donald Trump, 2015.[1]
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was established as a Cabinet agency by law in 1965,[2] shortly after passage of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965.[3] The aims of the latter act were ambitious, including to “aid in assuring a decent place to live for every citizen” through the provision of “low-rent housing.”[4] In signing it, President Lyndon Johnson declared that “in years to come, I believe this act will become known as the single most important housing legislation in our history.”[5]
The expanded federal role in housing was not without controversy. It was reported that “[d]uring Congressional debate on the bill, many members said that the rent subsidy program ‘smacked of Socialism.’”[6] Almost a decade later, these subsidies were transformed by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.[7] That act’s “primary objective” was “the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.”[8] Under the provision we refer to as “Section 8,”[9] as amended over the years:
The Secretary is authorized to enter into annual contributions contracts with public housing agencies pursuant to which such agencies may enter into contracts to make assistance payments to owners of existing dwelling units in accordance with this section. In areas where no public housing agency has been organized or where the Secretary determines that a public housing agency is unable to implement the provisions of this section, the Secretary is authorized to enter into such contracts and to perform the other functions assigned to a public housing agency by this section.[10]
Today the “Housing Choice Voucher” (HCV) subsidy “is based on a local ‘payment standard’ that reflects the cost to lease a unit in the local housing market.” Accordingly, “[i]f the rent is less than the payment standard, the family generally pays 30 percent of adjusted monthly income for rent. If the rent is more than the payment standard, the family pays a larger share of the rent.”[11]
Federal regulation notes that “[t]he HCV program is generally administered by State or local governmental entities called public housing agencies (PHAs). HUD provides housing assistance funds to the PHA. HUD also provides funds for PHA administration of the program.”[12]
As a HUD fact sheet states:
A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home.[13]
And a family must be quite poor to qualify:
In general, the family’s income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. By law, a PHA must provide 75 percent of its voucher to applicants whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income. Median income levels are published by HUD and vary by location. The PHA serving your community can provide you with the income limits for your area and family size.[14]
Those families served are disproportionately headed by women. According to a 2012 report, “three-quarters of households living in public housing and in Project-Based Section 8 housing are female-headed, and over 83% of voucher-holding households are headed by women.”[15] As a 2016 report notes: “An obvious reason for the prevalence of female heads of households, especially with children, in affordable housing programs and on affordable housing wait lists is that, according to a National Women’s Law Center report, women live in poverty at rates higher than men[.]”[16] A principal reason for that discrepancy is that “occupational segregation still pushes large numbers of women into low-paying domestic, health-care and hospitality jobs.”[17]
An agency the scale of HUD has not been without scandals, most notably during the tenure of President Ronald Reagan, when sixteen HUD officials working under Secretary Samuel Pierce, Jr., “the only African American to serve in President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet,” were convicted of crimes.[18] As the Washington Post reported:
The scandal arose in 1989 after an internal HUD audit of a program designed to provide rent subsidies to developers to improve housing for the poor. A congressional committee took up the matter and in 1990 issued a report alleging that millions of dollars had been distributed to Republican consultants at a time when funding for the program was being cut from $26 billion to $8 billion. As secretary, Mr. Pierce agreed to the spending reductions.[19]
Pierce’s executive assistant, Deborah Gore Dean, was convicted “of 12 felony counts of defrauding the Government, taking a bribe and lying to Congress.”[20] She “asserted that all of the improper transactions had been approved by her boss”—Secretary Pierce.[21] It was reported that “Mr. Pierce had left the routine supervision of the agency’s enormous bureaucracy as well as multibillion-dollar grant programs to Ms. Dean and her associates.”[22]
The wrongdoing that occurred under Secretary Pierce may, however, be exceeded by the damage caused by Secretary Ben Carson. In running against Donald Trump for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, Carson, a celebrated neurosurgeon,[23] had been bitterly attacked by the eventual victor in Trump’s inimitable syntax:
“And I don’t want a person that’s got pathological disease, I don’t want it. Now, I’m not saying he’s got it. He said it,” he clarified. “This isn’t something I’m saying—he’s a pathological liar, I’m not saying it. He said he’s got pathological disease. He actually said ‘pathological temper,’ and then he defined it as ‘disease,’ so he said he has ‘pathological disease.’ Now if you’re pathological, there’s no cure for that, folks. OK? There’s no cure for that.” [24]
“Trump went on to compare Carson to a child molester.”[25] Like Pierce, Carson is the only African-American in the Trump Administration Cabinet, which is the “the whitest, most male-dominated group since Ronald Reagan’s.”[26] He was confirmed by the Senate 58-41 in what the New York Times described as “a rare show of bipartisanship. Unlike many other cabinet members chosen by President Trump, Mr. Carson, who has no experience running a large federal bureaucracy, did not face much pushback from Democrats during his confirmation process.”[27]
No less a liberal than Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) had even voted to advance Carson’s nomination from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.[28] Indeed, Carson won a unanimous committee vote: “[t]he panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, said he was supporting the retired neurosurgeon because of his commitments to address lead hazards, uphold fair housing laws and advocate for rental assistance.”[29]
Within thirteen months of praising Carson, who she ended up voting against on the Senate floor amidst intense liberal backlash, Sen. Warren would be calling for his firing.[30] Focusing on HUD’s vital mission of securing housing for the poor, and examining Carson’s record as HUD secretary into the summer of 2019, this article argues that any confidence in Carson was misplaced, and the lives of vulnerable people are at risk during Carson’s tenure.
