Credited from: LATIMES
President Trump recently signed an executive order designed to make it easier for cities and states to remove homeless individuals from the streets, offering a sharp departure from previous homelessness strategies. The directive calls for Attorney General Pam Bondi to reverse judicial precedents that limit the ability of states and localities to commit individuals who pose risks to themselves or others, including those living on the streets, according to CBS News and NPR.
The executive order also signifies a strategic shift in federal funding allocation. It prioritizes financial support for enforcement programs that insist on sobriety and treatment for homelessness, as opposed to the longstanding "housing first" model, which often emphasized stable housing before treatment services, reports LA Times and NPR.
Reactions to the executive order have been charged and mixed, with local officials and homeless advocates voicing serious concerns over its implications. Critics argue that the order represents a return to punitive measures against homelessness, with Mayor Karen Bass pointing out the necessity of having supportive services and housing for effective long-term solutions to street homelessness. She expressed her worries about the cutbacks in Medicaid that have affected funding for facilities that support those in need, according to LA Times.
The order's preamble states concerns over "endemic vagrancy" and suggests most homeless individuals are "addicted to drugs" or face mental health challenges, which conflicts with studies indicating that while substance use and mental illness factor into homelessness, they are not the sole contributors. Additionally, around a third of surveyed homeless individuals indicated a reduction in drug use after becoming homeless, according to LA Times.
According to the order, federal agencies are instructed to provide enhanced funding for removing encampments while prioritizing cities that enforce bans on activities such as urban camping and loitering. However, the execution of these mandates leaves room for ambiguity on whether supportive measures will truly be prioritized or if punitive actions will dominate funding streams, which is troubling to many advocates who fear a focus on criminalization rather than genuine support and rehabilitation, according to CBS News, NPR, and LA Times.