Two former Department of Housing and Urban Development officials argued in a Fox News opinion piece that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)–driven policy efforts, not an actual shortage of housing units, are the real cause of what some have called a national housing crisis.
Paige Bronitsky and Daniel Huff wrote that Census Bureau data show more housing units than households in the United States and that activists and some policymakers have mischaracterized the gap to justify changes to local zoning and federal housing rules. The authors presented figures saying the latest Census counts 131.3 million households and 146.5 million housing units, which they described as an excess supply of roughly 15 million units.
In the article, Bronitsky and Huff criticized arguments that the market needs a higher "natural" vacancy rate to permit efficient matching, renovations and seasonal use. They said some activists set that target at 12% rather than the current near-10% rate, implying an additional 1 million units would be required to meet the higher threshold. The authors wrote that historical vacancy rates have ranged from 8.3% to 14.5% since 1965 and described today’s 10% rate as within that historical range.
The opinion also challenged claims that construction has lagged and created a cumulative deficit. The authors cited long-term annual construction averages of 1.5 million units between 1968 and 2000 and 1.23 million units annually since 2001, arguing those comparisons rely on demographic assumptions that no longer apply. They said projections show U.S. population growth has slowed from more than 1% annually before 2000 to about 0.5% today and that it could fall to 0.1% by 2055. The piece stated that the next 30 years are projected to add about 23 million people, compared with roughly 70 million in the previous three decades.
Bronitsky and Huff also cited projections that deaths could exceed births by 2038 and noted a claim — attributed to the current administration’s immigration targets — that deportations of as many as 1 million people annually are not factored into standard Census projections. They used those demographic points to argue that demand for new housing will be lower than some analysts suggest.
Central to the authors’ critique is an assertion that housing activists are using fair-housing goals to press for changes in local zoning—especially measures that would allow higher-density, lower-cost housing in suburban neighborhoods. They framed such efforts as an attempt to impose demographic outcomes rather than to address discrimination, and they tied the approach to a broadened interpretation of the Fair Housing Act.
The opinion reviewed federal policy changes around the Obama-era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which required jurisdictions receiving federal funds to assess and address segregation and disparities in housing. The authors said the rule was rescinded early in the Trump administration, was reinstated under the subsequent administration and was later eliminated again, an account they used to underscore how federal policy has shifted with changing administrations.
At the state level, the piece cited a 2021 Massachusetts law that requires communities near commuter rail lines to allow denser housing development, asserting that it is being enforced in ways that local officials had not anticipated. The authors criticized liberal columnists and other public figures who call for increased density as seeking to dismantle traditional single-family zoning.
The article frames the debate as part of a broader partisan and policy contest over the role of federal and local governments in shaping where people can live. Bronitsky and Huff are former HUD officials and White House advisers who wrote that critics of their view conflate efforts to expand housing with a political project to change community demographics.
Housing advocates, planners and many economists argue that zoning reform and increased housing production in high-demand areas are necessary to address affordability and access. Bronitsky and Huff’s article adds a contrasting perspective to that wider debate by focusing on Census data and demographic projections to question whether a nationwide shortage exists.
The dispute underscores ongoing tensions between local zoning authority, federal housing objectives and differing interpretations of housing market data, with policy changes at federal and state levels likely to remain central to the conversation about housing availability and affordability.