The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has just made a decisive move that could reshape the property appraisal industry.
On Monday, HUD informed the Appraisal Foundation (TAF), a leading nonprofit authority in U.S. property appraisals authorized by Congress, that it is no longer bound by a Biden-era conciliation agreement.
The agreement, established in 2024, required TAF to implement diversity-focused initiatives, including funding programs for aspiring appraisers of color and creating committees to promote equity. HUD, under the Trump administration, terminated this deal effective immediately, stating the terms did not align with the Fair Housing Act or advance U.S. interests.
The decision has sparked significant discussion about the role of diversity policies in professional sectors like appraisals, the New York Post reported.
Critics of the Biden-era agreement argue it prioritized racial composition over merit and fairness. Supporters of HUD’s latest action contend that the focus should remain on competence and equal access, not mandated diversity outcomes.
Under the previous administration, HUD relied on disparate impact theory, which examines whether neutral policies disproportionately affect underrepresented groups, to justify the agreement with TAF.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a higher percentage of white individuals in the appraisal field, which HUD then framed as a problem requiring government intervention. This approach, according to current officials, lacked evidence of intentional discrimination.
The 2024 conciliation agreement mandated TAF to adopt measures like hiring outside diversity consultants and establishing equity-focused councils. HUD’s current leadership argues these requirements were not grounded in civil rights complaints or proven bias within the industry. Instead, they see it as an overreach that strayed from ensuring fair housing protections.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner weighed in with sharp criticism of the prior administration’s approach:
Property appraisals are an integral component of helping Americans realize the dream of homeownership. But the Biden Administration weaponized the Fair Housing Act to inject DEI into the appraisal industry, focusing on illegal race preferences rather than ensuring every American has equal access to quality, affordable housing.
Turner’s words cut to the heart of a broader debate about whether federal agencies should prioritize demographic outcomes over individual qualifications. The push for diversity in appraisals, while well-intentioned, risks sidelining the fundamental need for skilled professionals who can accurately value homes—often a family’s largest asset.
Assistant Secretary of HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Craig Trainor, echoed this sentiment in a letter to TAF. “Rather than focus on real people with real fair housing issues, President Biden’s HUD focused on the racial composition of the appraisal industry,” Trainor wrote. His critique suggests a return to prioritizing tangible fairness over statistical disparities.
Trainor’s letter also emphasized the critical role of appraisals in the housing market. Most American homeowners rely on accurate property valuations to secure their financial future, a process that demands competence above all.
Yet, the Biden-era policy seemed to assume racial imbalance itself was evidence of wrongdoing, ignoring TAF’s argument that its standards protected the economy and public trust.
The apprenticeship model, historically used to train appraisers, was singled out by the previous administration as perpetuating racial homogeneity. Without concrete proof of bias, however, mandating diversity initiatives feels to many like a solution in search of a problem. It’s a classic case of bureaucratic overreach clashing with practical realities.
TAF itself has not yet commented on HUD’s decision to scrap the agreement, leaving uncertainty about whether it will maintain any of the diversity policies voluntarily. The nonprofit had previously maintained that its qualification criteria complied with federal civil rights laws. This silence adds another layer of intrigue to an already contentious policy shift.
