SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Current news reports of North Korea's supposed ability to kill "90% of all Americans" within one year is the kind of ignorance and fear-mongering that has dragged the US into multiple wars, costing the economy trillions of dollars, while continuing to make bad situations far worse." (Photo: KCNA via Reuters)
To understand the United States' stratagem in the Pacific, and against North Korea in particular, one has to understand the fundamental changes that are under way in that region. China's clout as an Asian superpower and as a global economic powerhouse has been growing at a rapid speed. The US' belated 'pivot to Asia' to counter China's rise has been, thus far, quite ineffectual.
The angry diplomacy of President Donald Trump is Washington's way to scare off North Korea's traditional ally, China, and disrupt what has been, till now, quite a smooth Chinese economic, political and military ascendency in Asia that has pushed against US regional influence, especially in the East and South China Seas.
Despite the fact that China has reevaluated its once strong ties with North Korea, in recent years, it views with great alarm any military build-up by the US and its allies. A stronger US military in that region will be a direct challenge to China's inevitable trade and political hegemony.
The US understands that its share of the world's economic pie chart is constantly being reduced, and that China is gaining ground, and fast.
The United States' economy is the world's largest, but not for long. Statistics show that China is blazing the trail and will, by 2030 - or even sooner - win the coveted spot. In fact, according to an International Monetary Fund report in 2014, China is already the world's largest economy when the method of measurement is adjusted by purchasing power.
This is not an anomaly and is not reversible, at least any time soon.
The growth rate of the US economy over the past 30 years has averaged 2.4 percent, while China soared at 9.3 percent.
Citing these numbers, Paul Ormerod, an economist and a visiting professor at University College, London, argued in a recent article that "if we project these rates forward, the Chinese economy will be as big as the American by 2024. By 2037, it will be more than twice the size."
It is no wonder why Trump obsessively referenced 'China' in his many campaigning speeches prior to his election to the White House, and why he continues to blame China for North Korea's nuclear weapons program to this day.
As a business mogul, Trump understands how real power works, and that his country's nuclear arsenal, estimated at nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons, is simply not enough to reverse his country's economic misfortunes.
In fact, China's nuclear arsenal is quite miniscule compared to the US. Military power alone is not a sufficient measurement of actual power that can be translated into economic stability, sustainable wealth and financial security of a nation.
It is ironic that, while the US threatens to 'totally destroy North Korea,' it is the Chinese government that is using sensible language, calling for de-escalation and citing international law. Not only did fortunes change, but roles as well. China, which for many years was depicted as a rogue state, now seems like the cornerstone of stability in Asia.
Prudent US leaders, like former President Jimmy Carter understand well the need to involve China in resolving the US-North Korean standoff.
In an article in the Washington Post, Carter, 93, called for immediate and direct diplomatic engagement with North Korea that involves China as well.
He wrote on October 4, the US should "offer to send a high-level delegation to Pyongyang for peace talks or to support an international conference including North and South Korea, the United States and China, at a mutually acceptable site."
A few days leader, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, quoted Carter's article, and reasserted her country's position that only a diplomatic solution could bring the crisis to an end.
In a recent tweet, Trump claimed that "Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid ... hasn't worked."
He alleged that North Korea has violated these agreements even "before the ink was dry", finishing with the ominous warning that "only one thing will work!", alluding to war.
Trump is a bad student of history. The 'agreements' he was referring to is the 'Agreed Framework' of 1994, signed between President Bill Clinton and Kim Jong-il - the father of the current leader Kim Jong-un. In fact, the crisis was averted, when Pyongyang respected its side of the agreement. The US, however, reneged, argued Fred Kaplan in 'Slate'.
"North Korea kept its side of the bargain, the United States did not," Kaplan wrote. "No light-water reactors were provided. (South Korea and Japan were supposed to pay for the reactors; they didn't, and the U.S. Congress didn't step in.) Nor was any progress made on diplomatic recognition."
It took North Korea years to react to the US and its partners' violation of the terms of the deal.
In 2001, the US invaded and destroyed Afghanistan. In 2003, it invaded Iraq, and actively began threatening a regime change in Iran. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were already blacklisted as the "axis of evil" in George W. Bush's infamous speech in 2002.