Secretary Carson’s Department
ProPublica has described HUD as “something of an overlooked stepchild within the federal government. Founded in 1965 in a burst of Great Society resolve to confront the ‘urban crisis,’ it has seen its manpower slide by more than half since the Reagan Revolution.”[31] Yet, as ProPublica notes, the agency’s mission is vast:
HUD still serves a function that millions of low-income Americans depend on—it funds 3,300 public-housing authorities with 1.2 million units and also the Section 8 rental-voucher program, which serves more than 2 million families; it has subsidized tens of millions of mortgages via the Federal Housing Administration; and, through various block grants, it funds an array of community uplift initiatives. It is the Ur-government agency, quietly seeking to address social problems in struggling areas that the private sector can’t or won’t solve, a mission that has become especially pressing amid a growing housing affordability crisis in many major cities.[32]
Carson was an unlikely person to assume the responsibility of running this agency, and not just because he lacked any administrative experience. Known for his outrageous remarks, he had once excused a video that showed him calling people “stupid” by blaming the same era that gave rise to HUD itself:
Asked to explain his remarks . . . Carson said he was referring to Americans “who take the disadvantaged people in our country and say, ‘You poor little thing, I’m going to give you everything that you possibly need.’”
“That’s not helping those people, and all that you have to do is look what’s happened since the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson. We’ve spent $19 trillion and we have 10 times more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, more broken homes, out of wedlock births, crime, incarceration.”[33]
Carson’s tenure started inauspiciously when, in addressing HUD employees, he referred to slaves as immigrants.[34] Two months later Carson was arguing that public housing should not be “comfortable” lest it “would make somebody want to say: ‘I’ll just stay here. They will take care of me.’”[35]
At the agency, Carson was reportedly invisible: “Carson himself was barely to be seen—he never made the walk-through of the building customary of past new secretaries.”[36] Yet:
[T]here was the mystery of why Carson’s family was taking such a visible role in the department. There was the omnipresent Mrs. Carson. Even more striking, however, had been the active role of the secretary’s second-oldest son. Ben Carson Jr., who goes by B.J. and co-founded an investment firm in Columbia, Maryland, that specializes in infrastructure, health care and workforce development, was showing up on email chains within the department and appearing often at headquarters. One day, he was seen leaving the 10th-floor office of David Eagles, the new COO, who was crafting a HUD reorganization to accompany the cuts.[37]
In December 2017, Carson made news for leading prayer at a Cabinet meeting, asking God to bless President Trump’s tax cuts: “Carson also used spiritual terms to reinforce the Trump administration’s claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, thanking God for economic expansion ‘so we can fight the corrosive debt that has been destroying our future.’”[38]
A February 2018 Washington Post article was entitled “Ben Carson, or the Tale of the Disappearing Cabinet Secretary.”[39] It was reported of Carson’s wife, Candy, and his family, that
“[A]t one point, Candy seemed to be coming in every day,” said a former HUD employee. “There’s this glass door on the 10th floor, where the secretary’s office is. It used to be they would keep it open, but they started keeping it closed. The family would go in and then freeze everyone else out.”[40]
Matters seemed to go too far, finally, when “[i]n one case, Carson’s son invited an administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to an event in Baltimore; three months later CMS awarded a $485,000 contract to his wife’s company.”[41] Carson was forced to order an internal investigation.[42] And Carson would be forced by public outrage to cancel an order for a $31,000 dining set that he appeared to blame his wife for.[43]
It is sad that this episode was the tipping point for some Democrats: “One senator, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, suggested that he regretted being one of the few Democrats to support the secretary’s nomination a year ago.”[44] After all, Carson’s dereliction of duties involved matters much more consequential than furniture.[45] In the same Senate hearing in which he finally expressed contrition for the furniture order, “Mr. Carson continued to show support for Mr. Trump’s 2019 budget request, which included a $6 billion cut to HUD, hours after Senate and House negotiators bypassed the White House to allocate big increases to his agency’s budget.”[46]
