Balancing Rights and Responsibility in Homelessness Policy

On July 24, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” which attempts to address the homelessness crisis that has exploded in urban, suburban, and rural communities nationwide. The EO reckons with a painful truth: The current system relegates tens of thousands to sidewalks and encampments with minimal intervention and has failed those in need as well as the broader public. But by prioritizing civil commitment and institutional treatment without addressing structural economic instability, the EO is likely to perpetuate the cycle in which too many individuals are moving between jails, shelters, and emergency departments, never finding sustained care or stable housing.  

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024—including unsheltered locations as well as emergency shelters, safe havens, and transitional housing—was the highest ever recorded, at 771,480 (about 23 per 10,000 people). Unhoused individuals experience higher rates of victimization, emergency service reliance, preventable overdose, and premature death. And while it is not clear that higher rates of homelessness actively endanger the public, visible signs like encampments and public drug use can make communities feel unsafe for all. In an effort to address this crisis, federal and state spending has funneled resources into temporary shelters without sufficiently addressing the underlying drivers of chronic homelessness and street disorder, including public drug use.

While the EO does not directly criminalize homelessness, it does condition federal grants on active enforcement of laws related to public drug use, squatting, and camping in public spaces. Although these provisions have raised concerns among civil liberties advocates, evidence from cities like Houston, Texas; San Diego, California; and Wichita, Kansas demonstrates that outcomes can improve for both individuals and communities when enforcement is paired with clear pathways to care, expanded mental health resources, and low-barrier access to long-term and permanent housing. However, in the absence of such structural changes, these policies further destabilize homeless individuals and can perpetuate cycles of addiction, incarceration, and living on the streets.

The EO also promotes targeted, court-supervised civil commitment for individuals experiencing severe mental illness or addiction who pose a risk to themselves or others and discourages commitment standards that prohibit intervention until someone reaches a threshold of imminent danger. In an ideal world, these early interventions may align with research that shows how negative life circumstances and poor mental health can create a self-perpetuating loop.  

Importantly, the EO does not seek to revive outdated models of institutionalization; rather, it outlines a path forward that emphasizes transparency, oversight, and modern clinical care. New state-federal partnerships aim to increase psychiatric bed capacity, expand clinical training pipelines, and standardize facility accreditation and monitoring. Done correctly, this could serve as a national framework for ethical, evidence-based care that honors individual rights while addressing urgent public needs. Ironically, it comes at a time when the administration is actively cutting funds for voluntary, evidence-based treatment.

Civil commitment may serve as a last resort for individuals experiencing extreme substance use and mental health issues. Indeed, studies have shown that therapeutic courts and assisted outpatient treatment programs can reduce recidivism, increase housing stability, and lower system costs. However, the overall evidence for involuntary mental health and substance use disorder treatment is mixed—and, in some cases harmful. In addition to concerns about the efficacy of this approach, organizations including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, and the American Civil Liberties Union have raised thoughtful concerns about due process, privacy, and the potential for overreach. Policymakers would be wise to heed those warnings.

But doing nothing is also a risk, especially when current systems leave vulnerable people to languish in encampments without intervention. Trump’s EO highlights the fact that something different must be done. It claims to bridge the gap between compassion and responsibility, and it rightly prioritizes the development of clinical infrastructure, legal safeguards, and coordinated outreach systems. However, it limits its support to the expansion of involuntary systems while simultaneously stripping evidence-based voluntary resources and failing to address the need for long-term affordable housing—as opposed to short-term, restrictive shelters—and living wages.

No single action will resolve the challenges of untreated mental illness or chronic homelessness. While the EO could have a positive impact on chronically unhoused individuals suffering from severe mental illness, the administration must also expand treatment infrastructure and housing access for less severe cases in order to more broadly benefit individuals and communities.

For policymakers committed to safe, livable communities—and for advocates fighting for humane, long-term solutions—this moment offers both urgency and opportunity. We should seize it.