by Andi Daniel, Technology Coordinator

August 19, 2025

President Trump’s “Ending Crime and Disorder on American’s Streets” executive order from July 24, 2025 is chilling. Under the guise of “law and order” this administration seems to be targeting the most vulnerable populations. This time it is unhoused people but the implications for a wider group of people are obvious. Do we have an issue with people being unable to find and keep adequate housing in this country? Yes, we cannot deny that is a rising problem. There is a misconception that being unhoused is due to laziness, weakness, or a moral failing when it is actually a lack of adequate employment and extremely limited access to affordable housing that are the main causes of homelessness. The Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling opened the door to more criminalization by local authorities. Criminalizing homelessness and closing housing programs does not eliminate the issues that cause homelessness in the first place. We can look at least one community in our own state whose elected officials have blamed services for unhoused people as attracting unhoused people to the community and if those services were eliminated, that problem would go away. They even went as far as removing bus stops and requiring people to access public transit through a phone app and credit card.

This executive order focuses strongly on substance use and mental illness as the causes of homelessness. It states that “Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes” with no reference to where this number came from. While this is a staggering number, it misrepresents the truth of the situation. Having used substances in a lifetime does not mean that those people are currently using substances. In fact, a recent study found that 37% of unhoused people reported using substances three or more times a week in the six months prior to the study-half of what the executive order claims. Likewise, mental health conditions can be a contributing factor to becoming or staying unhoused.  According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, behavioral health conditions are rarely the reason that people become unhoused in the first place.  Most people cannot financially survive a crisis such as an illness or injury. Issues compound. An injury requires recovery away from work which leads to decreased wages while off work and increased bills making it more difficult to pay rent. Being evicted for inability to pay rent, even if due to something outside the person’s control, makes it more difficult to find a new place because the person now has a delinquency on their rental history. These life stressors can lead to mental health issues which can lead to substance use, especially if mental health services aren’t readily available. This spiral can be fast. We have also seen the closing of some major employees such as Seeley Lake sawmill in Missoula displacing hundreds of employees. Interestingly, two of the reasons cited for the closure were lack of housing and the high cost of living in Western Montana.

Homelessness is rarely just about substance use or mental health but this executive order prioritizes civil commitment and is vague on what would constitute a reason for this civil commitment. Civil commitment may be necessary when someone is a danger to themselves or others. The order states that civil commitment could be used for people who have a mental illness and “cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time” with no definition of what mental illness, appropriate facilities, or appropriate periods of time actually mean.  Does being unhoused on its own mean that someone cannot care for themselves? Which mental illnesses qualify people for this civil commitment? How long would be appropriate for someone to be unhoused before they are civilly committed? Does couch surfing count as homeless? The order directs state and local governments to implement “maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and ‘step-down’ treatment.” There is no flexibility in Montana for civil commitment. There simply aren’t enough beds available at Montana State Hospital, Montana Chemical Dependency Center, or community hospitals to meet the current needs. MSH lost federal funding in 2022 and that has not been restored. Mental health facilities struggle to maintain adequate staffing levels. Committing more people will only make this problem worse. Where do they go when there are no psychiatric or substance use treatment beds available? Likely jail or prison under the definition of “other appropriate facilities.”

The fact is, we have been here before. It was quite common for people with mental health disorders, intellectual disabilities, or even those considered odd in some way to be committed to asylums or hospitals, often with little to no treatment. People would remain in these facilities for extended periods of time, perhaps their entire lives. The system we have now is not even adequate, but the previous system was horrific for many people. I have seen video of people housed in the Boulder, MT facility in the 1970s. It was inhumane. “Patients” lined the hallways in hospital gowns yelling or crying, staff were rarely present, and there was no therapy to be found. These images were captured by a journalist with permission to be at the facility, so it isn’t hard to imagine that the conditions were actually much worse than what was shown. The concept of deinstitutionalization was a great goal and began during JFK’s administration but was not fully implemented until the Reagan administration. The issue was, and is, that the proper infrastructure was not in place to accommodate community support for those leaving the institutions. Even now it is difficult to create a discharge plan when people leave MSH because there are not adequate services available in their communities. Mass institutionalization is not the answer to this problem, without proper support, it becomes a revolving door. People enter an institution, are released at some point, begin experiencing symptoms again, have no support in their communities, return to the institution, and the cycle continues.