And Carson takes a dim view of government efforts toward racial equality. As the Post reported—in the context of Carson’s decision to “delay a measure to strengthen a civil-rights-era requirement for local governments to take active steps to undo racial segregation”—”‘Racism is like pornography,’ Carson told about 20 HUD employees at a Kentucky field office, leaning on a lectern with a smirk curling his neatly trimmed mustache. ‘You know it when you see it.’”[47]
In March 2018, a leak revealed that HUD was even “considering removing the words ‘free from discrimination’ from its mission statement.”[48] Instead, it would put “an emphasis on ‘self-sufficiency,’ a mantra that HUD Secretary Ben Carson has been touting in public appearances.”[49]
In April 2018, Carson was pushing to increase rent for public housing tenants, and to impose work requirements upon them.[50] As one article reported: “In some cases, rental payments for some of the neediest families would triple, rising from a minimum of $50 per month to a minimum of $150, according to HUD officials. Some 712,000 households would see their rents jump to $150 per month under the proposal, the officials said.”[51] In a Washington Times column, Carson disparaged the poor receiving government benefits: “Today, a record 28 million able-bodied adults receive Medicaid, a 400 percent increase since 2000. More than 43 percent of all households receiving federal housing assistance are headed by an able bodied adult. And in 2016, more than 16 million able-bodied adults received food stamps.”[52]
Those condemning Carson’s proposed changes to housing policy included U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond (D., La.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus:
“Secretary Carson’s immoral, ill-advised proposal is the latest example of the Trump administration’s war on poor people,” Richmond said in a statement.
“Thankfully this proposal would require Congressional approval before it can become law, and the Congressional Black Caucus will work with our colleagues in Congress to oppose it and other related measures,” he said.[53]
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was similarly critical:
The Trump plan doesn’t seem to advance any coherent policy goal. For example, HUD says that it aims to encourage work, but key aspects of the plan would if anything discourage work, such as raising household rents to 35 percent of income (which would hike rents more sharply as earnings rise) and eliminating the childcare deduction. And there’s no evidence that raising minimum rents on destitute families will lead them to earn more.[54] According to the Center, most of those receiving housing assistance do work yet [M]any of those harmed would be people who already work . . . Low-wage jobs often have unpredictable hours, ranging from 40 hours in some weeks to just a fraction of that amount in others. As a result, workers who are doing their best to earn a living could lose rental assistance because their employers don’t give them enough hours to meet the requirement.[55]
In August 2018, HUD announced it was seeking comments on replacing a 2015 “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” regulation Carson had suspended––according to HUD:
The stated purpose of that regulation was to provide HUD program participants with a revised planning approach to assist them in meeting their legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Since then, HUD found that in contrast to its stated goals, the AFFH rule proved ineffective, highly prescriptive, and effectively discouraged the production of affordable housing.[56]
The proposed rulemaking asserts that “[t]he highly prescriptive regulations give participants inadequate autonomy in developing fair housing goals as suggested by principles of federalism.”[57] Yet, as one commentator, Jake Blumgart, had written: “The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (or AFFH) rule, promulgated by President Barack Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2015, marked the first forward momentum for the Fair Housing Act in decades.”[58] As he noted, “[t]he rule required jurisdictions that receive federal housing funding to not only document barriers to integration and opportunity, but to detail—and prioritize—policies to eradicate them.”[59]
Presidential candidate Carson had weighed in against the rule as far back as 2015 in his favorite venue, the Washington Times:
Remember busing, that brilliant social experiment that was to usher in a new era of racial utopia in America? Undaunted by the failed socialist experiments of the 1980s, the Obama administration has recently implemented a new Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule designed to “desegregate” housing by withholding funds from communities that fail to demonstrate their projects “affirmatively further” fair housing.[60]
Carson had complained that the Obama Administration rule would require that “affordable housing be built primarily in wealthier neighborhoods with few current minority residents and that the new housing be aggressively marketed to minorities.”[61] What Carson didn’t note was that the object of the rule was clearly to avoid segregation where public housing is confined to certain areas. Among the successes Blumgart noted:
