Local Leaders Condemn Trump’s Tough Stance on Homelessness

President Donald Trump’s executive order, issued on March 14, 2025, has faced widespread criticism from local officials and organizations working with the homeless population. The new directive aims to enforce punitive measures against homeless individuals, mandate treatment for those struggling with substance use and mental health issues, and diminish reliance on data-supported solutions designed to transition people into stable housing.

Trump’s order comes amid a national crisis, with homelessness reaching record levels. In King County alone, the recent Point-in-Time Count revealed **16,868 homeless individuals**, a stark reflection of the **771,480** homeless people nationwide. Advocates for homelessness and mental health assert that the measures outlined in the executive order will infringe upon human rights and prove ineffective in addressing the root causes of homelessness.

Seattle Mayor **Bruce Harrell** described the order as “bombastic” and criticized it for perpetuating a misleading narrative around homelessness. He emphasized that genuine solutions require reinforcing the social safety net and investing in programs administered by the **U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development**. “If Trump were actually interested in helping cities, he’d stop cutting the social safety net and challenge Washington, D.C.’s status quo,” Harrell stated.

Washington Governor **Bob Ferguson** echoed this sentiment, labeling the order as “another misguided and harmful executive order from the Trump Administration.” He affirmed that Washington would continue to prioritize evidence-based approaches rather than engaging in political maneuvering at the expense of vulnerable populations.

The executive order specifically targets “housing first” policies, which have gained traction in Seattle and across the U.S. Research indicates that providing stable housing can significantly improve the health and well-being of individuals with mental health and substance use disorders. Recent data from King County, for instance, showed that after **1,000 homeless individuals** were housed in hotels during the pandemic, their visits to emergency rooms decreased by **17%**, and their hospital stays reduced by approximately **one-third**.

Despite this, critics argue that Trump’s approach could lead to the misuse of taxpayer funds, claiming that it enables addiction rather than addressing it. The executive order instructs federal housing authorities to impose stricter requirements on individuals with behavioral health issues, making treatment a prerequisite for accessing housing services. Furthermore, it calls for legal action against providers who permit drug use on their properties.

Organizations that assist homeless individuals underscore the challenges of this directive. Many of those who have been living on the streets for extended periods are often unwilling or unable to comply with treatment conditions required for housing. Derrick Belgarde, the executive director of **Chief Seattle Club**, which serves Native populations experiencing homelessness, noted, “It’s a lack of trust, paranoia; people don’t feel safe.”

The order proposes to forcibly relocate individuals with severe mental illnesses into treatment facilities, yet the feasibility of this initiative remains questionable without substantial funding for additional beds and resources. Washington’s **Involuntary Treatment Act** allows for civil commitment of individuals deemed severely mentally ill, but the state has consistently struggled to meet the demand for treatment, resulting in a shortage of available beds. Mental health advocates warn that further mandating involuntary treatment could exacerbate existing resource shortages.

In addition, Trump’s directive encourages state and local governments to enact punitive measures against public camping and drug use. Many cities, including Seattle, have intensified efforts to clear homeless encampments following a **U.S. Supreme Court** ruling stating that municipalities can penalize individuals for sleeping outdoors if no alternatives exist. Seattle has reportedly tripled its encampment removals in 2024 compared to previous years, while other cities, such as Burien, have made it effectively illegal to be homeless in public spaces.

State Representative **Nicole Macri** criticized the shift towards a criminalization approach, asserting that such strategies have proven ineffective. Public officials and nonprofit organizations are now assessing the practical implications of Trump’s order and its potential impact on funding and service delivery.

King County, which receives approximately **$66 million** annually in federal homelessness grants, faces uncertainty regarding future funding. The **King County Regional Homelessness Authority** anticipates that the consequences of the executive order will become clearer once guidelines for federal grant applications are released later this year.

Organizations reliant on federal support are now navigating a complex landscape, weighing their opposition to the executive order against the necessity of adapting to its requirements to sustain their services. Belgarde from Chief Seattle Club emphasized the importance of remaining resilient: “If unjust, obscene policies and orders like this come through, we have to make sure we’re there for the next administration.”

Others, like **Danie Eagleton**, interim vice president of **Plymouth Housing**, expressed concern over the federal government’s departure from evidence-based practices. “Regardless of who is in office, Plymouth won’t back down from doing the life-saving work our community needs to help people exit homelessness successfully,” Eagleton asserted.

The fallout from Trump’s executive order could also strain local healthcare systems. Ian Goodhew from **UW Medicine** highlighted that inadequate services for the homeless may lead to increased emergency room visits, creating a cycle of dependency that further burdens the healthcare system.

Alison Eisinger, executive director of the **Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness**, condemned the order as “cruel, stupid and terrible.” She argued that treating individuals with mental illness as criminals is not only misguided but fails to acknowledge the reality that numerous individuals have no choice but to occupy public spaces.

As the implications of Trump’s directive unfold, local leaders and organizations dedicated to addressing homelessness remain committed to advocating for policies that prioritize dignity, support, and effective solutions for those in need.