President Donald Trump signed an executive order on July 24 titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets," launching a federal crackdown on homelessness that prioritizes enforcement and involuntary treatment over housing-first approaches that have guided local policy for years.
The order represents a sharp policy shift that frames street homelessness as "endemic vagrancy" and public disorder. It directs federal agencies to prioritize funding for states and cities that aggressively enforce anti-camping laws and pursue civil commitment of homeless individuals with mental illness or addiction.
"Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens," the order states, calling for a "new approach focused on protecting public safety."
The directive immediately drew sharp criticism from homeless service providers and creates potential conflicts with California's housing-first policies, setting up what could become a federal-state showdown over how to address the nation's homelessness crisis.
What the Order Does
The executive order instructs the Attorney General to seek reversal of court precedents that limit involuntary civil commitment and to support "maximally flexible" standards for institutionalizing people "who pose risks to themselves or the public" or cannot care for themselves.
Federal agencies including Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation must prioritize grants for jurisdictions that enforce prohibitions on open drug use, urban camping, loitering and squatting. The order explicitly shifts resources away from "housing first" programs that provide housing without preconditions, instead requiring treatment or sobriety as conditions for shelter.
The order also targets harm reduction programs, directing HHS to defund "so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use." The Justice Department is instructed to pursue legal action against organizations operating supervised injection sites.
Additionally, federally funded shelters would be allowed to collect health information from homeless clients and share that data with law enforcement "to enhance public safety."
Questions About Feasibility
Implementation faces significant practical and legal hurdles. The order seeks to dramatically expand civil commitments despite most states, including California, lacking sufficient psychiatric hospital capacity to absorb tens of thousands of homeless individuals.
Local homeless service providers said that by expanding forced treatment and institutionalization in facilities that do not exist, the order undermines consent and due process. They said it also undercuts evidence-based Housing First and Harm Reduction, which consistently deliver better long-term outcomes, and leans into criminalization that does not reduce homelessness and only deepens harm.
The order's approach of conditioning federal grants on local policy choices may face legal scrutiny, with some seeing echoes of past battles over federal funding to coerce state compliance.
Civil liberties advocates argue measures like forced treatment and health data sharing will be challenged on constitutional grounds. Privacy laws including HIPAA also govern health information sharing.
Service Providers Push Back
Homeless service organizations strongly denounced the order, arguing it undermines evidence-based approaches that have shown results.
"This order turns homelessness into a problem to be managed through force instead of investing in housing and care," said John Maceri, CEO of The People Concern, one of Los Angeles County's largest housing agencies. "It risks further harm to people already living with trauma, poverty and complex health needs."
The Legal Action Center called the order "a dangerous step backwards that will only deepen harm," arguing it "attempts to dehumanize, punish, and subvert the rights of unhoused people."
Paul Samuels, the center's director, said the approach "promotes the illusion of safety by criminalizing people for being visibly unhoused rather than addressing root causes like the dearth of affordable housing."
Clash with California Policies
The order directly collides with California's approach, which emphasizes housing-first principles mandated by state law since 2016. California requires all state homelessness programs to provide housing without prerequisites like sobriety or treatment participation.
Governor Gavin Newsom's office dismissed Trump's move as focused on creating distracting headlines and settling old scores rather than making a positive impact. The response noted California's efforts are based on the law and the facts, not harmful stereotypes and ineffective public policy.
The legal landscape had shifted recently toward enforcement when the Supreme Court overturned lower court decisions that had limited cities' ability to enforce camping bans. At that time, Newsom asked local municipalities to step up enforcement.
While Los Angeles faces particular pressure, Santa Monica's stricter approach may align better with federal priorities. The city’s rules were already largely stricter than the State provisions as the city prohibits camping in virtually all public spaces. However, a needle distribution program does operate in local parks through the Venice Family Clinic and such programs are not in direct opposition to Trump’s new order.
California's Recent Progress
Despite federal criticism, California has shown signs of progress on homelessness. The state outperformed national trends in 2024, limiting its overall homelessness increase to 3% compared to over 18% nationally.
Preliminary 2025 data shows continued improvement in major metropolitan areas. Los Angeles County expects to report total homelessness declined 4%, with unsheltered homelessness down 9.5%. The city of Los Angeles saw total homelessness decrease 3.4% and unsheltered homelessness drop 7.9%.
San Diego reported a 13.5% decrease in total homelessness, while Riverside County saw unsheltered homelessness fall 19%.
"This progress came from housing and care, not punishment," Maceri said. "We cannot afford to reverse course now."
However, Santa Monica’s homeless population grew last year by about 5 percent with a noticeable increase in car camping. While the rules already exist banning people from living in vehicles, local officials have said they are limited by state provisions that make it hard to force car campers off public streets.