More military interventions followed, especially as the Middle East fell into unprecedented chaos resulting from the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. Regime change, as became the case in Libya, remained the defining doctrine of US foreign policy.
This is the actual reality that terrifies North Korea. For 15 years they have been waiting for their turn on the US regime change path, and their nuclear weapons program is their only deterring strategy in the face of US military interventions. The more the North Korean leadership felt isolated regionally and internationally, the more determined it became in obtaining nuclear devices.
This is the context that Trump does not want to understand. US mainstream media, which seems to loathe Trump in every way except when he threatens war or defends Israel, is following blindly.
Current news reports of North Korea's supposed ability to kill "90% of all Americans" within one year is the kind of ignorance and fear-mongering that has dragged the US into multiple wars, costing the economy trillions of dollars, while continuing to make bad situations far worse.
Indeed, a recent Brown University Study showed that, between 2001 and 2016, the cost of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan has cost the US $3.6 trillion.
Perhaps, a better way of fending against the rise of China is investing in the US economy instead of wasting money on protracted wars.
But if a Trump war in North Korea takes place, what would it look like?
US Newsweek magazine took on this very disturbing question, only to provide equally worrying answers.
"If combat broke out between the two countries, American commanders in the Pacific would very quickly exhaust their stockpiles of smart bombs and missiles, possibly within a week," military sources revealed.
It will take a year for the US military to replenish their stockpile, thus leaving them with the option of "dropping crude gravity bombs on their targets, guaranteeing a longer and bloodier conflict for both sides."
Expectedly, North Korea would strike, at will, all of the US allies in the region, starting with South Korea. Even if the conflict does not escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, the death toll from such a war "could reach 1 million."
Both Trump and Kim Jong-un are unsavory figures, driven by fragile egos and unsound judgement. Yet, they are both in a position that, if not reigned in soon, could threaten global security and the lives of millions.
Calls for diplomatic solutions made by Carter and China must be heeded, before it is too late.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
To understand the United States' stratagem in the Pacific, and against North Korea in particular, one has to understand the fundamental changes that are under way in that region. China's clout as an Asian superpower and as a global economic powerhouse has been growing at a rapid speed. The US' belated 'pivot to Asia' to counter China's rise has been, thus far, quite ineffectual.
The angry diplomacy of President Donald Trump is Washington's way to scare off North Korea's traditional ally, China, and disrupt what has been, till now, quite a smooth Chinese economic, political and military ascendency in Asia that has pushed against US regional influence, especially in the East and South China Seas.
Despite the fact that China has reevaluated its once strong ties with North Korea, in recent years, it views with great alarm any military build-up by the US and its allies. A stronger US military in that region will be a direct challenge to China's inevitable trade and political hegemony.
The US understands that its share of the world's economic pie chart is constantly being reduced, and that China is gaining ground, and fast.
The United States' economy is the world's largest, but not for long. Statistics show that China is blazing the trail and will, by 2030 - or even sooner - win the coveted spot. In fact, according to an International Monetary Fund report in 2014, China is already the world's largest economy when the method of measurement is adjusted by purchasing power.
This is not an anomaly and is not reversible, at least any time soon.
The growth rate of the US economy over the past 30 years has averaged 2.4 percent, while China soared at 9.3 percent.
Citing these numbers, Paul Ormerod, an economist and a visiting professor at University College, London, argued in a recent article that "if we project these rates forward, the Chinese economy will be as big as the American by 2024. By 2037, it will be more than twice the size."
It is no wonder why Trump obsessively referenced 'China' in his many campaigning speeches prior to his election to the White House, and why he continues to blame China for North Korea's nuclear weapons program to this day.
As a business mogul, Trump understands how real power works, and that his country's nuclear arsenal, estimated at nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons, is simply not enough to reverse his country's economic misfortunes.
In fact, China's nuclear arsenal is quite miniscule compared to the US. Military power alone is not a sufficient measurement of actual power that can be translated into economic stability, sustainable wealth and financial security of a nation.
It is ironic that, while the US threatens to 'totally destroy North Korea,' it is the Chinese government that is using sensible language, calling for de-escalation and citing international law. Not only did fortunes change, but roles as well. China, which for many years was depicted as a rogue state, now seems like the cornerstone of stability in Asia.