The Kansas City area agreed to try distributing Section 8 vouchers more evenly across the region, with the goal of breaking up concentrations of poverty in central cities, helping residents to access areas with better schools and more job opportunities. These kinds of steps may be tentative, but they were unthinkable even a decade ago.[62]
Furthermore, “[i]n all of the big cities from the first round of jurisdictions, the implementation of the AFFH rule acted as an impetus to reexamine policy priorities that have been locked in for years, if not decades. An abundance of fresh data showed stark patterns of segregation.”[63]
The Fair Housing Act was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.[64] Among other things, as it reads today, it makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”[65] [Note Bene: Its original passage was a testament to the legislative genius of President Lyndon Johnson: “Only hours after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in Memphis on April 4, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson began calculating how to use the nation’s shock, grief and anger to push a major civil rights law through a racist Congress.
As riots erupted in Washington and dozens of other cities across the country, Johnson “seized upon the regrets over King’s assassination” to pressure the House and Senate to pass the Fair Housing Act.” DeNeen L. Brown, The Fair Housing Act Was Languishing in Congress. Then Martin Luther King Jr. Was Killed., WASH. POST (Apr. 11, 2018, 9:28 AM)]
Is it unreasonable, a half-century later, to expect this law to be meaningfully enforced by HUD? Presumably Carson knows that Donald Trump himself, and his late father, were famously sued by the Nixon Administration’s Justice Department, for violating the Fair Housing Act.[66] Trump’s own agenda on equality is clear. It was reported in January 2019 that his administration was considering rescinding all federal disparate impact regulations—which would have implications specifically for HUD, but also far beyond HUD alone.[67]
One can hope Blumgart is right, and some jurisdictions will move forward to combat housing discrimination even with HUD derelict in its duties. In Philadelphia in 2018—after proposed mandatory inclusionary zoning “was defeated by developer groups”—bonuses were created for voluntary inclusionary zoning:
Two kinds of bonuses were created. In neighborhood commercial corridors and multi-family row house areas, developers can get height and density bonuses and would pay $20-to-$24 per additional square foot or $25,000-$30,000 per new unit allowed. In higher density categories often found downtown, developers get greater floor area in exchange for $25-$30 per extra square foot allowed by the bonus.[68]
Such innovation may keep the dream of inclusionary zoning alive. Too often, as one writer notes, “Section 8” has become, for some, a racial slur, even though “[b]lacks don’t in fact make up a majority of residents receiving housing assistance nationwide today (the number is closer to about 44 percent).”[69] An Urban Institute researcher
[R]outinely heard residents in communities that had never contained public housing blame changes in their neighborhoods on those Section 8 people. At a time when industrial jobs were disappearing, cities were rapidly losing population and public resources were drying up as a result, people kept saying, “[i]t must be the Section 8 program.” Even in neighborhoods where few voucher holders ever moved in.[70]
Other researchers note that “[r]esearch on attitudes people have about subsidized housing (and those living in such housing) indicates that they are most often not based on any reliable evidence, nor on the realities of subsidized housing today, but rather on stereotypes derived from past experiences with ‘project-based’ housing.”[71]
As a law professor, Norrinda Brown Hayat, writes:
Overtly racist conduct designed to intimidate black newcomers in historically all-white suburbs became illegal with the passage of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In its place, facially neutral terms and policies have come into use, including “Section 8,” to serve the same purpose. Simply put, Section 8 is the new n-word.[72]
Yet, as Hayatt notes, “[b]arriers to mobility in housing for African-Americans, including relocation to all-white suburbs when desired, need to be eradicated if the wealth, education, and opportunity gaps plaguing America’s lower class are to close at all.”[73]
At the heart of the bias against those in subsidized housing, or dependent upon other government assistance, seems to be the myth of the “welfare queen” first conjured by President Reagan:
“Conservatives refuse to give up their quest to bring down this lazy, scheming, African-American woman who uses her food stamps and other government aid to support a lavish lifestyle with countless jobless men who drift in and out of her bed.”[74]
