The Worst Executive Order Ever

Or, how many awful, cruel and stupid ideas can be crammed into just 1,526 words?

Aug 01, 2025

Welcome back to What We Can! This one's a deep dive into one specific piece of Trump Administration policy that is simultaneously ill-conceived, ignorant, and cruel (which is a difficult trifecta to pull off). I'm hoping that by the end of this newsletter, you know enough about one specific policy area to have an intelligent conversation with anyone about how awful this Executive Order truly is. We can't advocate for anything different if we don't know what's going on, right? So let's learn about this EO which has filled many of us with deep and abiding rage all week.

The fact is not lost on me that I’ve written almost 6,000 words here (and used 27 sources) in order to discuss an EO that’s just 1,526 words long. Chalk that up to just how passionate I am about the need for more folks to gain a basic understanding of the sheer awfulness of this presidential edict. Come and learn some facts about what this policy will do, and join me in my anger, friend.

On July 24th, 2025 President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets". I've seen some commentary here and there about just how harmful this EO could be to many marginalized communities in this country, but there's never enough conversation to be had about social welfare policy, especially from people who have some experience in the relevant areas being addressed. Here's a sampling of the relevant experience I've got in these areas, to hopefully establish myself as someone who may know a few things here:

I've spent more than 20 years of working with mental health and addiction, including a decade as a clinical supervisor.
I'm dually licensed as an LISW-S (Supervising Licensed Independent Social Worker) and an LICDC-CS (Licensed Independent Chemical Dependency Counselor with Clinical Supervisor Endorsement) in the state of Ohio.
I served on my local Homeless Advisory Panel and the local Housing Coalition for many years, helping to coordinate across a bunch of agencies on challenging cases involved unhoused folks.
I've worked for multiple Northeast Ohio Fair Housing nonprofit organizations.
I served on my county's Second Chance Citizen Circle for more than a decade, helping with re-entry efforts for those leaving prisons and jails and returning to our community.
I've run multiple pilot programs involving prison and jail work and re-entry (primarily with folks leaving prisons or jails who have serious mental health conditions and/or addiction concerns), as well as pilot programs attempting to reduce recidivism for those who have these conditions.
I spent years serving on treatment teams and/or advisory boards for a local Mental Health Court, Recovery Court, Family Drug Court, and Drug Court.
I've worked as a prison-based mental health clinician and also supervised mental health services at a County Jail.

In short, I have a great deal of experience with the specific set of worlds touched upon by this Executive Order (homelessness, mental health, addiction, and the criminal justice system). I think it's likely that I could give an extemporaneous two-hour speech about this EO. I doubt, though, that I could find anyone willing to listen to me speak for an hour or two on the topic, so instead I'll settle for writing this week's newsletter. Enjoy!

I'm going to address the text of this Executive Order line by line, at least the lines that I feel need further investigation and explanation (which is most of the lines, honestly). I’ll quote from the Order directly as we go, like this:

“Section 1: Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe.”

Right off the bat, we've got a huge issue. Maybe you've heard this, (though many folks appear to be ignoring it), so listen up: Crime rates have been in a steep decline over the past several years, including the first half of 2025. As this Council on Criminal Justice analysis shows, crime rates (including rates of violent crimes) are decreasing, not increasing. Those authors write,

Examining trends over a longer timeframe, violent crimes are below levels seen in the first half of 2019, the year prior to the onset of the COVID pandemic and racial justice protests of 2020. There were 14% fewer homicides in the study cities in the first half of 2025 than in the first half of 2019. Similarly, reported aggravated assault (-5%), gun assaults (-4%), sexual assault (-28%), domestic violence (-8%), robbery (-30%), and carjacking (-3%) were lower in 2025.

So if crime rates aren't increasing, then the entire premise of the Executive Order is deeply flawed from the start. Setting the stage strong, folks. Our cities are not unsafe, and in fact most big cities have had pretty dramatic drops in violent crime as of late.

“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.”

This number makes no sense, dear readers. Why not, you might ask? Because the actual number of unhoused folks counted on that 'single night' was much higher than the 274,224 the text of the EO cites. If your goal is to make the country concerned about crime and concerned about homelessness, why wouldn't you use the actual number? It simply makes no sense.

