On this page, you will find detailed information about the proposed rules and guidance for commenting. In short:
Commenting on proposed rules is important because it gives the public a formal, legally recognized way to influence what the final policy looks like—and whether it moves forward at all. They are one of the most effective tools we have to slow, weaken, or stop harmful policies—and to protect access to care.
Before submitting a public comment, individuals should thoughtfully evaluate their personal and professional risk. Public comments play an important role in advocacy efforts and can be valuable in future legal challenges, but participation should only occur if it feels safe to do so. Providing identifying information may carry risks, including the possibility that individuals or locations named in a comment could be subject to scrutiny. Anonymous commenting is permitted. Equality Connecticut’s portal is a private and secure method for submitting your comment on the rules.
It is critical that your comment be unique. Please avoid using text pasted from a template; comments using the same language are bundled together and largely ignored by the Federal Register.
Click on any of the subjects below to jump to that section.
The Equal Access Rule is a longstanding policy designed to ensure that people experiencing homelessness can access housing and shelter services without unnecessary barriers. While its protections benefit many populations, they are particularly important for transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming individuals, who already face disproportionately high rates of housing instability and homelessness.
Originally adopted more than a decade ago, the rule helped ensure that families could remain together when seeking shelter, preventing situations where family members were separated because of their sex or age. It was later strengthened to address the challenges transgender people encountered when accessing single-sex shelters and other HUD-funded programs. At its core, the Equal Access Rule is about ensuring that people in crisis can access safe housing and services when they need them most.
The proposed changes would fundamentally alter that approach by allowing, and in some cases encouraging, HUD-funded providers to deny access based on restrictive definitions of sex and gender. Rather than prioritizing safety, stability, and housing access, the proposal would create new barriers for transgender people seeking emergency shelter and supportive services.
For many transgender individuals experiencing homelessness, being denied access to an appropriate shelter is not a bureaucratic inconvenience—it is a matter of personal safety. The proposed rule could force people into environments where they face heightened risks of harassment, violence, discrimination, or isolation, or leave them with no viable shelter option at all. At a time when housing insecurity continues to affect vulnerable communities across the country, federal policy should be focused on expanding access to safe housing, not creating new obstacles for people seeking help.
FR-6518-P-01 Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Revisions
Summary
The proposed rule would eliminate existing federal protections that ensure individuals can access HUD-funded housing and shelter services without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
If adopted, the proposed rule would significantly weaken protections for LGBTQ+ individuals seeking access to HUD-funded housing and shelter programs. It would permit providers to engage in intrusive inquiries related to a person’s sex assigned at birth and could undermine existing state and local nondiscrimination protections. The proposal represents the latest effort to roll back housing protections for transgender people, following a similar initiative advanced during the first Trump administration. Compounding these concerns, HUD has not enforced the 2016 Equal Access Rule since February 2025, creating uncertainty for providers and vulnerable individuals who rely on these critical services..
The proposal suffers from several fundamental flaws:
Conflict with the Fair Housing Act: The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing-related programs. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, numerous courts and federal agencies have concluded that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. While Bostock addressed employment, courts have increasingly applied its reasoning beyond Title VII.
Conflict with Constitutional Equal Protection Principles: If the rule explicitly singles out transgender people for different treatment, it likely violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Failure to Consider Safety Impacts: The Equal Access Rule was adopted in part because HUD found that transgender individuals face disproportionate rates of homelessness, housing instability, harassment, sexual violence, and victimization in shelters. If HUD fails to meaningfully address how repealing the rule would affect these populations, challengers could argue the agency ignored important aspects of the problem.
Federalism Concerns: Many states and municipalities, including Connecticut, have laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in housing and public accommodations. If HUD were to create a regulatory framework that encourages or permits conduct prohibited under state law, the agency could face challenges relating to preemption authority, conflicts with state civil rights statutes, and exceeding statutory authority. Federal agencies generally cannot nullify state nondiscrimination protections unless Congress has clearly authorized them to do so.
Why is it important to comment?
Commenting on proposed rules is important because it gives the public a formal, legally recognized way to influence what the final policy looks like—and whether it moves forward at all. They are one of the most effective tools we have to slow, weaken, or stop harmful policies—and to protect access to care.
Here’s why it matters, especially in this moment:
It shapes the final rule: Federal agencies are legally required to review and consider public comments before finalizing a rule. Substantive comments—those that raise legal, medical, economic, or implementation concerns—can lead agencies to revise, narrow, or withdraw proposals.
It builds the record for legal challenges: Public comments become part of the official administrative record. If the rules are finalized and challenged in court, judges look closely at whether the agency adequately responded to concerns raised during the comment period. Strong comments help expose flaws, contradictions, and unlawful reasoning.
