N※N

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : Moneywise
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : Moneywise
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Will Trump's order encouraging removal of homeless from city streets 'restore public order' a" or eat up public money?

Trump's Executive Order Sparks Debate on Homelessness: Encouraging Removal from Public Spaces

In a move that has ignited widespread controversy, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at addressing homelessness in the United States by encouraging the removal of homeless encampments from public spaces. The order, which was signed amid growing concerns over urban decay and public safety, directs federal agencies to prioritize the clearance of tent cities and makeshift shelters on federal lands, while also providing incentives for state and local governments to follow suit. Proponents argue that this initiative will restore order to cities plagued by homelessness, but critics decry it as a heartless approach that fails to tackle the root causes of the crisis, such as affordable housing shortages, mental health issues, and economic inequality.

The executive order builds on Trump's long-standing rhetoric on homelessness, which he has frequently linked to broader issues like crime and urban blight. During his presidency, Trump often criticized liberal-leaning cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle for what he described as lax policies that allow homelessness to flourish. In speeches and social media posts, he has portrayed homeless encampments as eyesores that deter tourism and business investment. The new order formalizes this stance by allocating federal resources, including funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice, to support enforcement efforts. Specifically, it calls for the identification and dismantling of encampments on federal properties, such as national parks, highways, and other public lands, with an emphasis on relocating individuals to designated shelters or treatment facilities.

One of the key provisions of the order is the creation of a task force to coordinate between federal, state, and local authorities. This task force would assess high-impact areas where homelessness is most visible and disruptive, such as under bridges, in parks, and along sidewalks. The order encourages the use of law enforcement to enforce anti-camping ordinances, potentially leading to arrests or citations for those who refuse to move. To soften the blow, the directive includes language about expanding access to mental health services and addiction treatment programs, framing the removals as a compassionate step toward rehabilitation rather than punishment. Trump has stated that the goal is to "clean up our cities and give these people the help they need," echoing sentiments from his 2020 campaign trail where he promised to end homelessness through tough love.

Reactions to the order have been sharply divided along partisan lines. Supporters, including conservative lawmakers and some urban residents frustrated with the status quo, praise it as a necessary intervention. For instance, representatives from cities like Phoenix and Austin have expressed interest in partnering with the federal government, citing success stories from past clearance operations that reportedly reduced visible homelessness and improved public safety. Advocacy groups aligned with business interests, such as chambers of commerce, argue that removing encampments will boost economic revitalization by making downtown areas more appealing to shoppers and investors. They point to data from previous initiatives, like those in California under Governor Gavin Newsom, where targeted cleanups have led to temporary decreases in street-level homelessness.

On the other hand, homeless advocacy organizations and progressive leaders have condemned the order as inhumane and ineffective. Groups like the National Alliance to End Homelessness argue that forced removals do little more than displace vulnerable populations, often leading to cycles of instability without addressing underlying problems. "This isn't about helping people; it's about hiding them," said one advocate in a statement responding to the order. Critics highlight the lack of sufficient shelter beds and affordable housing options, noting that in many cities, there are far more homeless individuals than available spots in facilities. Legal challenges are already being mounted, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) preparing lawsuits claiming that the order violates constitutional rights, including protections against cruel and unusual punishment and due process. They reference Supreme Court precedents, such as the 2018 Martin v. City of Boise ruling, which limited cities' ability to criminalize sleeping in public when no alternatives exist.

The order also intersects with broader national debates on immigration, public health, and social welfare. Trump has tied homelessness to what he calls "open border" policies, suggesting that some encampments include undocumented immigrants, though experts dispute this as a minor factor compared to domestic issues like job loss and evictions. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, homelessness rates have surged due to economic fallout, with estimates from HUD indicating over 580,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the U.S. The order's push for removals comes at a time when public health officials warn that disrupting encampments could exacerbate the spread of diseases, as displaced individuals may end up in more crowded or unsanitary conditions.

Experts in urban policy offer mixed assessments of the potential impact. Some sociologists argue that while short-term clearances might improve aesthetics, they often result in "hidden homelessness," where people move to less visible areas like cars or motels, without solving the problem. Long-term solutions, they say, require investments in supportive housing, job training, and mental health care—areas where the executive order provides only vague commitments without substantial new funding. For comparison, programs like Housing First, which prioritize permanent housing over sobriety or employment requirements, have shown success in places like Utah and Houston, reducing chronic homelessness by significant margins.

As the order begins to take effect, its implementation will likely vary by region. In Republican-led states, enthusiasm for enforcement is high, with governors like Florida's Ron DeSantis already signaling support for similar state-level actions. Conversely, Democratic strongholds such as New York and California may resist, potentially leading to federal-state conflicts over jurisdiction and funding. The Biden administration, which has focused on expanding housing vouchers and eviction moratoriums, has not yet responded directly, but insiders suggest it could counter with its own initiatives to protect homeless rights.

Ultimately, Trump's executive order represents a bold, if polarizing, attempt to reshape the national approach to homelessness. By emphasizing removal and enforcement over prevention, it underscores a philosophical divide in American politics: one side favoring immediate action to reclaim public spaces, and the other advocating for systemic reforms to address inequality. As debates rage on, the true measure of success will be whether this policy leads to fewer people on the streets or merely shifts the burden elsewhere, leaving the human cost of homelessness unresolved. With midterm elections looming, the issue is poised to become a flashpoint, influencing voter sentiment on compassion, security, and governance.

Read the Full Moneywise Article at:
[ https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trumps-order-encouraging-removal-homeless-173000917.html ]