The Point-in-Time Count occurs each year, typically on a specific January. On that day, volunteers and folks working within the nonprofit sector mobilize a massive amount of resources in order to try and count as many people within a specific geographic area that are currently without stable housing. The count includes people who are unsheltered that night (folks living in places not meant for human habitation, such as under a bridge, squatting in an abandoned house, living in a car behind a gas station, etc.) and people who are sheltered that night but in a temporary living situation (such as a homeless shelter). I've participated in numerous PIT Counts here in my community, and have found it to be an incredibly impactful reminder of the difficult situation so many unhoused folks are in. HUD and other sources of homelessness prevention funds base those funds on the actual numbers of unhoused people in your area, and so it's in everyone's best interests to get an accurate count of those folks (so that funding levels align with levels of need).

Here's photographic proof that even State Representative David Thomas used to care about unhoused people. Since winning his uncontested general election last year and heading to his new job in Columbus, he's unfortunately been pretty obsessed with decreasing property taxes that homeowners have to pay rather than addressing the numerous needs of those who aren't fortunate enough to be able to buy a home in the first place. Rep. Thomas participated as a volunteer with me at multiple PIT Counts, back in the days before he started completely ignoring folks like me who disagree with him. He even rode in my car for the 2020 Count. Here you can see the two of us, along with two of the biggest experts in homelessness in our community:

While it's true that the 2024 Point-in-Time Count numbers reflect a record number of unhoused folks, there's something you should know about those numbers. In the words of the National Low Income Housing Coalition's article on the subject,

"The 2024 Point-in-Time (PIT) count documented the highest number of people being unhoused since reporting began in 2007. Approximately 770,000 people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024 – an 18% increase from 2023."

This brings us to an issue I want to highlight for you: Last year's count found a total of 770,000 people who were unhoused, but 500,000-ish of those folks were being housed that evening in transitional housing or a homeless shelter. So my question for you is, why does this Executive Order only use the lower of the two numbers (unsheltered homeless vs total number)? If the motivation is to argue that homelessness needs to be immediately dealt with in a bold way, why not cite the actual 770,000 number? I think it's likely that the answer to this question is that the Trump Administration just doesn't know how to interpret their own data, honestly.

Thanks for reading What We Can! This post is public so feel free to share it.

If you want to get pedantic about it (as I've been known to be), reliable estimates suggest that there are currently over 2.1 million folks in the United States who are unhoused, and perhaps double that. We just couldn't find those other 1.3 million on that specific night, so they don't count (pun mostly intended).

If we're using data, we need to use the actual data we've got, which this EO is not doing.

“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.”

Okay, so if large percentages of unhoused people are using drugs, isn’t it likely that that is because they’re trying to self-medicate due to the awful circumstances they're in? And if large percentages of unhoused people have mental health needs, shouldn’t we try...I don’t know...treating them with some compassion? Even more concerning is the risk we run when we assume that those with a mental health condition should be given no options to make choices related to their own lives.

Please consider the main point made by Policy Matters Ohio in this piece:

People with disabilities, including those with mental health conditions, often still struggle against the perception that they cannot make decisions for themselves or live independently. This assumption is ableist: It is rooted in prejudice against people with disabilities. When ableism is the basis for decisions about medical treatment — and when that treatment involves stripping a person of their civil rights and autonomy— a prejudiced belief risks becoming a form of systemic oppression.

Do we need to introduce new forms of systemic oppression? Does anyone seriously think that’s called for in 2025?

“The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.”

Citizens aren't currently finding themselves vulnerable to public safety threats, as I already established--crime is going down dramatically. Answer this: If homelessness keeps going up but crime keeps going down, then how can anyone fairly say that the issue of crime can be pinned on unhoused individuals? If that was the case, you'd expect to see the opposite, and that's just not happening.

Here are three really good articles about the actual root causes of homelessness. Spoiler alert: poverty, cruelty, greed and other economic factors have created a situation where stable and affordable places to live are out of reach for millions of folks in this country. If you truly cared about root causes, you'd build housing and help get folks into those units, while also providing compassionate care for their health concerns.

Another aspect of the issue that we all need to consider is, as my friend Eric Morris noted in a recent Op-Ed,

“The United States does not lack housing; it is a crisis of political, and moral will to use what is available. As of 2023, there were approximately 140 million housing units in the U.S., with about 15 million vacant (10.5% vacancy) according to the Census Bureau.”

Powerful words, and an incredibly important point to make. Eric continues,

“That means over 1 in 10 homes sit unused, even as hundreds of thousands sleep on the streets or in shelters…Much of the lack of occupancy is due to the reservation for seasonal or recreational use; others sit “off market” for speculation or investment”

We are prioritizing income for a few (such as our President and his family) over the needs of several million Americans. Worse than that, we have decided that their presence bothers us so much that they deserve to be locked away where we can no longer be forced to see their misery. That is monstrous, and entirely morally indefensible.

“Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order.”

No. Using long-term institutional settings for folks who are unhoused due to systemic economic issues is inappropriate, and beyond that, cruel. It is dehumanizing, it has never worked, and it will never work. This is a monstrous way to treat people who are already dealing with an incredible amount of pressure that is imposed upon them by factors which are not their fault.

“Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.”

Or, perhaps, a new approach focused on demonizing already-stigmatized populations, for no reason other than to stoke fear? Yeah, looks a lot like that's the actual approach being pursued here.

“Section 2: Restoring Civil Commitment. (a) The Attorney General…shall take appropriate action to: (i) 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”

Civil commitments have been explored in extreme cases for some time now, and are already in use in most states (but not in a large-scale way as an attempted solution for homelessness). Why not? Because that's not what civil commitments are designed for, and because we do not have the capacity in our system to accommodate millions of institutionalized folks. As this article notes, there are also serious due process/14th amendment considerations related to civil commitments that we need to consider.

I'm also extremely concerned about their use of "appropriate periods of time", as that could be entirely open-ended. We do not want our government to have the ability to lock folks up and throw away the key for as long as they choose. Also note the "pose risks to themselves or the public OR are living on the streets" piece here. They're not just talking about folks who meet criteria for hospitalization due to their mental health conditions, they're purely referring to unhoused people in this paragraph. Keep in mind that "cannot care for themselves" is also extremely broad language. If I have a sink full of dirty dishes, or skip showers for a few days, can it be argued by the administration that I'm not adequately caring for myself? Perhaps. That should scare you as much as it scares me.

Hospitals are not homes. And what unhoused people need are places to live, not for us to add to their fear, trauma, and stigma.

“(ii) provide assistance to State and local governments...for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.”

Speaking of concerning phrases, “maximally flexible civil commitment” is terrifying. We do not need civil commitments that are maximally flexible, because that ignores the civil rights of the human beings we're talking about here. I also want to mention that civil commitments, institutional treatment, and step-down treatment standards already exist and are already all being used. This is entirely unnecessary and performative language, as it's not doing anything except expanding their right to dramatically expand who is allowed to be committed and for how long.

“Section 3: Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law: (i) enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use; (ii) enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering; (iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting”

The term “vagrancy” hasn't been used in policy standards for a really long time, because it's incredibly stigmatizing. We need to move beyond words like this. Here's a good piece about how the concept of "vagrancy" has been weaponized against vulnerable populations in the past.

We also need to note that this section refers to their ability to enforce prohibitions on "open illicit drug use", "urban camping and loitering", and "urban squatting". Do you even realize how broad the powers they're claiming in this Executive Order will look like once implemented in the real world? Do you even realize how easy it is for law enforcement to claim that people are "loitering" with very little evidence of wrongdoing? Do you even see what a slippery slope this could be for all of us?

“(iv) 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”

Again with that pesky "or who are living on the streets". This could be broadly interpreted to mean many, many individuals without addiction or mental health needs who currently don't have a stable living situation. Speaking of broad language, "or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities...or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law" should terrify everyone. This is not about treatment, it's not about solving homelessness, but it is about giving themselves the ability to lock anyone up somewhere, for as long as they choose.

“(i) ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment”

I wasn't aware that this was happening before I started the research for this piece, but current US policy says that if you are a sexually oriented offender who ends up homeless, you can be committed. As this article shows, in 2023 we had 6,000 US citizens in that position. To be clear, these aren't typically people who have re-offended. They're people who have lost stable housing and so are being held against their will because of past crimes they've been convicted of. That is inhumane, and it’s counter-productive. This section of the EO says they'll put forth a concerted effort to find and lock more of them up, which isn't saving anyone (and also isn't arguably different than existing policy). Again, performative cruel nonsense.

“(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support...encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate”

Great! Send in federal law enforcement to remove encampments of unhoused individuals and pay for it using your taxpayer funds. Just so you know, getting rid of encampments doesn't get rid of homelessness. It just endangers marginalized unhoused folks who have likely grouped together in the first place to try and seek some safety in numbers. Do you know what encampment removal efforts looks like? Destroying the only belongings that they've been able to hold on to despite numerous housing dislocations, including their identification, personal effects, and whatever else they've been (literally) carrying around with them. These encampment sweeps cause huge amounts of trauma, disrupt connections between unhoused people and treatment providers, and the list of harms goes on and on. Just look at this Issue Brief from the National Health Care for the Homeless Council about what goes on in these sweeps if you’d like to know why they are so incredibly harmful. It's heartbreaking to me, and should be heartbreaking to anyone who has a heart in the first place.

