A single signature on Thursday sent shockwaves across social media platforms and legal advocacy groups nationwide, as a sweeping new mandate threatens to fundamentally alter how the United States addresses one of its most pressing social crises. The controversial directive has sparked intense debate about constitutional rights, mental health treatment, and the balance between public safety and individual liberty, with critics warning of devastating consequences for society’s most vulnerable populations.
The Executive Order That Has America Divided
President Donald Trump has signed a new executive order that aims to crack down on homelessness in the US, and it’s left social media users extremely concerned. The order, officially titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” represents what the administration calls a fundamental shift in federal policy toward addressing homelessness through enforcement and institutionalization rather than housing-first approaches.
On Thursday (July 24), Trump signed an order seeking ‘the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees’ in order to make it easier for cities to remove homeless people from the streets and into treatment centers. The comprehensive directive touches on multiple aspects of homelessness policy, from civil commitment procedures to federal funding priorities, marking one of the most significant policy shifts in decades.
The order calls for Attorney General Pam Bondi to ‘seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of 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 in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time’.
The Administration’s Rationale
The executive order presents a stark assessment of America’s homelessness crisis, stating that “Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe.” According to the White House, the number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.
It further adds: “Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens.”
The order emphasizes that “The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told USA TODAY that Trump is ‘delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America’. “By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need,” she said.
A Comprehensive Policy Overhaul
The executive order goes far beyond simple enforcement measures, representing a comprehensive restructuring of how federal resources address homelessness. The order requires the Attorney General to work with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation to prioritize grants for states and municipalities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting.
One of the most controversial aspects involves the redirection of federal funding away from what the administration terms ineffective programs. The order specifically targets harm reduction programs, directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do 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.”
This represents a significant departure from current public health approaches. Addiction experts consider harm reduction, including programs that provide clean needles and other paraphernalia, to be an essential part of helping people survive addiction. The order’s language suggests these programs will lose federal funding entirely.
The Legal and Constitutional Implications
The executive order’s call for reversing judicial precedents and terminating consent decrees raises significant constitutional questions. The president’s order asks Attorney General Pam Bondi to “reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments’ ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others,” according to a White House fact sheet.
This directive effectively asks the Justice Department to challenge established legal protections that have governed civil commitment procedures for decades. These precedents were largely established to prevent the kind of mass institutionalization that characterized mental health treatment in the mid-20th century, when people were often confined indefinitely without adequate due process protections.
The order also requires states to “enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law.”
Building on Supreme Court Precedent
This order comes after the Supreme Court’s decision in June to ban people from sleeping rough in public places, according to the BBC. The landmark ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson effectively overturned decades of legal protections for homeless individuals, allowing cities to criminalize sleeping in public even when no shelter beds are available.
Thursday’s White House action builds on this Supreme Court ruling that said cities can punish people for sleeping outside even if they have nowhere else to go. Since the high court ruling, well over 100 cities across more than two dozen states have passed or strengthened bans on homeless camping. More may now feel pressure to do so if that makes it easier to get federal funding.
The executive order essentially weaponizes federal funding to encourage local governments to adopt more aggressive enforcement policies, creating a financial incentive structure that could fundamentally alter how cities across America approach homelessness.
The Civil Rights Community Responds
However, the new order has caused some outrage, with the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) calling it ‘dangerous’. In a statement, they said it would ‘make homelessness worse’ as it ‘deprives people of their basic rights’.
The ACLU issued an equally strong condemnation, with their statement reading: “President Trump signed an executive order today directing states to criminalize unhoused people and institutionalize people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder.”
The ACLU continued: “Pushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won’t solve homelessness or support people with disabilities. The exact opposite is true – institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn’t work. We need safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as equal access to medical care and voluntary, community-based mental health and evidence-based substance use treatment from trusted providers.”
They continued to say that the order doesn’t do anything to ‘lower the cost of housing or help people make ends meet’, adding: “The safest communities are those with the most housing and resources, not those that make it a crime to be poor or sick. Forced treatment is unethical, ineffective, and illegal. People need stable housing and access to healthcare. Rather, Trump’s actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.”
