Timothy Kaine (D-VA)
Fair Housing Improvement Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 15 Democratic cosponsors · See all 16 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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 Fair Housing Improvement Act of 2025 amends the Fair Housing Act to stop discrimination based on a person's source of income, veteran status, or military status. It defines these terms to include things like housing vouchers, Social Security benefits, and service in the uniformed forces. The bill updates several sections of the law to ensure these groups are protected from housing discrimination. It also prevents intimidation in fair housing cases related to these statuses.
Yes· 3 of 27
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly protects voucher holders and low-income earners from housing discrimination.
- Scored +9
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
Explicitly prohibits discrimination based on veteran status.
- Scored +8
Would retired people be better off under this?
Protects those relying on Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Limits state and local ability to allow source-of-income discrimination in housing.
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases regulatory compliance requirements for landlords and property owners.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection from discrimination based on how people pay for housing: By adding "source of income" to the Fair Housing Act, people using rental vouchers, Social Security, child support, or other lawful funds cannot be discriminated against (Section 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2)).
-
Protection for service members and veterans: The bill prohibits discrimination based on "military status" (membership in uniformed services) and "veteran status" (former members of the Armed Forces) (Section 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2)).
-
Legal protection against intimidation: The bill expands protections against intimidation in fair housing cases to include those discriminated against based on their source of income, veteran status, or military status (Section 2(b)).
-
Continued access to support services: The bill explicitly states that entities can still provide services or assistance to people receiving government housing assistance (Section 2(a)(2)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly protects voucher holders and low-income earners from housing discrimination. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Explicitly prohibits discrimination based on veteran status. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects those relying on Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Specifically protects those relying on Social Security and Supplemental Security Income for housing. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Statistically benefits minority groups who are disproportionately affected by source-of-income discrimination. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Statistically benefits minority groups who are disproportionately affected by source-of-income discrimination. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increases fair housing protections for all minority demographics. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Protects those relying on SSI and other disability-related income sources. Would people in cities be better off under this? — High impact in urban areas where rental voucher usage is most common. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases fair housing protections for all minority demographics. Would children be better off under this? — Increases housing stability for families using child support or vouchers. Would women be better off under this? — Protects those receiving child support or spousal support from housing discrimination. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects those using lawful sources of income to secure housing. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects those relying on child support or varying lawful income sources. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves housing access for rural veterans and low-income residents. Would students be better off under this? — Protects those using trust funds or relative payments for housing. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves housing access for those starting out who may rely on various income sources. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General improvement in fair housing protections. Would men be better off under this? — General improvement in fair housing protections. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in fair housing standards. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides general protections for all citizens regardless of race. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases regulatory compliance requirements for landlords and property owners.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Prevents discrimination against those using housing vouchers and other income sources, increasing access to available housing. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — By prohibiting discrimination against voucher holders, the bill helps more people secure permanent housing. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases housing stability for low-income individuals by prohibiting source-of-income discrimination.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — While not a direct financial benefit, it provides critical legal protection against housing discrimination for veterans.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides stronger legal recourse and protections against intimidation for discriminated housing seekers. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal fair housing regulations and protections across all states. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Limits state and local ability to allow source-of-income discrimination in housing.
- 1/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/23/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/17/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 14 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon