Tents are set up in a homeless encampment along a Los Angeles freeway in May.
Damian Dovarganes/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Damian Dovarganes/AP
The Trump administration is shifting its focus on homelessness policy, aiming to cut back on funding for long-term housing solutions. The new strategy emphasizes transitional housing that mandates employment and addiction treatment.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that these updated policies are intended to “restore accountability” and bolster “self-sufficiency” by targeting the “root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental illness.” The department also highlighted that overall homelessness funding will rise from $3.6 billion to $3.9 billion.
170,000 People May Face Housing Instability
Critics are concerned that these sweeping changes could jeopardize housing for 170,000 individuals. They argue that the timing is problematic, as funding announcements are delayed, potentially leaving a gap between existing and new funding cycles.
“We’ll move very, very fast,” assured HUD policy expert Robert Marbut, addressing concerns about the delay. He attributed the postponement to a federal shutdown, although some homelessness advocates claim the process was already behind schedule.
Additionally, HUD will no longer automatically renew current programs, which could result in the displacement of individuals who have resided in subsidized housing for extended periods. More funds will also be allocated to faith-based organizations.
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, these changes could disrupt the lives of those who have achieved stability through permanent housing programs, including seniors and the disabled. “HUD’s new funding priorities slam the door on them, their providers, and their communities,” stated CEO Ann Oliva. “Make no mistake: homelessness will only increase because of this reckless and irresponsible decision.”
The policy changes may also lead to increased funding for areas that implement bans on homeless encampments.
Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center critiqued the approach, stating, “Donald Trump’s approach to homelessness does nothing to address the sky-high cost of rent, which remains the main cause of homelessness.”
Conservative Opposition to Existing Policies
For over 20 years, federal funding has focused on the Housing First approach, which prioritizes placing individuals in permanent housing before offering additional treatments. This method has received bipartisan support and has been praised for its effectiveness in keeping people off the streets.
However, some argue that Housing First has not adequately addressed the increase in homelessness. These critics include President Trump, who has advocated for the removal of homeless encampments. The funding shift aligns with an executive order he signed in July, which also aims to facilitate the involuntary confinement of unhoused individuals in mental health institutions.
Robert Marbut noted that Housing First policies have not curbed rising mortality rates among the unhoused, attributed to meth and fentanyl addiction. Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, criticized the approach, calling it a “top-down” method that limits funding opportunities for programs not adhering to its guidelines.
Eide advocates for a resurgence in transitional housing options, allowing individuals to stay for approximately 18 months to achieve sobriety or other forms of recovery, with the ultimate goal of independent living.
While there is consensus on the need for expanded support services, including permanent housing and mental health and addiction treatment, critics warn that the new HUD policies could reduce access to these essential services.
Stephanie Klasky-Gamer, president and CEO of LA Family Housing, expressed concerns that the changes might lead shelters to require sobriety or enrollment in recovery programs as a precondition for entry. “It is moving away from trauma-informed care, and that’s problematic,” she stated, highlighting the potential for adverse outcomes.
