Governor’s Bold Move SLASHES $1 Billion Shelter Cost

People walk under a bridge with homeless encampment

Massachusetts just ended its billion-dollar migrant shelter program, delivering a major blow to the failed “right to shelter” experiment and signaling a victory for taxpayers demanding fiscal sanity and secure borders.

Story Highlights

Governor Maura Healey closed all remaining hotel shelters for migrants, terminating a $1 billion emergency program and ending the 2023 state of emergency.
Massachusetts’ unique “right to shelter” law was effectively gutted by recent legislation, as lawmakers responded to unsustainable costs and mounting public pressure.
The program’s closure marks a shift away from policies that prioritized migrants over local residents, sparking fierce political debate about state responsibility and immigration.
Advocates warn of housing instability for migrant families, while critics celebrate the return to fiscal discipline and a focus on local needs.

Healey Shuts Down $1 Billion Shelter Program

On August 1, 2025, Governor Maura Healey announced the immediate closure of all hotel shelters for migrant families in Massachusetts, officially ending the state’s costly $1 billion emergency shelter initiative. This move concluded the state of emergency first declared in August 2023 after a historic influx of migrant families overwhelmed the Commonwealth’s unique “right to shelter” system. The Healey administration framed the decision as a necessary step to restore fiscal order and transition families toward self-sufficiency, responding to months of outcry over ballooning costs and the prioritization of migrants over local taxpayers.

The program’s closure came months ahead of schedule, reflecting a dramatic reversal from policies that once guaranteed shelter for all eligible families, regardless of immigration status. Massachusetts had been the only state in the nation with a legal “right to shelter” for families, a commitment that proved unsustainable as the number of migrant arrivals surged starting in 2022. By the time the shelters closed, the number of families in state care had dropped below 5,000 for the first time in over a year, due in part to legislative caps and stricter eligibility requirements that forced difficult choices for both officials and affected families.

Fiscal Pressures and Political Fallout

Critics of the shelter program, including MassGOP leaders and Republican candidate Mike Kennealy, seized on the shutdown as evidence of the failure of progressive “open door” policies and a vindication for those demanding limits on government spending and immigration. The Healey administration estimated the early closure would save “hundreds of millions of dollars,” easing pressure on an overstretched state budget. However, advocacy groups warned that cutting off shelter support could lead to increased homelessness among vulnerable families, shifting the burden to local communities and social service agencies already struggling to keep up.

Political debate intensified as state lawmakers rewrote the “right to shelter” law, making shelter access conditional based on available resources and capping stays in the system. These changes fundamentally altered the law’s intent, transforming what was once a universal guarantee into a resource-limited and temporary safety net. For many conservatives, this was a needed course correction—proof that fiscal responsibility and common sense could prevail against ideological excess. For supporters of the old system, it marked the end of a decades-long Massachusetts tradition that set the state apart.

Impact on Communities and the National Debate

The closure’s immediate impact was felt by migrant families forced to leave state-sponsored hotels, many of whom now rely on rapid rehousing and rental assistance programs with uncertain long-term prospects. Local governments and service providers, who bore the brunt of managing overcrowded shelters, welcomed the relief but warned of ongoing challenges as displaced families seek stable housing. Taxpayers, frustrated by years of unsustainable spending, will see relief in the state budget, but the debate over “right to shelter” and immigration policy is far from over.

Massachusetts’ experience is now a cautionary tale for other states grappling with rising migrant arrivals and the question of how—if at all—to guarantee shelter. Legal experts point out that the legislative changes all but dismantled the original “right to shelter” law, raising questions about the Commonwealth’s future obligations and the fate of similar policies elsewhere. As the dust settles, one lesson stands out: policies that ignore fiscal realities and local priorities cannot endure without significant consequences for both the intended beneficiaries and the broader public.