Prudent US leaders, like former President Jimmy Carter understand well the need to involve China in resolving the US-North Korean standoff.
In an article in the Washington Post, Carter, 93, called for immediate and direct diplomatic engagement with North Korea that involves China as well.
He wrote on October 4, the US should "offer to send a high-level delegation to Pyongyang for peace talks or to support an international conference including North and South Korea, the United States and China, at a mutually acceptable site."
A few days leader, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, quoted Carter's article, and reasserted her country's position that only a diplomatic solution could bring the crisis to an end.
In a recent tweet, Trump claimed that "Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid ... hasn't worked."
He alleged that North Korea has violated these agreements even "before the ink was dry", finishing with the ominous warning that "only one thing will work!", alluding to war.
Trump is a bad student of history. The 'agreements' he was referring to is the 'Agreed Framework' of 1994, signed between President Bill Clinton and Kim Jong-il - the father of the current leader Kim Jong-un. In fact, the crisis was averted, when Pyongyang respected its side of the agreement. The US, however, reneged, argued Fred Kaplan in 'Slate'.
"North Korea kept its side of the bargain, the United States did not," Kaplan wrote. "No light-water reactors were provided. (South Korea and Japan were supposed to pay for the reactors; they didn't, and the U.S. Congress didn't step in.) Nor was any progress made on diplomatic recognition."
It took North Korea years to react to the US and its partners' violation of the terms of the deal.
In 2001, the US invaded and destroyed Afghanistan. In 2003, it invaded Iraq, and actively began threatening a regime change in Iran. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were already blacklisted as the "axis of evil" in George W. Bush's infamous speech in 2002.
More military interventions followed, especially as the Middle East fell into unprecedented chaos resulting from the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. Regime change, as became the case in Libya, remained the defining doctrine of US foreign policy.
This is the actual reality that terrifies North Korea. For 15 years they have been waiting for their turn on the US regime change path, and their nuclear weapons program is their only deterring strategy in the face of US military interventions. The more the North Korean leadership felt isolated regionally and internationally, the more determined it became in obtaining nuclear devices.
This is the context that Trump does not want to understand. US mainstream media, which seems to loathe Trump in every way except when he threatens war or defends Israel, is following blindly.
Current news reports of North Korea's supposed ability to kill "90% of all Americans" within one year is the kind of ignorance and fear-mongering that has dragged the US into multiple wars, costing the economy trillions of dollars, while continuing to make bad situations far worse.
Indeed, a recent Brown University Study showed that, between 2001 and 2016, the cost of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan has cost the US $3.6 trillion.
Perhaps, a better way of fending against the rise of China is investing in the US economy instead of wasting money on protracted wars.
But if a Trump war in North Korea takes place, what would it look like?
US Newsweek magazine took on this very disturbing question, only to provide equally worrying answers.
"If combat broke out between the two countries, American commanders in the Pacific would very quickly exhaust their stockpiles of smart bombs and missiles, possibly within a week," military sources revealed.
It will take a year for the US military to replenish their stockpile, thus leaving them with the option of "dropping crude gravity bombs on their targets, guaranteeing a longer and bloodier conflict for both sides."
Expectedly, North Korea would strike, at will, all of the US allies in the region, starting with South Korea. Even if the conflict does not escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, the death toll from such a war "could reach 1 million."
Both Trump and Kim Jong-un are unsavory figures, driven by fragile egos and unsound judgement. Yet, they are both in a position that, if not reigned in soon, could threaten global security and the lives of millions.
Calls for diplomatic solutions made by Carter and China must be heeded, before it is too late.
To understand the United States' stratagem in the Pacific, and against North Korea in particular, one has to understand the fundamental changes that are under way in that region. China's clout as an Asian superpower and as a global economic powerhouse has been growing at a rapid speed. The US' belated 'pivot to Asia' to counter China's rise has been, thus far, quite ineffectual.
The angry diplomacy of President Donald Trump is Washington's way to scare off North Korea's traditional ally, China, and disrupt what has been, till now, quite a smooth Chinese economic, political and military ascendency in Asia that has pushed against US regional influence, especially in the East and South China Seas.
Despite the fact that China has reevaluated its once strong ties with North Korea, in recent years, it views with great alarm any military build-up by the US and its allies. A stronger US military in that region will be a direct challenge to China's inevitable trade and political hegemony.
