Homelessness Exec Order Conflates Criminalization With Care

By Regan Huston | October 3, 2025, 2:11 PM EDT · Listen to article

Regan Huston

Editor's note: Law360 welcomes opinionated commentary and debate in our Expert Analysis section. To submit op-eds or rebuttals, or to speak to an editor about submissions, please email expertanalysis@law360.com.

In late July, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 14321, which he said was aimed at addressing crime and disorder.[1] The order seeks to forcibly lock unhoused people experiencing mental health crises or substance use disorder in involuntary commitment in state psychiatric hospitals.[2]

Here's the issue with that measure: It conflates criminalization with care.

As the number of people experiencing homelessness in the U.S. soars, and social supports are stripped away, this move will likely increase the number of people ensnared in the criminal legal system.[3]

The Truth About Involuntary Commitment

The order directs the federal government to find ways to encourage and empower states to force unhoused people experiencing mental health or substance use issues into involuntary commitment facilities.[4]

These state psychiatric hospitals aren't typically run by departments of correction, but they are, in reality, much like prisons:[5] Patients can be held under lock and key and receive little to no actual treatment,[6] and the treatment that is offered is generally subpar, thanks to staff shortages and limited resources.[7]

At least 38 states also allow involuntary commitment for substance use disorder treatment,[8] but evidence suggests that these supposed treatment facilities are not effective in the long term.[9] Notably, it can be extremely difficult for these so-called forensic patients to be released, as they may remain hospitalized for decades or for life.[10]

This practice is not only ethically dubious, but because of limited opportunities for a person to appeal their commitment, lack of access to counsel and lower burdens of proof for commitment, it is legally dubious, as well. Most importantly, though, it also fails to deliver on the very objectives that justified its creation.

Contradicting Cuts

Notably, in the first nine months of his second term, the Trump administration slashed social programs that have been proven to reduce crime and keep people off the street.[11]

First, in March, the administration slashed $11 billion from addiction and mental health programs, a move that will likely lead to increasing prison and jail populations.[12] When people can't access care for these issues, they're much more likely to have run-ins with law enforcement, and — thanks to policies that target and criminalize substance use and mental health disorders — end up behind bars.

Then, the administration targeted Housing First programs, a method that has been proven effective at getting and keeping people off the street, by giving them access to housing without conditions.[13]

And, in July, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced steep cuts to Medicaid that estimates suggest will leave 10 million people uninsured, making it nearly impossible for them to access mental health care or substance abuse treatment.[14]

At the same time, the administration has tried to end harm-reduction strategies that aim to reduce overdoses and the negative health effects of drug use.[15] These efforts are contrary to research that shows that harm-reduction work reduces overdose mortalities and boosts public health.[16]

With this safety net decimated, what will happen to the people who desperately need care? In many cases, beyond involuntary commitment facilities, they'll be put straight into actual prisons and jails, which are never appropriate places for treatment.

Though prisons and jails are often viewed as de facto mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Rates of mental illness are exceptionally high among incarcerated people, and these facilities fail to meet the demand for help. More than half of the people in state prison reported having a mental health problem, yet research shows only 26% received professional help since entering prison.[17]

Not only are prisons and jails unable to treat mental health problems, but they can also create them. Incarceration itself is traumatizing and can inflict serious mental damage on people.[18] Violence behind bars is widespread and can result in post-traumatic stress symptoms like anxiety, depression, avoidance, hypersensitivity, hypervigilance, suicidality, flashbacks and difficulty with emotional regulation.[19]

Prisons and jails are not effective treatment centers for substance use disorders, either. People who have been arrested or incarcerated have higher rates of substance use disorder than the general population.[20] And, disturbingly, only 1 in 10 people in state prisons with substance use disorders received clinical treatment.

Jails, which tend to have even fewer resources, are also not suited to offer care. The most effective treatment options are the least accessible for people with opioid use disorder: Just 19% of jails initiate medication-assisted treatment for people with opioid use disorder.[21]

Behind bars, people generally don't have access to the care they need — and upon release, they're often left worse off than before incarceration. Formerly incarcerated people are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public. And, being homeless makes formerly incarcerated people more likely to be arrested and incarcerated again, creating a revolving door.[22]

The reality is that there is an inextricable link between housing, mental illness, drug use and criminalization. Yes, people experiencing these vulnerable situations often need care — but forcibly hospitalizing them is not the solution.

Instead, the U.S. must embrace a Housing First approach.[23] This method offers housing with no strings attached. It recognizes housing as the first step in responding to homelessness, rather than something to work toward. It also does more than simply put a roof over people's heads — it gives people the space and stability necessary to receive care, escape crises, and improve their quality of life.

Research shows that this approach keeps people housed[24] and improves attitudes and outlook on life,[25] especially among people experiencing both substance use disorder and mental illness.[26]

Conclusion

The administration has shifted money away from care and toward expanded criminalization. This executive order is the latest example.[27] This will result in far more people locked up simply because they're experiencing homelessness, mental health crises or substance use issues. Gutting proven solutions that make communities safer — like community-based care, Housing First and harm-reduction efforts — is not the answer.[28]

The good news is that state and local governments don't have to help this misguided effort.[29] The federal government may try to incentivize them to implement these policies, but they have the ability to say no. If the money comes with these types of strings attached, it isn't worth the cost.

Law360

The Practice of Law

Law360 Pulse

Business of Law

Law360 Authority

Deep News & Analysis

Tax Authority

Employment Authority

Insurance Authority

Real Estate Authority

Bankruptcy Authority

Healthcare Authority

Global

Law360 UK

Homelessness Exec Order Conflates Criminalization With Care