Why Oregon’s lawsuit misses the deeper issue
When Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced on November 25th that our state—along with 20 other states—had filed suit against recent HUD policy changes, the language was urgent and alarming. According to the AG, HUD’s adjustments would “pull the rug out” from people experiencing homelessness and thrust tens of thousands back onto the streets.
You can read his full statement here:
👉 https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/ag-rayfield-sues-over-hud-policy-that-would-force-people-into-homelessness/
At first glance, the rhetoric sounds compassionate and protective. But after nearly three decades of working with men and women facing homelessness, I have learned that strong rhetoric from the government often hides weak assumptions. And the assumption underlying this lawsuit is the same one that has guided federal homelessness policy for years: that homelessness is primarily a housing problem.
After 67 years of serving people in deep poverty, our ministry has seen a different reality. Homelessness is fundamentally relational — a breakdown of connection with God, with self, with others, and with the community. When those relationships fracture, the symptoms follow: addiction, isolation, untreated mental illness, destructive decisions, and eventually, the loss of housing.
Housing First programs have long promised that if we simply give someone a subsidized apartment, the rest will improve. Billions of dollars later, the opposite has happened in many places. Encampments continue to grow. Addiction overwhelms communities. And thousands bounce between temporary housing and the streets because the underlying issues were never addressed.
In this light, HUD’s willingness to reexamine its approach is not the crisis. The crisis is that it took this long.
The View from the Local Level
State officials warn that HUD’s adjustments would destabilize programs and jeopardize services. But for many of us on the ground, instability and chaos have been present for years — not because HUD changed direction, but because the systems built around Housing First have struggled to produce lasting transformation.
A Pattern of Exclusion
Since its inception, I’ve watched our local Continuum of Care resist meaningful collaboration with any organization that does not fully embrace a Housing First philosophy. The message has been consistent: if you require participation, sobriety, accountability, or any form of relational restoration, anything you say is dismissed as foolishness.
This ideological gatekeeping has sidelined effective ministries—not because they lack results, but because they hold a different conviction about what helps people flourish.
The Weight of Federal Funding
A few years ago, I served as a commissioner on our city’s Housing and Community Development Commission, where CDBG and HUD-related funds were allocated. That experience confirmed what many faith-based organizations already know: federal dollars always come with strings attached, and those strings frequently pull ministries away from their mission.
Compliance requirements grow. Policy priorities shift. Ideological expectations seep into programming. Before long, a ministry must choose between government money and its God-given identity.
For this reason and others, the Mission has never taken HUD funds. Not once. Because the cost to the mission is simply too high.
Misplaced Accusations, Misunderstood Realities
The lawsuit argues that HUD’s new rules will “force people back into homelessness.” Yet the humanitarian crisis Oregon faces today was not caused by the absence of Housing First — it was caused by its dominance.
If Housing First alone were the answer:
- Oregon would not have seen one of the largest spikes in unsheltered homelessness in the nation.
- Encampments would not line rivers, sidewalks, and business districts.
- Addiction and mental health crises would not be overwhelming entire communities.
The claim that HUD’s adjustments will suddenly unravel decades of progress assumes that those decades produced progress in the first place.
And the suggestion that expectations such as sobriety or participation constitute discrimination speaks more to the fragility of the system than the needs of the people.
Expectations are not cruelty — they are part of human flourishing.
The System Is Fracturing Because It Was Fragile All Along
HUD did not break a well-functioning system. HUD merely touched a system that was already failing, and the cracks are now visible.
When state leaders warn of “administrative chaos,” what they are truly describing is a dependency on federal dollars so total that even small shifts feel catastrophic.
But when a model depends on endless streams of money, endless compliance, and endless policy alignment, the problem isn’t HUD. The problem is the model.
A Better Way Forward
In our ministry, we have seen hundreds of men and women grow, heal, and flourish — not because the government provided a frictionless path, but because:
- God restored broken relationships,
- churches embraced people with love and patience, and
- individuals courageously stepped into a community of accountability, service, and hope.
A house alone cannot do that. Only restoration can.
Until we honestly face the root causes of homelessness — spiritual, relational, and personal — we will continue treating symptoms instead of souls.
Oregon’s lawsuit may generate headlines. It may spark political debate. But it will not fix what is fundamentally broken.
Because no lawsuit can force the human heart to heal. No federal dollar can manufacture responsibility, community, or transformation. And no program — old or new — can replace what God alone can restore.
As for us, we will continue doing what we have done for 65 years: reaching the lost, gathering the reached, and walking with people toward true, lasting change.
Partner with us in God’s work of relational restoration.