The US understands that its share of the world's economic pie chart is constantly being reduced, and that China is gaining ground, and fast.
The United States' economy is the world's largest, but not for long. Statistics show that China is blazing the trail and will, by 2030 - or even sooner - win the coveted spot. In fact, according to an International Monetary Fund report in 2014, China is already the world's largest economy when the method of measurement is adjusted by purchasing power.
This is not an anomaly and is not reversible, at least any time soon.
The growth rate of the US economy over the past 30 years has averaged 2.4 percent, while China soared at 9.3 percent.
Citing these numbers, Paul Ormerod, an economist and a visiting professor at University College, London, argued in a recent article that "if we project these rates forward, the Chinese economy will be as big as the American by 2024. By 2037, it will be more than twice the size."
It is no wonder why Trump obsessively referenced 'China' in his many campaigning speeches prior to his election to the White House, and why he continues to blame China for North Korea's nuclear weapons program to this day.
As a business mogul, Trump understands how real power works, and that his country's nuclear arsenal, estimated at nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons, is simply not enough to reverse his country's economic misfortunes.
In fact, China's nuclear arsenal is quite miniscule compared to the US. Military power alone is not a sufficient measurement of actual power that can be translated into economic stability, sustainable wealth and financial security of a nation.
It is ironic that, while the US threatens to 'totally destroy North Korea,' it is the Chinese government that is using sensible language, calling for de-escalation and citing international law. Not only did fortunes change, but roles as well. China, which for many years was depicted as a rogue state, now seems like the cornerstone of stability in Asia.
Prudent US leaders, like former President Jimmy Carter understand well the need to involve China in resolving the US-North Korean standoff.
In an article in the Washington Post, Carter, 93, called for immediate and direct diplomatic engagement with North Korea that involves China as well.
He wrote on October 4, the US should "offer to send a high-level delegation to Pyongyang for peace talks or to support an international conference including North and South Korea, the United States and China, at a mutually acceptable site."
A few days leader, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, quoted Carter's article, and reasserted her country's position that only a diplomatic solution could bring the crisis to an end.
In a recent tweet, Trump claimed that "Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid ... hasn't worked."
He alleged that North Korea has violated these agreements even "before the ink was dry", finishing with the ominous warning that "only one thing will work!", alluding to war.
Trump is a bad student of history. The 'agreements' he was referring to is the 'Agreed Framework' of 1994, signed between President Bill Clinton and Kim Jong-il - the father of the current leader Kim Jong-un. In fact, the crisis was averted, when Pyongyang respected its side of the agreement. The US, however, reneged, argued Fred Kaplan in 'Slate'.
"North Korea kept its side of the bargain, the United States did not," Kaplan wrote. "No light-water reactors were provided. (South Korea and Japan were supposed to pay for the reactors; they didn't, and the U.S. Congress didn't step in.) Nor was any progress made on diplomatic recognition."
It took North Korea years to react to the US and its partners' violation of the terms of the deal.
In 2001, the US invaded and destroyed Afghanistan. In 2003, it invaded Iraq, and actively began threatening a regime change in Iran. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were already blacklisted as the "axis of evil" in George W. Bush's infamous speech in 2002.
More military interventions followed, especially as the Middle East fell into unprecedented chaos resulting from the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. Regime change, as became the case in Libya, remained the defining doctrine of US foreign policy.
This is the actual reality that terrifies North Korea. For 15 years they have been waiting for their turn on the US regime change path, and their nuclear weapons program is their only deterring strategy in the face of US military interventions. The more the North Korean leadership felt isolated regionally and internationally, the more determined it became in obtaining nuclear devices.
This is the context that Trump does not want to understand. US mainstream media, which seems to loathe Trump in every way except when he threatens war or defends Israel, is following blindly.
Current news reports of North Korea's supposed ability to kill "90% of all Americans" within one year is the kind of ignorance and fear-mongering that has dragged the US into multiple wars, costing the economy trillions of dollars, while continuing to make bad situations far worse.
Indeed, a recent Brown University Study showed that, between 2001 and 2016, the cost of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan has cost the US $3.6 trillion.