It demonstrates real-world impact: Comments from individuals, families, providers, advocates, and organizations document how the proposed rules would affect people’s lives, health, and access to care. This evidence counters abstract or misleading claims made by the agency.
It forces accountability: Once concerns are raised in the public record, the agency cannot claim ignorance. Ignoring well-supported comments increases the risk that a rule will be overturned for being arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to law.
What is commenting?
Under the federal rulemaking process, an agency generally begins by publishing a proposed rule and opening a public comment period. During this time, members of the public may submit feedback, which the agency is required to review and take into account before issuing a final rule. Once finalized, the rule carries the force of federal law. Additional details about this process are available in this guide.
Are there risks to commenting?
Before submitting a public comment, individuals and organizations should thoughtfully evaluate their personal and professional risk. Public comments play an important role in advocacy efforts and can be valuable in future legal challenges, but participation should only occur if it feels safe to do so. Providing identifying information may carry risks, including the possibility that individuals or locations named in a comment could be subject to scrutiny.
Some commenters—such as transgender youth, family members, or providers of gender-affirming care—may face heightened vulnerability and should carefully consider whether to comment, what information to include, and if it should be submitted anonymously.
It is also important to note that all submitted comments are published on regulations.gov and are publicly accessible. Once a comment is submitted, it cannot be edited or withdrawn.
If you are submitting a comment as an individual, be mindful of the potential risks associated with sharing personal details such as your full name, home address, email, or phone number. You are not required to include identifying information and may choose to submit your comment anonymously. Any personal or medical information included in a comment will be visible both to the administration and to the public.
Individuals may also want to avoid sharing details that could make themselves or others identifiable, such as exact ages, locations, or the names of healthcare providers. For example, rather than describing specific circumstances that could point directly to you or a provider, you can speak more generally about your experience. Framing your comment around the broader impact of gender-affirming care—without unnecessary identifying details—can help reduce risk while still making your perspective clear.
We recommend using the Equality Connecticut portal to comment. Doing this protects your identity—data like your IP address, location, and other critical information will not be shared with the government. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Do anonymous comments matter?
Anonymous comments are permitted by the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing the process of rulemaking. Like all comments, they become public and are posted online, but without your personal details. The Federal Register does not verify the identity of anonymous commenters.
Yes, anonymous comments can matter for the Federal Register and the rulemaking process, as agencies must consider all relevant, timely public input, but they are often weighed differently than identified comments, especially if they lack specific details. The quality of anonymous comments is essential for having the most impact.
To make your anonymous comment effective, do the following:
Explain Impacts: Clearly describe how a proposed rule will affect you, your community, or the public.
Avoid Identification: Be careful not to include details that could inadvertently identify you or others, like names, ages, provider information, specific locations like towns, occupations, schools…essentially anything that someone could use to identify you and your family.
Be Specific: Provide facts, data, and detailed explanations, not just opinions.
Focus on the Rule: Concentrate on the substance of the regulation rather than personal identifiers.
Tips for commenting
Focus on what you know and what you’ve lived. You are not expected to address every section of the proposal or respond to every argument it makes.
Write as much or as little as feels right to you. Effective comments don’t need to be long to be meaningful. Both the substance of comments and the number submitted play an important role in this process, so don’t let concerns about length prevent you from participating
Formatting your comment
It is essential that your comment be unique. Please avoid using text pasted from a template; these comments are bundled together and largely ignored by the Federal Register.
The template below illustrates one way to structure your comment. It includes two separate address sections—one for each proposed rule—so you can use the appropriate block for the rule you are addressing. Text in italics should be replaced with your personal information, and bolded section headings can be customized or removed if you prefer to submit a shorter comment.
Suggested outline
Introduction: state that you are submitting the comment in opposition to [insert federal rule] and are urging its withdrawal.
Your interest in the rule: a short paragraph detailing why this rule is important to you.
Opposition to the rule: detail on your disagreement with the proposed rule. This could be whatever length necessary. We recommend using subheadings for longer comments.
Conclusion: urge withdrawal of the proposed rule in its entirety. Include a closing and your name like you would on a business letter.
Examples of short public comments from previous rules
How to Submit Public Comments
Using Equality Connecticut’s secure portal:
Equality CT created a comment portal that individuals can use, providing a private, secure method for commenting. Comments will be submitted to the Federal Register by Equality CT.
Step 1: Open the secure comment portal
Step 2: Choose if you want to submit your comment(s) anonymously
Step 3: Enter contact information
Step 4: Enter the comment text in the box. Alternatively, you can upload a PDF or a Word document. If you are uploading, simply enter “See attached file” in the required text box.
Step 6: Ship it!