The order also removes any funding for harm reduction or safe consumption sites because they “Facilitate illegal drug use.” It even directs the Attorney General to file civil or criminal charges to housing assistance programs that provide these environments or even distribute “drug paraphernalia” with no definition of what those items are. Does Narcan count as paraphernalia?  There is significant evidence that these options save lives for those struggling with substance use issues. The order also calls for an end to “housing first” programs that focus on finding housing before addressing underlying issues. The claim is that providing unhoused people with housing deprioritizes accountability again, framing homelessness as a failing by the person experiencing homelessness. The ultimate goal is to move people into private housing and support networks. That word private is concerning. The order wants individuals “off the streets” but also out of public programs.  How do people who are leaving the state hospital after being civilly committed for being homeless have the resources to access private housing and services.

Finally, perhaps the most destructive part of this order is that it requires housing programs to collect “health-related” information and share that data with law enforcement and requires compliance to a treatment program in order to receive housing services. Forcing compliance with specific treatment programs is blatantly contradictory to the concept of recovery. Recovery cannot be coerced; it must be chosen. Effective recovery pathways are individualized and focused on strengths. Forcing people into specific treatment systems with the caveat that they will lose their housing if they don’t comply is ineffective at best and extremely harmful or deadly at worst. Who is paying for these treatment services? If someone misses an outpatient appointment, are they evicted from their housing immediately and unable to access any services such as shelters or warming centers? Where do they go if they are evicted and can’t get any additional services? Will they be detained by unidentified masked officers and incarcerated? It starts with housing programs, but does it expand to food programs or other services? Will people be barred from food banks, SNAP benefits, and community health centers for non-compliance?

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has already stated that he wants to create a database of people with autism which was rightfully met with backlash and now the administration is requiring people to be part of a similar database if they need housing assistance. Nothing good ever comes from government putting marginalized people on a list. I didn’t agree with the Obama administration when they discussed adding mental health information to the background check system to purchase firearms. There are definitely instances where people with mental illness should not have access to weapons-the tragedy at the Owl Bar in Anaconda is a recent example. However, in order to have people flagged in the background check system, a list of people with mental illness would have to be created. What gets someone on that list? How do they get off that list? Do other agencies have access to that list?

We have now seen federal law enforcement move into Washington, DC under the excuse of stopping crime even though statistics show that violent crime in DC is the lowest it has been in 30 years. The President posted on his own social media platform “The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.” He went on to state that criminals didn’t need to move out because they will be put in jail. He provided no details about where the unhoused people would be transported to or what type of housing they would be given. This seems to contradict the Executive Order unless the plan is to force all of those in DC into treatment programs. If unhoused people do not leave DC, does that make them criminals and justify incarcerating them?

This is how things started in Germany in the 1930s. There is a misconception that Hitler and the SS started with death camps for Jewish people. The reality is that they started in a much quieter way moving people into specific neighborhoods who were “undesirable” in some way.  The “asocials” included people with substance use issues, mental illness and intellectual disabilities, homeless people and beggars, nonconformists, LGBTQIA+ people, and pacifists. They were moved to camps later. Not all camps were labeled as extermination camps-some were labor camps or medical camps, but they almost always included some type of mass murder even if it was chalked up to malnutrition or illness.

The “Ending Crime and Disorder on American’s Streets” executive order is not about solving homelessness—it is about erasing unhoused people from public view and punishing poverty. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness—lack of affordable housing, economic instability, and underfunded community supports—this policy seeks to bring back failed policies of mass institutionalization, criminalization, and forced compliance. History has already shown us where these approaches lead: human suffering, civil rights violations, and systemic abuse. Every person deserves safe housing, access to healthcare, and the freedom to recover in ways that honor their dignity. Real solutions require investment in housing, healthcare, employment opportunities, and voluntary recovery supports—not coercion, surveillance, or incarceration. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. If we allow fear and discrimination to drive policy, we risk repeating the darkest chapters of the world’s past. If, instead, we center dignity, equity, and compassion, we can build a future where housing and safety are human rights, not privileges granted only to those who comply. This executive order is not a solution—it is a warning. If we stay silent, we normalize cruelty. If we speak up, organize, and act, we can build communities that protect—not punish—the most vulnerable among us.

by Ty LaFountain, Recovery Support Coordinator

January 14, 2025

I started using substances at the age of eleven. Technically, I could argue that I started using substances way before that. I was in second grade the first time that I put grass in a piece of paper and tried to smoke it, emulating what I had watched my father do (of course he wasn’t smoking grass). Then in about third or fourth grade we started stealing my mom’s cigarettes and occasionally stealing them from the Buttrey’s across the street from our house. We learned that if we inhaled these cigarettes, we would get a little buzz. We would inhale the smoke and then try to walk on the curb, lightheaded and off balance. We thought this was the coolest thing in the world. We would also take the cigarette smoke and blow it out against a wall, and it would make these giant smoke rings, once again, this was very cool to us, as that is what the cool guys did in the movies. I guess you could say this is where my true substance use began.

As I got older, seventh grade, my family would go out to my father’s cabin in the Dearborn mountains. He had this plant behind his couch that he would go over and pick something off, put it on a baking sheet and put it in the oven. After a few minutes he would take it out of the oven and roll it up and smoke it. One night, when he went to bed, I snook out there and picked a bunch of leaves off the plant; I took them home and tried to roll them up and smoke them. My older siblings caught me in this process and said, “that’s not how you do it, here we’ll show you how to do it.” And they did. I was already smoking cigarettes at the time and was quickly smoking marijuana daily and drinking alcohol on the weekends. This later led me to harder substances, but this was the beginning of my substance use disorder.

I write this blog for the first annual Substance Use Disorder Treatment Month (Treatment Month). SAMHSA recently announced that January 2025 would be the launch of Treatment Month. According to SAMHSA “this serves to support: people contemplating or seeking help for substance use, practitioners treating or considering treating substance use disorder, friends, family and loved ones of people with substance use conditions; by raising awareness of treatment. SAMHSA seeks to: eliminate stigma surrounding treatment, including medications used to treat substance use disorders, encourage those on their treatment and recovery journey, and promote best practices such as screening, intervention, and treatment of substance use disorders by health care professionals.

First, let’s talk about substance use disorders (SUD). Whether it be alcohol use disorder (AUD), opioid use disorder (OUD), or drug use disorder (DUD), a substance use disorder is a substance use disorder. Of course, I am not saying they are all the exact same and can all be treated the same, however they are all substance use disorders that are manageable and treatable with the right support and treatment and must be acknowledged as such. One thing that our society commonly does is treat them as though one is more socially acceptable than the other.  

 We are all familiar with our drug problems in the United States. We hear about the opioid/fentanyl crisis every day, with over 100,000 individuals losing their lives to overdose last year (last year was the first year in twenty years we saw a decrease in overdose fatalities). We are all familiar with the “war on drugs” sparked by the Raegan administration. There is the “Meth, not even once” movement. Yet, one of the most overlooked drug problems we have in the United States is the excessive use of alcohol. For some reason, when we discuss drugs, alcohol is often put in a separate category. We often say or hear people say, “drugs and alcohol.” The two should not be separated, alcohol is a drug and the most dangerous and abused drug in America. According to recent reports by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), alcohol accounts for America’s worst drug problem and accounted for the most drug related ED visits in the U.S. in 2023.

According to The Pew Charitable Trusts article, “America’s Most Common Drug Problem? Unhealthy Alcohol Use,” “Alcohol is the leading driver of substance use-related fatalities in America: Each year, frequent or excessive drinking causes approximately 178,000 deaths. Excessive alcohol use is common in the United States among people who drink: In 2022, of the 137 million Americans who reported drinking in the last 30 days, 45% reported binge drinking (five or more drinks in a sitting for men; four for women). Such excessive drinking is associated with health problems such as injuries, alcohol poisoning, cardiovascular conditions, mental health problems, and certain cancers. (The Pew Charitable Trusts 2024)”

Alcohol accounted for the most drug-related ED visits in 2023 with 41%, with the nearest substances not even coming close to that number, with cannabis coming in at number two with 11.8% followed by opioids at 11.6%. Yet, we continue to overlook alcohol as a drug and continue to stigmatize the use of other drugs. In 2023 there were approximately 29 million people within the United States who met the criteria for alcohol use disorder, yet less than 1 in 10 received any form of treatment. According to the CDC excessive alcohol use has an annual economic cost of approximately $249 billion nationwide and $871 million annually in Montana.