Indeed, racial bias goes well beyond subsidized housing. One national study in 2018 found that “black renters can expect to pay one percent more than white renters if they move into an area that is 25 to 35 percent white[.]”[75] And “[t]hat increases to just over 2.5 percent more if a neighborhood is 40 to 45 percent white—and 3.5 percent more if the area is 65 to 70 percent white.”[76]
And yet it is entirely possible that a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court may strike down the Fair Housing Act.[77] As one author noted, “[i]t’s . . . become a battleground for one of the most powerful tools used to fight discrimination of any kind. That tool is called the ‘disparate impact standard,’ and many legal scholars expect the court’s conservative bloc to abolish it.”[78]
Moreover, Carson has been indifferent to discrimination that is not race-based. For example, he does not believe transgender people should have access to homeless shelters, stating that “[t]here are some women who said they were not comfortable with the idea of being in a shelter, being in a shower, and somebody who had a very different anatomy.”[79] More crudely, he once “visibly shocked” agency staff during an internal HUD meeting by expressing “concern about ‘big, hairy men’ trying to infiltrate women’s homeless shelters[.]”[80]
In September 2018, new evidence was reported concerning Carson’s mismanagement. As the Washington Post reported, “[t]he U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded promotions and pay increases to five political operatives with no housing policy experience within their first months on the job, demonstrating what government watchdogs and career staff describe as a premium put on loyalty over expertise.”[81] Each had worked on the Carson or Trump presidential campaigns, and three did not even have bachelor’s degrees.[82] The Post found that of 24 Trump administration HUD appointees without housing policy experience on their résumés or LinkedIn profiles, 16 listed work on either Carson’s or Trump’s presidential campaigns—or had personal connections to their families.”[83] One “senior advisor” with a “$131,767-a-year role” had “promoted a conspiracy theory on Twitter that Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman had taken part in a satanic ritual”—but had no housing background.[84] Arguably, Carson’s HUD has become the “swamp” President Trump so famously promised to “drain.”[85]
In December 2018, Carson’s top deputy resigned––it was reported that “[s]ome said she and not HUD Secretary Ben Carson ‘ran the agency.’”[86] further evidence of his incompetence, when the government shut down due to President Trump’s demands for a border wall, [T]he Department of Housing and Urban Development sent letters to 1,500 landlords . . . as part of a last-minute effort to prevent the eviction of thousands of tenants. A lot of those tenants live in units covered by a HUD program that many agency officials didn’t realize had expired on Jan. 1 and that they are now unable to renew.[87]
Didn’t realize? As one January 2019 article reported:
Ramona Wormley-Mitsis got welcome news in December: After years of waiting, the federal government had approved a subsidy that allowed her to rent a three-bedroom house, bracketed by a white picket fence to keep her two autistic sons from bolting into traffic. A few days later, the dream was deferred. The Department of Housing and Urban Development—one of the federal agencies hit hardest by the shutdown—would not be able to pay her new landlord until the government reopened.[88]
Another January 2019 article noted that
“HUD officials, speaking in an interview on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that staff should have had the contracts teed up before the shutdown. Carson himself has largely remained silent on the impact of the shutdown, now in its fifth week.”[89]
That article reported that
[I]n Largo, Fla., Jessica McBride, a single mother with a HUD housing voucher worth $775 a month, said her landlord would not renew her lease because the property no longer accepts Section 8 vouchers because of the shutdown. The landlord gave her until the end of January to move out.[90]
Yet, the thirty-three-year-old, raising her daughter on a “$20,000-a-year marketing job” could not find any other properties taking Section 8 vouchers, due to the shutdown.[91]
During the shutdown, the only sacrifice Carson seemed to personally endure was that the government could not pay for him to fly to Missouri to address a prayer breakfast.[92] Yet he took time to further disparage his agency’s vulnerable clients in a hagiographic profile in a conservative outlet:
My message is, if you utilize the funding correctly, you empower people and they become self-sufficient, and then you don’t have to support them anymore. If you don’t, you get an ever-growing, unsustainable number of dependent people. Eventually you won’t be able to sustain them, and eventually you’ll have all kinds of riots and class warfare.[93]