Expert Analysis and Historical Context
The National Alliance to End Homelessness provided additional context through spokesperson Ann Oliva, who stated: “Institutionalizing people with mental illness, including those experiencing homelessness, is not a dignified, safe, or evidence-based way to serve people’s needs.”
For two decades there was bipartisan support for getting people off the streets and into housing first, then offering them mental health or addiction treatment. Supporters say that approach has a proven track record of keeping people off the streets. And they say a massive shortage of affordable housing is a key driver of homelessness.
But there’s been a growing conservative backlash to that as homelessness rates have steadily risen to record levels. The annual count of homeless people in the U.S. has reached unprecedented heights, creating political pressure for alternative approaches.
The nation has long grappled with how to handle forced hospitalizations. The current approach represents a significant departure from the deinstitutionalization movement that began in the 1960s, which sought to move people with mental illness out of large state hospitals and into community-based care.
State-Level Momentum for Change
The executive order reflects a broader national trend toward more aggressive approaches to mental health and addiction treatment. Dozens of states have added to or expanded involuntary commitment laws during the past decade. That includes states controlled by Democrats, an illustration that political momentum has shifted toward a more aggressive approach to dealing with the inextricably intertwined crises of mental health and addiction.
Oregon state lawmakers, after years of contentious debate and failed attempts, are pushing forward with a bill that would make it easier to force someone who is a danger to themselves or others into treatment. In California, a law went into effect this year expanding the criteria for who is eligible for involuntary commitments to include those suffering from substance use disorders.
This state-level activity suggests that Trump’s executive order may face less resistance than critics anticipate, as many state governments have already moved in similar directions.
The Treatment Advocacy Perspective
States’ beefing-up of involuntary commitment laws illustrates a growing recognition that officials had become too reluctant to employ laws aimed at the most severely ill who are not able to seek treatment on their own, said Lisa Dailey, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center. Those people often end up in jail or prison, or harm themselves or others, while conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder go untreated, she said.
“It does damage to your brain to remain in untreated psychosis. The longer you remain in an untreated psychosis, the harder it is to actually recover,” said Dailey, whose organization has become influential in pushing changes to state laws to treat severely mentally ill people before they succumb to homelessness or incarceration.
“This is really that crucial safety net at the bottom to make sure that [homeless people] don’t continue to fall through the cracks and die on the street,” says supporter Robert Kurtz, highlighting the perspective that involuntary treatment can be a life-saving intervention for the most vulnerable populations.
Local Officials’ Mixed Reactions
Local officials have provided varied responses to the executive order. “I’m ecstatic, I mean, finally we’re gonna get to the root causes of homelessness,” said Jim Desmond, supervisor of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, representing the supportive view among some local administrators.
However, service providers have expressed concerns about practical implementation. Jeffrey Sitcov, founder and president of Doors of Change, an organization helping homeless youth, emphasized the importance of mental health support while questioning the infrastructure needed to support the policy.
“At Doors of Change, mental health is a huge issue that we deal with because if these youth do not get help with mental health, they are not gonna succeed in life. They are not going to be able to get off the streets,” said Sitcov. However, he stressed the need for both treatment and housing resources, stating, “We need to have more beds in the community so even if the executive order says get them in treatment, where are they supposed to go?”
Additional Policy Components
The executive order includes several other significant policy changes beyond civil commitment procedures. It requires that programs housing homeless individuals “substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.”
The order also aims to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance from being housed with children and allows programs to house women and children exclusively, addressing safety concerns that have been raised about mixed-population shelters.
Additionally, the order requires that discretionary grants for substance use prevention, treatment and recovery do not go toward funding “drug injection sites or illicit drug use,” representing a complete elimination of federal support for supervised consumption sites and similar harm reduction programs.
Social Media Eruption
And Trump’s newest executive order has sparked concern amongst social media users. The reaction on platforms like Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook has been swift and largely negative, with many users expressing fear about the policy’s implications for civil liberties and vulnerable populations.
On a Reddit thread regarding the order, one person claimed it was ‘the republican solution to actual societal problems’ to instead ‘lock the people away where the rest of society doesn’t have to see them instead of helping them recover and get better and solve their problems’.
While another said: “This is terrifying!” The comment reflects a broader sentiment among critics who view the policy as a return to discredited approaches from previous eras.