Alcohol also has a very close relationship with suicide. Alcohol is considered the heaviest factor involved in suicide. One third of all suicides within the United States involve alcohol.  Montana is among the top three states in the country in suicide rates every year. Montanans consume more alcohol than most of the country, on average: 48.7 gallons per capita compared to the national average of 34 gallons per capita, ranking third among the states. Is this a coincidence? You decide. For people who have suicided, the rate of finding alcohol in their system at the time of death was two times the national average in Montana. In the United States, and more specifically in Montana, drinking seems to be the social norm. Growing up in Montana, I felt like drinking was just the norm and it’s just what everyone did.

I am not here to introduce people to a drug that we all already know exists. My goal is to make people aware that despite having no medicinal purposes when ingested, drinking alcohol is considered socially and culturally acceptable while we dehumanize and shame people who use less socially acceptable substances like methamphetamine, opioids, MDMA and others.

Why do we normalize drinking? Alcohol really needs to be looked at as a key contributing factor to many of our social problems. Why do we see so many ads for alcohol and sell alcohol on every corner, in every grocery store and convenience store and criminalize other substances? It’s time for a change! Perhaps we can stop making one substance use disorder more socially acceptable than another and start to look at them all as substance use disorders, that are manageable and treatable with the right support and treatment.

As a person in long-term recovery I know that recovery is possible. According to SAMHSA, “of the 29 million adults with a substance use problem, 72.2% (20.9 million) considered themselves to be in recovery in 2023.” Based on this statistic, we know that people do recover. Yet, when it comes to drugs like alcohol, a majority are not even being referred to treatment. From 2015 to 2019, while 70% of people with AUD were asked by their primary care provider about their alcohol use, only 12% received any information on reducing their use and only 5% were referred to treatment.

How do we address this? People are being screened and asked about their substance use, but there is no follow up when a person does screen positive. Why? I believe that there continues to be this huge stigma, even amongst our medical providers. They are never really taught how to broach the subject of behavioral health. Therefore, when a person does screen positive for substance use disorder, the provider may not feel comfortable talking about this with the individual. This is where we need to implement more training for teachers, medical providers, law enforcement, court systems, child protective services, and all human service sectors. We really need to take the stigma out of and normalize the talk of substance use disorders.

In the process of creating this blog I spoke to an ex-co-worker and dear friend of mine, Chelsea Solberg. Chelsea is a former labor and delivery nurse, worked alongside me as a community nurse for the Meadowlark Initiative, and is in her final year of her Master of Social Work (MSW) degree. She shared some insight with me about tools that assess risky behaviors, not just frequency of using alcohol. What often happens is that a person may answer yes to using alcohol on a screener but is never followed up with about their consumption. Is their consumption possibly unhealthy or dependent? Chelsea says that appropriate screening and follow up “creates opportunities for early prevention and intervention.”

There are many ways that we can help to promote Treatment Month this January. Screening is a great tool, but it is nothing if we do not use it to open deeper conversations. We must normalize the hard conversation of substance use disorder and help to reduce internal and external stigma that people who have SUD, families and loved ones of people with SUD, and people working within the human service setting experience. We must stop comparing SUD disorders, making one more socially acceptable than the other and stop dehumanizing people that are struggling with substance use disorder. We are all just human beings looking for love, compassion and safety.

I will leave you with one of the last things that Chelsea said to me as we got off the phone, “Creating safe places creates a healing culture.”

A special thank you to my dear friend Chelsea Solberg for taking time out of her busy schedule of being a full-time wife and mother, full time student and completing her hours for her MSW with Child and Family Services yet finding time to talk on the phone with me.

References:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2024). Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN): National Estimates from Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2023. In dawn-national-estimates-2023.pdf (No. PEP24-07–033). SAMHSA. Retrieved December 23, 2024, from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt53161/dawn-national-estimates-2023.pdf

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2024, December 13). America’s most common drug problem? unhealthy alcohol use. America’s Most Common Drug Problem? Unhealthy Alcohol Use | The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2024/12/americas-most-common-drug-problem-unhealthy-alcohol-use

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-2022-2023-nsduh-infographic