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.