SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
executive order
Why Trump Is Making Vagrancy Laws Great Again
Trump's new executive order on homelessness is not a departure from policy failure. It is the logical continuation of a governance model that confuses erasure with resolution.
Jul 25, 2025
There are words that live quietly in the margins of law, waiting for the right conditions to become instruments of control. Vagrancy is one of them. It does not name a crime so much as a condition—a presence deemed out of place, a body detached from property, purpose, or permission. It has always been a word that grants the state an elastic mandate: to sweep, to detain, to erase.
Its history is older than this country. In 14th-century England, following the Black Death, the ruling class faced a labor shortage that briefly shifted the balance of power toward the working poor. Rather than negotiate, they legislated. A series of statutes criminalized idleness and movement, branding those who wandered without employer or land as enemies of order. The offense was not what they did—it was that they could not be accounted for. Vagrancy became a pretext for containment, a tool to bind the body to power, and a signal that survival outside sanctioned structures would not be tolerated.
The word arrived in the Americas with that logic intact and found new utility in a country built on hierarchy and extraction. Across centuries, it was used to arrest freed Black men for walking without proof of employment, to justify the confinement of Indigenous people who had refused removal, to expel Chinese workers labeled as moral contagions, to target queer youth and disabled residents whose lives defied social norms. It appeared on signs and statutes alike, a vague but potent summons of disorder, always defined from above. It did not require action. It required only that someone be seen.
Now, the word has returned—not as metaphor or memory, but as mandate. On July 24, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets”—a sweeping directive that promises to fight “vagrancy” and reframes homelessness, addiction, and mental illness not as public health crises or systemic failures, but as threats to civic peace.
The order offers no new housing, no expanded care infrastructure, no commitment to addressing the material conditions that produce displacement. Instead, it offers a rubric for removal. Under its provisions, federal grants from Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Service, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Transportation will prioritize jurisdictions that criminalize public presence—cities that ban urban camping, prohibit loitering, penalize “urban squatting,” and track individuals deemed out of bounds. Programs that offer harm reduction, low-barrier shelters, or evidence-based treatment models face new restrictions or disqualification. Legal safeguards against involuntary psychiatric commitment are to be rolled back, consent decrees reversed, and behavioral nonconformity redefined as detainable.
Vagrancy persists because it works—not in reducing harm, but in reallocating blame. It shifts public anxiety about inequality, addiction, and disorder away from the systems that produce them and toward the individuals who cannot hide them.
This is not a departure from policy failure. It is the logical continuation of a governance model that confuses erasure with resolution. The language remains soft—beautification, humane treatment, restoration—but the infrastructure it supports is hard: surveillance in place of service, confinement in place of care, disappearance in place of dignity. It teaches agencies to measure success not by outcomes but by optics: How many tents are gone? How few bodies remain visible? How fully have we restored the image of control?
Vagrancy persists because it works—not in reducing harm, but in reallocating blame. It shifts public anxiety about inequality, addiction, and disorder away from the systems that produce them and toward the individuals who cannot hide them. It casts the existence of suffering as a provocation and conditions civic belonging on legibility, order, and stillness. In doing so, it grants governments a new kind of authority: the power not simply to punish what people do, but to penalize who they are when no performance is possible.
This order does not restore order. It reinstates a hierarchy of visibility. It tells those without shelter, treatment, or family that the problem is not what they lack—but that they can still be seen. And in doing so, it signals to the rest of us that our security lies in distance, that the absence of suffering from view is proof that it has been addressed. It invites the public to mistake silence for peace, stillness for stability, emptiness for care.
But the history of vagrancy tells a different story. It is a word that rises not in response to crisis, but in response to fear: the fear that the margins might speak, might move, might disrupt the fictions we tell about what this country is and who it serves. When the powerful feel that their order is slipping, they do not ask what has failed. They ask who can be removed.
If there is any hope in this moment, it lies in refusing the comfort of euphemism. This is not about restoration. It is about removal. Not about care, but control. Not about safety, but sightlines.
We do not have to accept the return of vagrancy into our political vocabulary. We can name it for what it is: a centuries-old code for managing the inconvenient poor, repackaged as policy. We can refuse to let language do the work of violence. And we can insist—still, again—that visibility is not disorder, and that survival, even unkempt, even unsanctioned, is not a threat to be eliminated.
It is a truth to be answered. With housing. With care. With courage. And with clarity
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pushes Policies That 'Treat Homelessness and Mental Illness as a Crime'
"Homelessness is a policy failure," said one ACLU leader. "Weaponizing federal funding to fuel cruel and ineffective approaches to homelessness won't solve this crisis."
Jul 24, 2025
Advocates for mental health and unhoused people blasted U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday over his executive order titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets."
Trump's order directs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to end policies that restrict the government from institutionalizing "individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others." She must also work with other Cabinet members "to prioritize grants for states and municipalities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders."
As a White House fact sheet highlights, the order also "redirects funding to ensure that individuals camping on streets and causing public disorder and that are suffering from serious mental illness or addiction are moved into treatment centers, assisted outpatient treatment, or other facilities." Further, it ensures grant money does not "fund drug injection sites or illicit drug use."
In a statement to USA Today, which first reported on the executive action, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that "by removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need."
Meanwhile, National Coalition for the Homeless executive director Donald Whitehead Jr. declared that "everyone deserves a safe place to live."
Trump's policies, he said, "ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice. They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals."
Predictable, but no less shocking or reprehensible: Trump just signed an executive order urging states to forcibly institutionalize homeless people, defund Housing First, criminalize encampments, and cut aid to cities that don't comply.
