The Make Housing Affordable and Defend Democracy Act, legislation to reinvest the $175 billion ICE and CBP slush fund congressional Republicans and Donald Trump created in their Big, Ugly Budget into proven solutions to tackle skyrocketing housing costs and the deepening affordability crisis.
I will co-sponsor legislation to reinvest the $175 billion ICE and CBP slush fund into housing affordability solutions.
Occurrences
Evidence
“The Make Housing Affordable and Defend Democracy Act, legislation to reinvest the $175 billion ICE and CBP slush fund congressional Republicans and Donald Trump created in their Big, Ugly Budget into proven solutions to tackle skyrocketing housing costs and the deepening affordability crisis.”
Cosponsor | Date Cosponsored ... Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3]* | 12/03/2025
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows: H.R. 539: Mr. Evans of Colorado, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Carter of Georgia, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R.6852 — 119th Congress (2025-2026) ... Sponsor: Evans, Gabe [Rep.-R-CO-8] ... H.R.6259 — 119th Congress (2025-2026) ... Sponsor: Evans, Gabe [Rep.-R-CO-8]
H.R. 6390 ... EVANS of Colorado: ... 6390. ... 6391.
Assessments
Available evidence shows a public commitment to co-sponsor the housing-reinvestment bill and confirms the bill has other cosponsors, but it does not verify that Gabe Evans himself actually became a cosponsor. That makes the promise unproven rather than delivered or clearly failed.
The promise is specifically to co-sponsor legislation reinvesting the claimed ICE/CBP funds into housing affordability. The evidence shows the target bill exists and that another member, Dwight Evans, cosponsored it, but it does not clearly verify that Gabe Evans himself was added as a cosponsor. One office-page statement appears to describe co-sponsoring or intending to co-sponsor the bill, but the summary itself notes this is a commitment statement rather than proof of filed House cosponsorship. Other records only show that Gabe Evans was active on unrelated bills. Because the available evidence does not confirm the promised action was actually completed, but also suggests possible intent or involvement, the best judgment is unresolved rather than delivered or never.