Trump Signs Executive Order to Clear Homeless Encampments and Mandate Treatment
President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping new executive order aimed at tackling homelessness by empowering local governments to dismantle street encampments and redirect individuals into treatment and rehabilitation centers. The directive, which has already triggered sharp reactions from both supporters and critics, is being described by the White House as a “common-sense” move to restore order and dignity to American cities. But opponents argue it represents a dangerous rollback of civil liberties and will only worsen the crisis it purports to address.
The order, signed Thursday, grants Attorney General Pam Bondi the authority to override previous legal protections that have limited cities’ ability to forcibly relocate homeless populations. Specifically, it targets the reversal of federal and state court decisions and consent decrees that have made it harder for local governments to move people from public spaces into institutional care. Bondi is also instructed to coordinate with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to accelerate funding for jurisdictions that crack down on open drug use, illegal squatting, and loitering.
Speaking from the South Lawn on Friday, Trump defended the order as a necessary step toward restoring public safety and international dignity.
“Right outside, there were some tents, and they’re getting rid of them right now,” he said. “You can’t do that — especially in Washington, DC. I talk to the mayor about it all the time. I said you gotta get rid of the tents.”
The president added that such encampments send the wrong message to visiting foreign leaders: “We can’t have it — when leaders come to see me to make a trade deal for billions and billions and even trillions of dollars, and they come in and there’s tents outside of the White House. We can’t have that. It doesn’t sound nice.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed these sentiments, stating, “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.”
However, not everyone agrees with the administration’s approach.
Homeless advocacy organizations were quick to denounce the executive order. Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said in a statement that the move ignores years of research on the effectiveness of housing-first strategies.
“These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice,” Whitehead said. “They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals.”
The National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) went further, calling the order “dangerous and unconstitutional.”
“This order deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness,” the NHLC said in a statement released Thursday. “It increases policing and institutionalization, while pushing more people into tents, cars, and streets.”
The timing of Trump’s order aligns with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of an Oregon city to fine homeless individuals for sleeping outside in public spaces. The court ruled that such penalties do not violate the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling has emboldened several cities to consider stricter enforcement policies against encampments.
While some city officials have welcomed the administration’s new direction, others worry that it will shift resources away from housing solutions and into law enforcement and detention.
“We understand the need for public order,” said a city council member from Los Angeles who asked not to be named. “But criminalizing homelessness is not a long-term solution. The focus should be on affordable housing and wraparound services, not just sweeping people off the streets.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has defended its strategy as compassionate and practical.
“This is about getting people the help they need,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy. “We’re not talking about jailing people—we’re talking about offering them structured care, support, and treatment.”
Trump’s order also includes provisions to track registered sex offenders within homeless populations and ensure they are not residing near schools or playgrounds. According to the administration, this aspect of the policy is aimed at improving public safety and protecting vulnerable communities.
Public reaction to the announcement has been sharply divided.
On conservative platforms, the move has been celebrated as long overdue. “This is what leadership looks like,” read one comment on a pro-Trump forum. “Time to clean up our cities and stop enabling this madness.”
On the other hand, liberal commentators and civil rights advocates argue that the order will disproportionately affect people of color and those with untreated mental illnesses.
“What we’re seeing is a war on the poor dressed up as policy,” said a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s not compassionate to round people up and institutionalize them. It’s authoritarian.”
The backdrop to this policy debate is a record-setting rise in homelessness in the United States. According to HUD data, over 770,000 Americans experienced homelessness in 2024—a staggering 18% increase from the previous year. Experts attribute the spike to a combination of factors, including a nationwide housing shortage, natural disasters, and an influx of migrants seeking shelter.
Trump made the homelessness crisis a cornerstone of his 2024 campaign. At a rally in North Carolina last September, he declared, “The homeless encampments will be gone. They’re going to be gone.”
He added, “Some of these encampments, what they’ve done to our cities—you have to see it. And we’ve got to take care of the people.”
That last comment—”we’ve got to take care of the people”—illustrates the rhetorical balancing act the Trump administration is trying to strike: framing the policy as both tough on public disorder and compassionate toward those in crisis.
Critics, however, remain skeptical.
“If you really wanted to help people, you’d start by investing in housing, mental health clinics, and job programs,” said a former HUD policy analyst. “But that’s not what this is about. This is about optics and control.”
As cities across the country consider how to respond to Trump’s directive, the impact of the executive order remains to be seen. What’s certain is that it has reignited a fierce national debate about how best to address homelessness—one that pits public safety and aesthetics against human dignity and civil rights.
Whether this policy will make a meaningful dent in the homelessness crisis or simply shuffle the problem out of sight is a question that will unfold in the months to come.
James Facing Up To 60 Years In Prison In Mortgage Fraud Case
New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on federal bank fraud charges after prosecutors alleged she lied on a mortgage application to obtain favorable loan terms on a Virginia property she later rented out.
The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury, centers on a single-family home in Norfolk, Virginia, that James co-purchased in August 2020 for roughly $137,000. Most of the purchase was financed with a $109,600 loan that prohibited the home from being used as a rental or investment property, according to prosecutors.
By misrepresenting the property as a second home, James received a lower interest rate and saved “approximately $18,933 over the life of the loan,” prosecutors said in a five-page filing.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte referred the case to the Department of Justice earlier this year, prompting a criminal probe that led to Thursday’s indictment.
According to financial disclosure forms reviewed by the
“The indicted attorney general also estimated the value of the property anywhere between $150,000 and $200,000,” the Post reported.
Despite the loan’s clear prohibition against rental use, prosecutors allege James used the property as a rental investment and earned thousands of dollars in income that she failed to report on multiple disclosure forms.
In her 2020 disclosure, James did list an “investment real property” in Norfolk that generated between $1,000 and $5,000 in revenue, but it is unclear if that referred to the same home named in the indictment.
According to prosecutors, James agreed to a “Second Home Rider” when taking out the loan, which required her to occupy the home as her secondary residence and forbade any rental or shared ownership arrangement.
“Despite these representations,” the indictment reads, “the Norfolk property was not occupied or used by James as a secondary residence and was instead used as a rental investment property.”
Prosecutors also said James made false statements on her homeowners’ insurance application, claiming the home would be “owner occupied,” and on her federal tax filings, where she classified the house as “rental real estate” and reported “thousand(s) of dollars in rents received.”
The federal indictment charges James with two counts: bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. If convicted on both counts, she faces up to 60 years in prison and fines totaling as much as $2 million.
The judge presiding over James’ mortgage fraud case on Friday rejected a motion seeking to compel federal prosecutors to maintain a log of all their communications with the media.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell had filed the request last week, following James’ arraignment on charges of bank fraud and making false statements. The motion cited a report alleging that U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan exchanged a series of encrypted Signal messages with a reporter regarding the case, the New York Post reported.
“[T]he defendant does not demonstrate that it is necessary for the Court to order the government to track communications with the media in any particular form,” wrote US District Judge Jamar Walker in his six-page order.
“The defendant’s request that the government be required to keep a communication log is DENIED,” the Biden-appointed judge ruled.
Walker further wrote that while Halligan’s Signal chat with Lawfare senior editor Anna Bower earlier this month was “unusual,” he nevertheless declined to offer an opinion “on whether they were improper in any sense, either legal or ethical.”
Halligan’s Signal messages to the reporter were configured to automatically disappear after eight hours, The Post reported.
The judge did not address whether Halligan’s communications — which reportedly disputed a New York Times story revealing that James’ grandniece told a grand jury she had never paid rent on the Norfolk, Va., property at the center of the case — constituted material subject to discovery requirements.
James pleaded not guilty last week to one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a financial institution.