[image or embed]
— Brian Goldstone (@brian-goldstone.bsky.social) July 24, 2025 at 5:14 PM
The National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) similarly called out the president for pushing policies that "treat homelessness and mental illness as a crime."
"Across America, sky-high rents are both the leading cause of homelessness and a primary cause of financial stress for most families," NHLC said. "Instead of helping people who are struggling to make ends meet, Donald Trump remains focused on backwards, expensive, and ineffective policies that make homelessness worse."
"The National Homelessness Law Center strongly condemns today's executive order, which deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness," the group added. "This executive order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse."
Scout Katovich, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Trone Center for Justice and Equality, tied the order to the Republican Party's broader agenda, saying that "from the so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' that will strip healthcare from millions to this dangerous executive order, every action this administration takes displays remarkable disdain for the rights and dignity of vulnerable people."
"Pushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won't solve homelessness or support people with disabilities," she said. "The exact opposite is true—institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn't work. We need safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as equal access to medical care and voluntary, community-based mental health and evidence-based substance use treatment from trusted providers."
"But instead of investing in these proven solutions, President Trump is blaming individuals for systemic failures and doubling down on policies that punish people with nowhere else to go—all after signing a law that decimates Medicaid, the number one payer for addiction and mental health services," Katovich added. "Homelessness is a policy failure. Weaponizing federal funding to fuel cruel and ineffective approaches to homelessness won't solve this crisis."
As The Washington Post reported:
The executive order was issued as the Trump administration has slashed more than $1 billion in Covid-era grants administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is proposing to slash hundreds of millions more in agency grants.
"There's no question we need to do more to address both homelessness and untreated substance use disorder and mental health conditions in the U.S.," said Regina LaBelle, director of the Addiction and Public Policy Initiative at the Georgetown University Law Center and a former drug policy official in the Biden White House. "But issuing an executive order, while disinvesting in treatment and other funding that will help prevent homelessness and untreated health conditions, will do nothing to address the fundamental issues facing the country."
Trump's order comes after the latest federal figures showed a surge in homelessness, and the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority ruled last year that local governments can enforce bans on sleeping outdoors, effectively criminalizing homelessness.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's AI Action Plan Includes 'Zombie' Moratorium on State Regulations
"Republicans and Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly rejected the wildly unpopular AI moratorium," said a spokesperson for Demand Progress, "Now Big Tech is doing an end-run around the democratic process by jamming it through via executive order."
Jul 23, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's "AI Action Plan," announced Wednesday, revived a sweeping policy that seeks to prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence models.
The provision, which would have put a moratorium on states introducing and enforcing regulations on AI models, was stripped from the Republican reconciliation bill that passed earlier this month, after legislators voted it down overwhelmingly.
Critics have warned that the policy would make it impossible for states to prevent even the most perverse uses of AI technology, including the creation of non-consensual deep-fake pornography or the use of algorithms to make discriminatory decisions in hiring and healthcare.
But with backing from tech investors—including David Sacks, the White House AI and crypto czar, and Sriram Krishnan, the White House's senior policy advisor for AI—Trump is now reviving the "zombie" moratorium via executive order.
Buried within the 23-page document, titled "America's AI Action Plan," is a provision stating, "The Federal government should not allow AI-related federal funding to be directed toward states with burdensome AI regulations that waste these funds, but should also not interfere with states' rights to pass prudent laws that are not unduly restrictive to innovation."
This does not go as far as the initial proposal, which outright banned states from introducing legislation to regulate AI. It more closely mirrors a revised version proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) after the initial measure failed to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian.
That revised policy instead threatened to withhold funding for broadband internet infrastructure from states that enacted regulations on AI. However, that version was still voted down 99-1 in the Senate.
Trump's executive order modifies this language somewhat to suggest restricting AI funding specifically. It also leaves room for states to pass "prudent laws," though it provides no indication of what is considered "prudent."
More than 140 organizations—including labor unions, consumer advocates, and tech safety groups—have signed onto a letter released Wednesday by the group Demand Progress, which calls on Congress to stop Trump from implementing the policy it has already voted to scrap.
"Bluntly, there is no acceptable version of an AI moratorium," the groups said.
"A total immunity provision would block enforcement of state and local legislation governing AI systems," they continued. "Despite how little is publicly known about how many AI systems work, harms from those systems are already well-documented, and states are acting to mitigate those harms."
In addition to the dangers of deep-fake porn, the groups cited evidence of AI chatbots having sexualized conversations with minors and encouraging them to commit violent acts. They also pointed to systemic racial and gender biases that have resulted in faulty health diagnoses when AI models are used by physicians.
"This moratorium would mean that even if a company deliberately designs an algorithm that causes foreseeable harm—regardless of how intentional or egregious the misconduct or how devastating the consequences—the company making or using that bad tech would be unaccountable to lawmakers and the public," the groups wrote.
In June, the Financial Times reported that "lobbyists acting on behalf of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta [were] urging the Senate to enact" the moratorium. According to data from OpenSecrets, these four companies alone spent nearly $19 million on lobbying in just the first three months of 2025.
Top Silicon Valley executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, Anduril's Palmer Luckey, and a16z's Marc Andreessen, have also publicly championed the moratorium.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, the corporate power director at Demand Progress, said that "this zombie AI moratorium continues Big Tech's relentless drive to tear down commonsense safeguards protecting Americans from half-baked 'driverless' cars and deep-faked revenge porn."
"Republicans and Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly rejected the wildly unpopular AI moratorium," Peterson-Cassin added, "so now Big Tech is doing an end-run around the democratic process by jamming it through via executive order."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular