Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2025 aims to nullify specific regulations and notices from the Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It prohibits the use of Federal funds to create or maintain a database focused on community racial disparities or affordable housing access. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of HUD to consult with State, local, and public housing officials to develop new recommendations for the Fair Housing Act. These recommendations must be developed through a process emphasizing collaboration and consensus among the consulted officials. The Secretary must publish draft and final reports regarding this consultation process.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +7
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill increases state and local control by requiring HUD to consult with state and local officials and reach consensus before implementing housing recommendations.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates a public review and comment period of at least 180 days for the draft report and requires the final report to be available online.
- Scored +3
Would white Americans be better off under this?
The bill shifts power toward local and state governments and reduces federal initiatives focused on racial disparities.
The opposite· 3 of 9
- Scored -6
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities.
- Scored -6
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities.
- Scored -6
Would Asian Americans be better off under this?
The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Collaboration with Local Officials: Under Section 4, the Secretary of HUD must consult with State officials, local government officials, and public housing agencies to develop recommendations. This is designed to ensure that local and state perspectives are included when pursuing the policies of the Fair housing Act (Section 4(a)).
-
Requirement for Consensus: Section 4(c)(2) states that a recommendation can only be included in the draft report if a consensus is reached among the Secretary and the consulted officials. This could ensure that new policy recommendations have broad support from local and state leadership before being proposed.
-
Transparency and Public Input: The bill requires the Secretary to publish a draft report for public review and comment for at least 180 days (Section 4(c)(4)). This provides an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the proposed recommendations.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of Specific HUD Regulations: Section 2 nullifies several specific rules and notices related to "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing," including a proposed rule from 2023, an interim final rule from 2021, a final rule from 2015, and a notice regarding an assessment tool from 2015.
-
Restriction of Data Access: Section 3 prohibits the use of Federal funds to design, build, maintain, utilize, or provide access to a Federal database of geospatial information regarding community racial disparities or disparities in access to affordable housing.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The emphasis on local and state consensus may favor the interests of rural local government officials. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill shifts power toward local and state governments and reduces federal initiatives focused on racial disparities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill limits federal oversight of racial disparities in housing access and nullifies rules meant to advance fair housing for minority communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill restricts the tools and data used to address disparities in affordable housing access which often disproportionately affect low-income households. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The nullification of fair housing rules may impact local efforts to address urban housing disparities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill nullifies regulations intended to affirmatively further fair housing and prohibits federal funding for databases tracking racial disparities in housing access. Does this make housing cost less? — By nullifying affirmative fair housing regulations and restricting disparity data, the bill may reduce the efficacy of federal efforts to expand affordable housing access for marginalized groups. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The reduction in data collection regarding housing disparities could hinder targeted poverty reduction programs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill increases state and local control by requiring HUD to consult with state and local officials and reach consensus before implementing housing recommendations. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates a public review and comment period of at least 180 days for the draft report and requires the final report to be available online.
- 5/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/10/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/3/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Andy BiggsRepublican · Arizona
Tim BurchettRepublican · Tennessee
Glenn GrothmanRepublican · Wisconsin
Pete SessionsRepublican · Texas
Thomas TiffanyRepublican · Wisconsin