A executive decree Signed by President Trump pretending to protect the Americans from “endemic vagrants, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations and violent attacks” attributed to homeless has left local officials and defenders of homeless people indignant by his hard tone while taking a message full of hope in his fine footprint.
The order that Trump signed on Thursday would require federal agencies to reversing the previous ones or to consent decrees that hinder American policy “encouraging the civil commitment of people with mental illness that pose risks for themselves or the public or live in the street and cannot take care of themselves.”
He ordered these agencies to “guarantee the availability of funds to support efforts to abolish the camp”.
Depending on how this edict is made, it could extend a rescue buoy for the inside Safe program of the mayor Karen Bass, who eliminated dozens of the most notable camps in the city, but faces budgetary challenges to maintain the beds of the hotel and the motel which allow people to move inside.
Responding to the prescription on Friday, Bass said that she was troubled that she called to end the street homelessness and move people in rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration cuts in Medicaid have affected “flow of installation courses for whom people can remain, especially disabled”.
“Of course, I am concerned about punitive measures,” said Bass. “But first and foremost, if you want to end the roaming of the street, then you must have accommodation and services for people who are on the street.”
Kevin Murray, president and chief executive officer of the service and housing agency for the homeless of the Weingart Center, saw the ambiguity in the language.
“I couldn’t say if he offers money for people who want to do it in his own way or kidnap the people who don’t do it in his own way,” said Murray.
Others were inspired by the provocative tone of order in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of 274,224 people who declared to live in the street in 2024 “are addicted to drugs, have a mental health, or both.”
The order contradicts a Increasing research correction This consumption of substances and mental illness, although significant, are not essential factors in homelessness. “Almost two-thirds of the homeless declare that they have regularly used hard medications such as methamphetomas, cocaine or opioids during their lives. An equally important part of the homeless said to suffer from mental health problems. ”
A February study Through the Benioff initiative for the homeless and housing at UC San Francisco, found that only about 37% of the more than 3,000 homeless people interviewed in California regularly consumed illicit drugs, but a little more than 65% said they had regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said that their drug consumption had decreased after becoming homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were looking for treatment but could not obtain it.
“As for most decrees, he does not have much effect in herself,” said Steve Berg, director of national alliance policies to end the roaming. “He tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how federal agencies do these things, this is what will have the impact. ”
In concrete terms, the ordinance seeks to divert the financing of two pillars of the practice of general publiclessness, of “housing first”, the prioritization of permanent housing on a temporary shelter and the “reduction of harms”, the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing.
According to the ordinance, the subsidies granted under the administration of drug addiction and mental health services should “not finance programs which fail to obtain adequate results, in particular so -called” harm reduction “or” safe consumption “which facilitates only the consumption of illegal drugs and the damage. And the Secretary of Health and Social Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent allowed by law, a final support for “housing first” policies which “prioritize responsibility and did not promote treatment, recovery and self -sufficiency”.
To a certain extent, these themes reflect changes that have been underway in the state and the local response to homeless. Under pressure from Governor Gavin Newsom, the California’s legislature has established rules Allow loved ones and service providers to return persons to court for treatment and to expand the definition of the disabled seriously to include the consumption of substances.
Locally, the secure program inside Bass and the county counterpart, Pathway Home, prioritized the expansion of temporary housing to get people out immediately.
Trump’s order goes further, however, walking in the controversial question of the justified quantity of coercion to eliminate camps.
The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, he said, should take measures to ensure that subsidies go to the states and cities which impose prohibitions on the consumption of open illicit drugs, the urban campsite and the fleet and the squat.
The defense organizations of the homeless considered these edicts as a pressure for the criminalization of the homeless and the mental illness.
“We will come back at the time of” One flew over the cuckoo’s nest “,” said Berg, referring to the 1962 novel and the cinema which followed the oppressive conditions in mental health institutions.
Defending accommodation first as a proven strategy which is the most profitable way to get people out of the street, Berg said that the order encourages agencies to use money in a less profitable way.
“What we want to do is reduce homelessness,” he said. “I’m not sure that it is the goal of the Trump administration.”
The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement: “This executive decree is rooted in obsolete racist myths on homelessness and will undoubtedly aggravate homelessness. … Trump’s actions will force more people in homelessness, divert taxpayers’ money far from people in need and make local communities more difficult to resolve the homeless. “
Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of housing first, noted that key policies pressed in order – civil commitment, elimination of the camp and treatment of drug addiction – already gain importance in the state and the local response to homelessness.
“We all think that if it comes from Trump, it’s horrible,” said Murray. “It is certainly domineering. Certainly certain shades of what real people with mental illness and drug addiction are. But we started on the path of most of these things. ”
His main concern was that the order could be interpreted as appropriate in section 8, the main federal financial tool to bring homeless people into housing.
What would happen, he asked if someone with a good refused treatment?
“It could encourage more people to stay on the street,” he said. “Treating people is not easy.”