The agency was later forced to admit that the shutdown affected the vital distribution of Hurricane Maria disaster relief funds to Puerto Rico amidst claims the Trump Administration had sought to block the funding, as Trump himself had consistently downplayed the severity of Maria’s impact upon Puerto Rico.[94] Finally, in February 2019, funds began being disbursed, with one Democratic Florida congressman pointing out it had taken over a year and-a-half.[95] Still, by March 2019, with Trump again reportedly complaining–in a private lunch with Republican senators–over Puerto Rican aid, it was noted that “Congress has appropriated nearly $20 billion in HUD relief funds for Puerto Rico—which accounts for one type of federal aid that states ravaged by natural disasters can get. Of that pot of money, $1.5 billion has been approved for spending.”[96] The HUD inspector general began reviewing whether Trump’s personal interference had been improper.[97]
In April 2019, Carson announced a policy where those living in public housing with undocumented family members could be evicted––one immigration advocate noted such a policy “would not only impact those who are undocumented and living with family members in public housing, but also U.S.–born children living under the same roof[.]”[98] An analysis by HUD itself found that the rule could displace over 55,000 children.[99] And yet Carson defended the policy in a May 2019 congressional hearing:
“‘[i]t seems only logical that tax-paying American citizens should be taken care of first,’ Carson said . . . ‘It’s not that we’re cruel, mean-hearted. It’s that we are logical. This is common sense. You take care of your own first.’”[100]
That hearing devolved into a tragicomedy of errors, with Carson mishearing government acronyms, confusing one housing term with Oreo cookies and another with “Amway,” and being unable to name his own director of HUD’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.[101]
In May 2019, the Government Accountability Office concluded Carson had acted unlawfully in redecorating his office, both in the purchase of the infamous dining room set costing nearly $32,000 and in spending “more than $8,000 for a dishwasher[.]”[102] Still, an unabashed Carson signed off on a rule “to let shelters and other recipients of federal housing money discriminate against transgender people by turning them away or placing them alongside others of their birth sex—refusing to let them share facilities with people of the same gender identity.”[103]
In a sop to the home-building industry, Carson touted, in July 2019, a new White House Council on Eliminating Barriers to Affordable Housing, which he would chair, that would seek to “remove the obstacles that impede the production of more affordable homes—namely, the enormous price tag of burdensome government regulations.”[104] Local zoning was cited as one of those burdens.[105] Trump agreed with a favorite Fox News television talk show host, Tucker Carlson, that homelessness nationwide had led to “filth”– –without noting that “both Republican and Democratic lawmakers [had] raked Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson for reduced public housing assistance and community development grants.”[106] Like Trump, Carson has blamed Democrats for homelessness.[107]
With Democrats having taken control of the U.S. House in 2019, it appeared Carson might face no shortage of congressional inquiries and subpoenas.[108] In one April 2019 hearing, a Democratic House member, pressing Carson on the reason for withdrawing nondiscrimination guidance on HUD’s website, lamented, in the face of Carson’s elliptical answers, that “we are all now more stupid than we were when we came in the room today, sir.”[109] As Carson has drawn even Republican criticism,[110] it will be interesting to see how strong his support is. He has announced he intends to serve out Trump’s first term and would consider serving in another.[111] Following that announcement, in a typically-strange fashion, he posted on Facebook “an image of a smiling Carson, accompanied by ‘I AM NOT LEAVING!’”[112]
In conclusion, as HUD secretary, and the only African-American in President Trump’s Cabinet, Ben Carson is in a powerful position to combat housing inequalities. Yet he has chosen to be complicit in them.[113] Accordingly, Sen. Warren was right in noting, in a face-to-face clash before a Senate committee, that any critique of Carson’s tenure should go beyond the “fancy furniture” he tried to buy: “‘We are going backwards,’ she said. ‘It is HUD’s job to help end housing discrimination. That’s what the law said. You said you would enforce these laws. You haven’t, and I think that’s the scandal that should get you fired.’”[114]
xxx
Brendan Williams–“a federally-subsidized housing resident as a child” (per his own words)–originally published this piece in 2019 in the Southwestern Journal of Law.
NOTES
Available in a PDF version of the piece at: https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2020-01/4%20Williams_Final.pdf