Vermont Governor Phil Scott’s recent announcement that he intends to veto the mid-year Budget Adjustment Act (BAA) has sparked heated debate, particularly over the fate of the state’s General Assistance Emergency Housing program—commonly known as the hotel/motel program.
Democrats and critics, including House Speaker Jill Krowinski, have accused the governor of abruptly canceling a vital lifeline for Vermont’s unhoused population, leaving municipalities scrambling with little notice.
However, a closer look at Scott’s longstanding position, public statements, and the legislative timeline reveals that this decision is far from sudden.
Rather, it reflects a consistent stance he has maintained for years, raising the question: Is this truly an abrupt move, or have critics overlooked the warning signs?
The Hotel/Motel Program and the Budget Bill
The hotel/motel program, expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, provides temporary shelter in motels and hotels for vulnerable Vermonters, including families, veterans, and those with medical needs. The current iteration of the program, funded through the state’s General Assistance budget, was set to scale back significantly after March 2025 under rules established by the Democrat-controlled Legislature in prior sessions.
The mid-year BAA, passed by the House on March 12, 2025, includes $1.8 million to extend the program’s winter eligibility rules—allowing more people to stay sheltered—through June 2025. This extension is what Scott has targeted for his veto, arguing that it perpetuates a flawed system.
Democrats contend that Scott’s refusal to sign the BAA would “abruptly remove state support,” thrusting responsibility onto municipalities with less than two weeks’ notice before the program’s funding runs dry. Krowinski emphasized this point in a March 12 statement, warning that towns lack the resources to manage such a “complex crisis” on short notice. Advocates, like Frank Knaack of the Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont, echo this concern, planning a press conference to urge Scott to reconsider.
Scott’s Longstanding Opposition: Not a New Stance
While the veto threat may feel sudden to those reliant on the program, Scott’s opposition to the hotel/motel model is anything but new. For years, he has criticized it as an expensive, temporary fix that fails to address the root causes of homelessness. In his 2025 budget address on January 28, he proposed $38.5 million for the program but tied it to a shift toward more permanent shelter solutions, signaling his intent to phase out motel-based housing. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth acknowledged this proposal but called it inadequate, noting it fell “tens of millions” short of sustaining current levels of support.
Scott’s administration has been vocal about this shift since at least 2023, when new caps were imposed on the program following its pandemic-era expansion. On February 28, 2025, Administration Secretary Sarah Clark pitched a compromise to lawmakers: $2.1 million in flexible grants to municipalities to handle the transition away from motels, allowing towns to decide how best to support their unhoused residents. Lawmakers rejected this, opting instead for the BAA’s extension—a decision Scott flagged as a veto trigger well before the bill reached his desk.
At a March 6 press conference, Scott reiterated his position: “I’ve let everyone know that [the BAA] doesn’t meet what I see as what we need in Vermont right now. It spends more money than we should be spending. And it furthers the hotel motel program, which I feel has been a failed system.” Posts on X from Vermonters, like one from @rightvermont on March 9, highlight Scott’s frustration, quoting him as saying he offered a compromise that Democrats declined. This timeline suggests Scott has been telegraphing his intentions for months, if not years.
The “Abruptness” Debate: Perception vs. Reality
Critics’ claims of abruptness hinge on the immediate impact of a veto. If the BAA is rejected, the program’s current funding could lapse by late March, leaving roughly 250 children, 150 veterans, and other vulnerable Vermonters without state-supported shelter. Krowinski’s argument—that municipalities can’t pivot in “less than two weeks”—assumes the veto is the final word, ignoring the possibility of further negotiation. Yet, Scott’s team has stressed that their $2 million municipal grant proposal remains on the table, a point Clark emphasized on February 28 as a way to avoid “mass unsheltering.”
The Legislature’s own role in this crunch adds nuance. The decision to tie the program’s extension to the BAA—a mid-year adjustment rather than the full 2026 budget (due in May)—created a tight deadline. Scott has argued that major spending, like the $8.6 million for affordable housing also in the BAA, should wait for the annual budget process, especially given uncertainties about federal funding under the incoming Trump administration. This suggests the “abruptness” may stem as much from legislative timing as from Scott’s veto itself.
Evidence of Forewarning
Historical context bolsters the case against abruptness. Scott has wielded his veto power aggressively—issuing 52 vetoes to date, more than double the record of any prior Vermont governor—often targeting spending he deems unsustainable. In 2023 and 2024, he clashed with Democrats over property taxes and climate initiatives, with the Legislature overriding a record six vetoes each year. His skepticism of the hotel/motel program aligns with this fiscal restraint, a hallmark of his tenure since 2017. Middlebury College political scientist Matt Dickinson, quoted by Vermont Public in 2023, noted Scott’s popularity stems from balancing progressive goals with fiscal caution—a philosophy clearly at play here.
Whether this standoff ends in compromise or gridlock remains unclear. Democrats, lacking the supermajority to override a veto after last fall’s elections, face a new reality: Scott’s veto pen holds more sway than ever. For now, the decision may not be abrupt in intent, but its impact could still jolt Vermont’s most vulnerable—unless both sides find common ground before the funding runs out.
Comments