Other social media users have drawn comparisons to historical periods when mass institutionalization was common, expressing concern that the policy represents a step backward in how society treats people with mental illness and addiction issues.
The hashtag #HomelessnessIsNotACrime has begun trending on multiple platforms, with advocates sharing stories and research about the effectiveness of housing-first approaches compared to enforcement-based strategies.
The Funding Implications
One of the most immediate impacts of the executive order will be on federal funding streams. The order commits federal funding to move people on the streets who are “causing public disorder and that are suffering from serious mental illness or addiction” to “treatment centers, assisted outpatient treatment, or other facilities.”
However, critics warn that cash-strapped states will not have the space to keep more people detained. The executive order, however, says federal resources could ensure “detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public” because of a lack of beds or funding.
This creates a potential conflict between the policy’s ambitious goals and the practical realities of state and local budgets. Many communities are already struggling to fund existing mental health and addiction treatment programs, raising questions about how they will manage the additional costs associated with expanded civil commitment procedures.
Previous Trump Actions on Homelessness
This executive order represents the culmination of several previous actions by the Trump administration targeting homelessness. In March 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to beautify Washington D.C., directing the National Park Service to clear all homeless encampments and graffiti on Federal lands.
In May 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the National Center for Warrior Independence, a place where homeless veterans can go to receive the care, benefits, and services to which they are entitled. This order specifically targeted veteran homelessness, which has been a particular focus of the administration.
Trump also signed a separate executive order in March aiming to dismantle the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, effectively eliminating the federal coordination mechanism that had overseen homelessness policy across multiple agencies.
Campaign Promises Fulfilled
The president pledged to remove homeless individuals from the nation’s streets during his campaign. “When I am back in the White House, we will use every tool, lever, and authority to get the homeless off our streets,” Mr. Trump said in a spring 2023 campaign video.
The current executive order represents the fulfillment of that campaign promise, implementing the “every tool, lever, and authority” approach that Trump had promised his supporters.
In March, Mr. Trump called for Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser to “clean up all of the unsightly homeless encampments in the City, specifically including the ones outside of the State Department, and near the White House.” He added that if she was “not capable of doing so, we will be forced to do it for her!”
Implementation Challenges Ahead
The impact of Trump’s executive order remains unclear because states set laws and handle the process of involuntary commitments. This creates a complex implementation environment where federal directives must work within existing state legal frameworks.
Many states will need to modify their civil commitment laws to align with the federal order’s objectives, potentially creating a patchwork of different approaches across the country. Some states may embrace the more aggressive approach, while others may resist or implement minimal changes.
The order’s success will largely depend on cooperation from state and local officials, many of whom may have different philosophical approaches to addressing homelessness than the federal administration.
The Justice Department will need to identify specific legal precedents and consent decrees to challenge, then work through the appeals process to overturn established protections – a process that could take years and face significant legal opposition.
Looking Forward: The Debate Continues
As implementation of this executive order begins, America finds itself at a crossroads in how it addresses homelessness, mental illness, and addiction. The policy represents a fundamental philosophical shift from approaches that prioritize housing and voluntary treatment toward enforcement and involuntary commitment.
Supporters argue that decades of housing-first policies have failed to reduce homelessness significantly and that more aggressive intervention is necessary to help people who cannot help themselves. Critics contend that the policy violates civil rights, ignores the root causes of homelessness, and will ultimately make the crisis worse.
The coming months will reveal how this policy plays out in practice, as federal agencies work to implement the directive and communities across the country grapple with its implications. The debate over how America should address homelessness – through housing, treatment, enforcement, or some combination – continues to divide policymakers, advocates, and the public.
What remains clear is that this executive order represents one of the most significant policy shifts in decades regarding how the federal government approaches homelessness, with implications that will be felt by vulnerable populations, service providers, and communities across the nation for years to come.
Adrian Hawthorne is a celebrated author and dedicated archivist who finds inspiration in the hidden stories of the past. Educated at Oxford, he now works at the National Archives, where preserving history fuels his evocative writing. Balancing archival precision with creative storytelling, Adrian founded the Hawthorne Institute of Literary Arts to mentor emerging writers and honor the timeless art of narrative.