Trump Signs Controversial Executive Order Reshaping Federal Approach to Homelessness

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA

---

Image Source: Trevor Hughes/USA TODAY

In a sweeping new executive order, former President Donald Trump has announced drastic changes to how the federal government addresses homelessness, signaling a major departure from the widely accepted "housing first" model. The directive, signed on July 24, calls for a tough-on-crime strategy that prioritizes involuntary commitment for individuals with mental health or substance use issues a move that has sparked sharp criticism from housing advocates, social workers, and medical professionals nationwide.

Trump’s order mandates that federally funded homeless service organizations shift their focus toward detaining individuals experiencing drug addiction or mental illness, with less emphasis on providing immediate housing. He argues that current programs have failed to address public safety concerns and have allowed “disorder” to take over American cities.

“Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor to other citizens,” Trump stated. “The federal government and the states have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes.”

However, critics argue that the executive order lacks both funding and practical mechanisms for implementation. They warn it could worsen the homelessness crisis by criminalizing poverty and ignoring the central issue: the lack of affordable housing.

“There’s no funding or mechanisms in place to make this executive order happen,” said Heidi Eastman, vice president of housing and resources at WellPower, Colorado’s largest community-based mental health provider. “It’s going to overload the system and require more expensive services for people who may not need inpatient hospitalization.”

Medical professionals and social workers widely oppose the new order. Dr. Margot Kushel, a physician and homelessness researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, described the policy as “a formula to worsen homelessness,” emphasizing that housing, not incarceration, is the key to long term recovery. “Involuntary commitment is not a solution. It’s dehumanizing, expensive, and often ineffective,” said Kushel.

Supporters of the new policy, including some law enforcement officials, argue that the order is necessary to address public safety concerns tied to sprawling encampments in urban areas. Trump himself pointed to a camp near the White House, saying it sends the wrong message to international leaders visiting the U.S. “When leaders come to see me to make a trade deal for billions and even trillions of dollars and they come and there's tents outside the White House you can't have that,” Trump said.

Despite the administration's claims, data continues to support the housing first model. A Colorado-based study by WellPower showed that providing permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals saved taxpayers more than $3,700 per person annually. Additionally, 77% of individuals housed through this method remained in stable housing three years later. “The idea that people can’t recover until they’re locked up is not supported by evidence,” said Patrick Wildes, director of Albany Law School’s Government Law Center. “The goal should be helping people return to society, not warehousing them.”

Critics say the executive order is driven more by aesthetics and politics than genuine solutions. Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center said the policy criminalizes vulnerable populations without addressing the underlying issues of poverty, unemployment, and rising rents. “All this does is treat it like a crime to be sick and poor,” said Rabinowitz. “This isn’t policy it’s punishment.”

As of now, it remains unclear how soon the order will be implemented or what enforcement mechanisms will follow. Without new funding or congressional backing, experts say the order may face legal and logistical challenges. “This is not the way to fix homelessness,” Eastman concluded. “It’s going to make things worse, not better.”