“(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals”

This section contains a lot of what we in the real world refer to as wishful thinking. Do you know how many detainees with serious mental illness regularly get released into the public, every single day? If they cared about the detainees themselves, they'd provide them with housing. But to claim that nobody's going to get released due to a lack of forensic bed capacity is the height of hubris. Do you know how many hospital forensic beds exist in the entire state of Ohio as of today? Ohio is one of several states that doesn't reserve beds for forensic patients specifically, but the state hospital system has a total of 1,133 beds. Data from the state shows that capacity within these hospitals is typically at 96%. So at any given moment in my state, 4% of our beds are available. That's 45 open beds, dear reader. During 2024's Point-in-Time Count, guess how many unhoused Ohioans were located and counted? 11,759. That's going to be an issue for those 45 open hospital beds, isn't it? And that's only the count of folks who were officially located on that one day in January.

”(iv) enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.”

Every single person reading this should be very alarmed at the phrase "require individuals to comply".

Section 4: (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to: (i) 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”

I could probably write an entire book on harm reduction as a strategy (if there weren't already so many excellent books on the topic). One book that I wish the President would read is Maia Szalavitz's excellent "Undoing Drugs". Check that out, please, for more context on this issue.

Let me be extremely clear here: Harm reduction is evidence-based practice when it comes to addiction treatment. It is the gold standard, and has been for many years. The vast majority of those who are working in the prevention and treatment worlds agree on this perspective. This approach has saved a massive number of lives. Ignoring this fact is going to literally kill people, and (I know this is a theme here) is a monstrous choice. I'd like to point out two good sources on what we mean when we talk about harm reduction. The first is from SAMHSA themselves, and is still up on their site (despite this paragraph saying that SAMHSA is now to specifically ignore "harm reduction efforts". Here's a second government source (the CDC) talking about how important harm reduction is to the treatment of addiction and its public health ramifications. And that’s just two sources out of thousands.

This encompasses needle exchange programs, naloxone distribution, and many other prevention strategies that have saved millions of lives in this country.

It is the height of ignorance for the US government to claim that harm reduction "facilitate(s) illegal drug use and its attendant harm" in an EO while at the same time talking about its benefits on the SAMHSA and CDC's websites. Obviously. Do they just think we won't notice? And even if the websites are scrubbed, they can't erase the vast number of research studies that have proven these facts over and over again. Saying something is real does not make it real, and saying a treatment approach is harmful does not make it harmful.

“(ii) provide technical assistance...during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks”

I haven't seen this section getting a lot of attention, but it's also incredibly concerning to see this explicit statement of the government's intent to put funds into "private housing and support networks". So that's the answer to where we're going to house these two million people--apparently into whatever facilities get built by their friends' private companies? I'm curious about this, though: if public money is given to private corporations for this purpose, can you reasonably call it "shifting such individuals...off of...public programs"? Sounds like a way to profit off human suffering, but hey, that's just my bias talking I guess? It also creates a real Ship of Theseus paradox (how much public money can a private program get before it stops being a private program?)

“(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.”

They're required to do this already. It's literally what both FQHCs and CCBHCs already do. Performative nonsense.

“(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.”

I have many years of experience with specialized dockets. They often do incredible work! The issue here is capacity, and so is fidelity to the evidence-based models these courts function under. They cannot possibly handle this kind of influx of individuals and continue to provide life-saving care to the folks within their dockets.

“Section 5: Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions…These actions shall include…ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency”

Housing First programs emphasize the importance of getting unhoused folks into housing before other steps are taken to ensure their long-term stability. It’s not a perfect strategy, but has been shown to have better outcomes, by far, than other approaches. More work is needed to come up with evidence-based strategies for managing the issue of homelessness, but the idea of locking up people and intentionally ignoring models that have been shown to make a difference is cruel and will only have negative outcomes. As Mayor Alyia Gaskins (of Alexandria, VA) said this week in an interview on NPR,

My first reaction was that this executive order is cruel and it uses a callous command and control approach. It requires states and cities like mine to demonstrate aggressive enforcement. It ends support for housing first policies. It encourages the expanded use of law enforcement all at a time when we know that the criminalization of homelessness doesn't work. It doesn't create housing, it doesn't treat illness, it doesn't make streets safer, and it doesn't get at the root of the problem, which is the need for more housing. I wish we were focused on solutions instead.

I share Mayor Gaskins’ sentiment. I wish we were focused on solutions instead.

“(b) Take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.”

