By: Norma Gay, Policy and Legislative Affairs Intern

July 20, 2026 — On July 6, a coalition of Industry Groups who represent thousands of housing providers nationwide submitted a comment letter to HUD on the Enterprise Income Verification Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (EIV-SAVE). The coalition includes the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), the National Leased Housing Association (NLHA), the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), and the Housing and Development Law Institute (HDLI). The comment letter outlines how HUD’s publication of the EIV-SAVE tenant matching report appears to have violated the Privacy Act of 1974 and asks HUD to halt the use of the EIV-SAVE tenant matching report.

In the comment letter, the industry groups point to procedural defects in the implementation of the EIV-SAVE tenant report. The Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) requires federal agencies to have a 30-day comment period for interested stakeholders before a system of records is established or revised. However, both HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing and HUD’s Office of Housing were using and requiring housing agencies to use the EIV-SAVE tenant matching report before the mandated comment period, appearing to fail to comply with the Privacy Act’s requirements. The comment letter includes communications from HUD to housing providers illustrating that the Department used the EIV-SAVE tenant matching report before providing for a written comment period.

Both HUD’s privacy handbook and the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-108 require a 30-day comment period for a SORN before the new or modified system of records is used. Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act prohibits agency actions that are contrary to law, and the Department’s use of the tenant matching report before issuing a SORN and soliciting public comments violated the Privacy Act.

The comment letter noted other instances where HUD’s actions appeared to contradict statute. HUD does not appear to be authorized to use the tenant matching report on U.S. citizens or nationals or people who are 62 and older. Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 authorizes HUD to verify immigration status to determine federal rental assistance eligibility, but only for individuals who are 62 or younger. For U.S. citizens or nationals, housing agencies may require, at the housing agency’s discretion, documentation that the HUD Secretary considers appropriate (e.g., passport, Permanent Resident Card, or Social Security card) but does not require other verification.

The Privacy Act states that no agency should disclose any individual’s record contained in a system of records with another agency, without consent of the individual. One exception is a “routine use” which is the disclosure of a record, “for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.” In its SORN, HUD states that certain disclosures, such as IMS/PIC or TRACS data disclosure to the Department of Homeland Security, shall be considered a routine use. However, such disclosure is not compatible with the eligibility verification purpose for which the data were collected.

The letter emphasizes that the industry groups wish to work collaboratively with HUD and offers it a series of steps that it can take if it wishes to implement its policy:

1. Halt the use of the EIV-SAVE tenant matching report and the required review attestation;
2. Withdraw the SORN and the Department’s mixed-status families proposed rule;
3. Work with Congress to amend the necessary statutes to ensure that HUD has the substantive authority to take these steps; and
4. Once all the relevant statutes have been amended giving HUD additional authority, HUD should carefully follow all the requirements (including allowing for the necessary written comment periods before agency actions are taken) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, and any other statute that may impose procedural requirements when crafting regulations and implementing new systems.

The comment letter can be found here.

[mo-optin-form id="NIrLFwofHp"]