Executive Order on Homelessness Sparks Controversy and Legal Challenges

In the year following President Trump’s executive order to address homelessness, federal agencies have empowered states to increase civil commitment for homeless individuals with mental illness or substance issues. This move, pending legal challenges, may change how homelessness initiatives are funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to comply with the executive order. The order claims past policies ignored the ‘root causes’ of homelessness, posing a public safety risk. However, critics argue that it may overburden state treatment centers and criminalize the homeless, straying from ‘Housing First’ policies. Housing First promotes non-conditional housing access, without requiring sobriety or treatment compliance.

Civil Commitments

The executive order led the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments to prioritize funding for states implementing involuntary psychiatric treatment. Known as ‘maximally flexible civil commitment,’ it targets those deemed dangerous or unable to care for themselves. The order seeks to restore public order by committing homeless individuals to long-term institutions for humane treatment. It asked the Justice Department to revoke any consent decrees that hinder civil commitments and prioritized states and cities that ban urban camping and drug use in public. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that about 30% of chronically homeless people have severe mental illness, with two-thirds having substance or chronic health disorders.

Responding to this, several Republican states passed laws penalizing homeless camps or expanded involuntary institutionalization. Utah set aside over $43 million this year to manage ‘high utilizers,’ individuals frequently cycling through shelters and jails, aided by a new law placing them under state supervision. Meanwhile, Indiana and Louisiana criminalized overnight camping on public land. Louisiana’s ‘Streets to Success Act’ penalizes first-time offenders with $500 fines, offering them a year-long supervised program instead, with access to health services, job training, and housing. Success in the program can erase convictions, while non-compliance risks jail time.

The National Homelessness Law Center called it a severe anti-homeless bill. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry supports the homeless courts, believing they help transition individuals off the streets. Shaina Bessonet, who experienced homelessness in Louisiana, criticized the bill, arguing that it punishes without solving homelessness. From the Cicero Institute, Devon Kurtz said the executive order, along with a Justice Department opinion, gives states more flexibility in psychiatric care. This opinion facilitates keeping mentally ill individuals institutionalized, instead of community-based care. The conservative Cicero Institute, founded by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, advised on the order. Kurtz claimed Housing First policies rewarded regions performing poorly.

Conversely, Jennifer Mathis from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health cautioned that civil commitment might be costlier than long-term housing. She argued the order pressured states into coercive strategies, focusing less on housing solutions. The implication that unhoused individuals lack housing due to personal failings is deeply flawed, Mathis argued.

Funding Changes Stuck in Courts

Administration officials claim the order resulted in $700 million from HHS for addiction and mental illness aid, including homelessness, although limits exist on funding ‘Housing First’ or ‘harm reduction’ policies. HUD’s focus on accountability for over $4 billion in grants remains legally challenged. Since 2013, Housing First frameworks have guided federal homelessness approaches, initially adopted under President George W. Bush in 2004.

HUD’s 2025 report noted a 27% rise in homelessness since 2013. Its 2026 budget reduced permanent, supportive housing funding from $3 billion to $2.4 billion, and shifted $1.3 billion to transitional housing programs, up from $600,000 in 2024. A lawsuit claims these changes might displace 97,000 from supportive housing, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. A lawsuit in July involved 21 state attorneys general and the Alliance challenging HUD’s funding plan. A successful challenge stopped HUD’s 2025 plan.

HUD Secretary Scott Turner dismissed claims of displacing 97,000 individuals as fear-driven and exaggerated. He stated that the funds would offer ‘more funding than ever,’ allowing advocates flexibility in community housing investment. Ann Oliva of NAEH defended Housing First, describing the administration’s resistance as misleading, noting the impact of rising housing costs on homelessness. She argued that blaming emergency rooms for ongoing issues is shortsighted.