The data is clear: requiring participation in treatment as a condition for homelessness assistance and Federal housing is not effective, and all that will happen if this requirement is put in place is that you will increase homelessness. I thought the whole point of the Executive Order was to decrease the issue, not make it far worse? Here's a good study showing how ineffective this approach to treatment and housing ends up being, across the board. Beyond that, do you know what stops people from coming to treatment? Being terrified that they’re going to get locked up. Would you seek care if you thought your provider might make a phone call and get you thrown into a hospital?

“(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control”

Please listen to me when I say this: THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SAFE CONSUMPTION SITE CURRENTLY OPERATING IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. I wish there was! It would save lives! The idea of ending programs like this is a fantasy for those who are looking to stigmatize harm reduction approaches, but so many barriers have been put in place in this country to trying to start up safe consumption sites here. Once again, this section is more performative nonsense.

“(i) the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases”

Good, good. Take away money and file civil or criminal charges against nonexistent agencies providing nonexistent safe consumption sites. This could also be construed to apply to needle exchange programs and any number of other harm reduction related programs, which is one of the most distressing pieces of this whole EO. Pursuing providers with criminal charges for trying to save lives via evidence-based models, just for fun? Pure evil, folks. Not to mention bad policy.

“(ii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.”

Looking for even more opportunities to defund housing assistance providers sure doesn't sound like you're trying to help unhoused folks...

“(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children”

Maybe this provision sounds like a good idea to you. But allowing housing assistance programs to only assist women and children means excluding men from those opportunities. And how many of the US homeless population are male? Oh no--this piece says at least 60%. Uh oh. Sounds bad!

“and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children”

No homeless shelters I've ever worked with allow folks with sexually-oriented convictions to stay there anyway, which makes them stay unhoused, which gets them involuntarily committed. As we've previously addressed.

“allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information... rom all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and...require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities...and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.”

This section mandates the collection of all sorts of data on unhoused people, just for fun (or for negative reasons, neither of which are a good idea). Housing continuums already collect plenty of data on the folks they work with, so this is also performative (or nefarious, take your pick). I happen to believe that human beings deserve a presumption of privacy, but that’s just my perspective.

So there you have it. Awful, dehumanizing, stupid idea after awful, dehumanizing, stupid idea, in one tidy little 1,526 word package. Let’s summarize, shall we?

Homelessness is a big problem in the United States.
Our housing issues are multifaceted, complex, and have few perfect solutions, only better and worse ones.
Eliminating some of the best tools that we have available to us (such as the Housing First and harm reduction models), is like picking a fight with one arm tied behind our back.
Those experiencing mental health and addiction-related conditions deserve respect, compassion, and the opportunity to make choices about their own lives.
We do not have the bed capacity, staffing levels, or moral/legal right to civilly commit all of our unhoused people (regardless of what behavioral health issues they may have).
Championing policies that rely upon cruelty, stigma, and the promotion of structural oppression against marginalized communities is a terrible mistake.
If you require yourself to be faced with danger in order to care, then hear me say this: you are every bit as at-risk of becoming homeless and facing civil commitment (or worse) as anyone who is currently living on the streets, once this is fully implemented. You are not immune to the machinations of a corrupt system. None of us are.

Don’t let yourself be fooled. The policy proposals contained within this Executive Order are uniformly bad. This is not about helping unhoused individuals, it is about performative “toughness” and the phasing-in of huge threats to the autonomy of anyone who this administration may deem unable to care for themselves. Take it from me, an actual expert in mental health and addiction who has worked with the precariously-housed and justice-system involved populations for decades:

This Executive Order will harm you and people you care about. If that doesn’t come to pass, the problem isn’t that I was wrong—it’s just that you don’t care about enough people. Change that.

As Eric Morris says (referencing Spade, 2020),

Social workers, advocates, community leaders, all of us, as neighbors and humans, must resist compliance-based care models. We must demand a policy prioritizing housing as infrastructure, not charity. This means funding truly low-barrier housing, removing carceral eligibility requirements, and centering those most affected in every level of policy design.

Eric is right. Since I cannot sum up the problem and the solution(s) better than Eric has, I’ll just end this incredibly long newsletter on that pitch-perfect note.

Please share this newsletter with anyone who needs to learn more about the intersection of homelessness, mental health and addiction, and ridiculous Executive Orders.

I appreciate you reading and spending any time at all considering these things that I find important enough to write about. It’s a fun hobby, at the very least.

Take care, and I’ll see you again next week.

The Worst Executive Order Ever

Or, how many awful, cruel and stupid ideas can be crammed into just 1,526 words?

Discussion about this post