The backlash in summer 2019 to yet another anti-immigrant proposal from Washington was nothing new. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the administration would “once again be tearing families apart.” Mayor Bill de Blasio said it would make kids homeless. The New York City congressional delegation called the idea “deeply flawed.”

But unlike other controversial executive orders that President Donald Trump signed, a proposal by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to remove almost all undocumented immigrants from public housing has quietly disappeared—a rare example of the Republican administration backing down on a hardline immigration policy.

“We are disgusted that this rule was ever proposed and happy that it has not been finalized,” said Max Hadler, director of health policy for the New York Immigration Coalition. “We expect and hope and will hold the Biden administration accountable for withdrawing the proposed rule and stopping these attacks on immigrant families.”

HUD would not explain its decision to let the proposal die. In a recent statement, the department insisted it was “still in process” and could be implemented. Yet now, as Joe Biden’s inauguration has arrived, that would be virtually impossible.

One factor cited by opponents of the housing proposal was the sheer number of comments submitted in response to it -- more than 10,000 in the first two months -- an overwhelming number of them negative. They came from big city mayors, individuals, religious groups, and immigrant advocates, as well as charities that feared they’d be overwhelmed by people who had been evicted.

“There was a very broad and deep coalition around this issue,” Sunia Zaterman, executive director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, told Gothamist/WNYC. “The havoc that this would wreak, as people examined the implications of this rule, made a huge obstacle to pursuing it.”

Under current law, households that have one or more undocumented members may reside in public housing. In those cases, the rent is prorated so that the subsidy applies only to members who have been declared eligible to receive public aid.

An estimated 11,400 New Yorkers, including nearly 5,000 children, would have been affected if the proposal were implemented, raising concerns that many of them would be left homeless — or left looking for affordable housing in places without much of it.

The Trump administration said that the proposal was a logical extension of existing law that prohibited HUD from providing assistance to ineligible individuals. Even though undocumented individuals are being charged market rent for their portion of an apartment, the department argued that they are still benefitting from occupying a public housing unit, and that the space freed up by the rule could be reallocated to eligible families. The proposal exempted immigrants aged 62 and older as well as those living in public housing since 1995.

In a July 2019 interview with WNYC, Lynne Patton, Trump’s choice to serve as HUD administrator for New York and New Jersey, distanced herself from the HUD proposal, saying it was not her priority—though she acknowledged it was the priority of officials in Washington.

Whether or not Patton played a role in getting HUD to table the proposal—her office declined a request for an interview—there were plenty of other reasons why it may have been abandoned. According to HUD’s own analysis, the rule would have cost the federal government between $197 million to $227 million a year because tenants paying full-freight would be replaced by subsidized residents. And public housing authorities across the country said it would cost them millions of dollars to enforce.

In addition, in contrast to many other Trump-era rules, the proposal would not only have punished undocumented immigrants, but also their children who, having been born in the U.S., were citizens.

“U.S. citizens who were fully eligible to receive housing assistance would have to choose between losing their housing and removing a family member,” Zaterman said.

The coronavirus pandemic also potentially entered into the rule’s demise, Zaterman added. Last January, HUD indicated that it planned to implement the proposal in May 2020. By the time that date rolled around, she said, the Trump administration became preoccupied with responding to the health crisis, and the prospect of forcing people out of their home was likely untenable.