Introduction to the Executive Order
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from “endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks” attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print.
Key Provisions of the Order
The order Trump signed would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy “encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.” It ordered those agencies to “ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.”
Potential Impact on Homelessness Programs
Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city’s most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration’s cuts to Medicaid have affected funding “streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.”
Concerns Over Punitive Measures
“Of course I’m concerned about any punitive measures,” Bass said. “But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.” Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. “I couldn’t tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don’t do it his way,” Murray said.
Research on Homelessness
Others took their cue from the order’s provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 “are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.” The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives.
Impact on Federal Agencies
According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should “not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called ‘harm reduction’ or ‘safe consumption’ efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.” And the secretary of Health and Human Services and the secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for “housing first” policies that “deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.”
Shifts in State and Local Response
To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass’ Inside Safe program and the county’s counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately.
Criticism from Homeless Advocacy Organizations
Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. “We’ll be back to the days of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,’” said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways.
Conclusion
The executive order signed by President Trump has sparked mixed reactions, with some seeing it as a step towards addressing homelessness and others criticizing it for its punitive tone and potential to worsening the situation. As the order is implemented, it remains to be seen how it will impact the lives of those experiencing homelessness and the effectiveness of programs aimed at supporting them.
FAQs
- What is the main goal of President Trump’s executive order on homelessness?
The main goal of the order is to protect Americans from the perceived dangers of homelessness, including vagrancy, disorderly behavior, and violent attacks. - How does the order plan to achieve its goals?
The order plans to achieve its goals by requiring federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness and by ensuring the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts. - What are the concerns of local officials and homeless advocates regarding the order?
Local officials and homeless advocates are concerned about the order’s harsh tone, its potential to worsen the situation, and its emphasis on punitive measures rather than providing housing and services for those in need. - What is the current state of research on homelessness?
Research suggests that substance use and mental illness are not the overriding factors in homelessness, contradicting the order’s preamble. - How might the order impact federal agencies and their funding priorities?
The order may lead to a shift in funding priorities, with grants being directed away from programs that focus on harm reduction and housing first policies, and towards programs that prioritize treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.