Perhaps, a better way of fending against the rise of China is investing in the US economy instead of wasting money on protracted wars.
But if a Trump war in North Korea takes place, what would it look like?
US Newsweek magazine took on this very disturbing question, only to provide equally worrying answers.
"If combat broke out between the two countries, American commanders in the Pacific would very quickly exhaust their stockpiles of smart bombs and missiles, possibly within a week," military sources revealed.
It will take a year for the US military to replenish their stockpile, thus leaving them with the option of "dropping crude gravity bombs on their targets, guaranteeing a longer and bloodier conflict for both sides."
Expectedly, North Korea would strike, at will, all of the US allies in the region, starting with South Korea. Even if the conflict does not escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, the death toll from such a war "could reach 1 million."
Both Trump and Kim Jong-un are unsavory figures, driven by fragile egos and unsound judgement. Yet, they are both in a position that, if not reigned in soon, could threaten global security and the lives of millions.
Calls for diplomatic solutions made by Carter and China must be heeded, before it is too late.
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said one advocate.
Congressman Rob Bresnahan, a Republican who campaigned on banning stock trading by lawmakers only to make at least 626 stock trades since taking office in January, was under scrutiny Monday for a particular sale he made just before he voted for the largest Medicaid cut in US history.
Soon after a report showed that 10 rural hospitals in Bresnahan's state of Pennsylvania were at risk of being shut down, the congressman sold between $100,001 and $250,000 in bonds issued by the Allegheny County Hospital Development Authority for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
The New York Times reported on the sale a month after it was revealed that Bresnahan sold up to $15,000 of stock he held in Centene Corporation, the largest Medicaid provider in the country. When President Donald Trump signed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last month, Centene's stock plummeted by 40%.
Bresnahan repeatedly said he would not vote to cut the safety net before he voted in favor of the bill.
The law is expected to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, with 10-15 million people projected to lose health coverage through the safety net program, according to one recent analysis. More than 700 hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, are likely to close due to a loss of Medicaid funding.
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
The economic justice group Unrig the Economy said that despite Bresnahan's introduction of a bill in May to bar members of Congress from buying and selling stocks—with the caveat that they could keep stocks they held before starting their terms in a blind trust—the congressman is "the one doing the selling... out of Pennsylvania hospitals."
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. "Hospitals across Pennsylvania could close thanks to his vote, forcing families to drive long distances and experience longer wait times for critical care."
"Not everyone has a secret helicopter they can use whenever they want," added Tal, referring to recent reports that the multi-millionaire congressman owns a helicopter worth as much as $1.5 million, which he purchased through a limited liability company he set up.
Eli Cousin, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Times that Bresnahan's stock trading "will define his time in Washington and be a major reason why he will lose his seat."
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
"If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable," the ACLU said.
As President Donald Trump escalates the US military occupation of Washington, DC—including by importing hundreds of out-of-state National Guard troops and allowing others to start carrying guns on missions in the nation's capital—the ACLU on Monday reminded his administration that federal forces are constitutionally obligated to protect, not violate, residents' rights.
"With additional state National Guard troops deploying to DC as untrained federal law enforcement agents perform local police duties in city streets, the American Civil Liberties Union is issuing a stark reminder to all federal and military officials that—no matter what uniform they wear or what authority they claim—they are bound by the US Constitution and all federal and local laws," the group said in a statement.
Over the weekend, the Republican governors of Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia announced that they are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to join the 800 DC guardsmen and women recently activated by Trump, who also asserted federal control over the city's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Sending military troops and heavily-armed federal agents to patrol the streets and scare vulnerable communities does not make us safer.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) August 18, 2025 at 12:08 PM
Trump dubiously declared a public safety emergency in a city where violent crime is down 26% from a year ago, when it was at its second-lowest level since 1966, according to official statistics. Critics have noted that Trump's crackdown isn't just targeting criminals, but also unhoused and mentally ill people, who have had their homes destroyed and property taken.
Contradicting assurances from military officials, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the newly deployed troops may be ordered to start carrying firearms. This, along with the president's vow to let police "do whatever the hell they want" to reduce crime in the city and other statements, have raised serious concerns of possible abuses.
"Through his manufactured emergency, President Trump is engaging in dangerous political theater to expand his power and sow fear in our communities," ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi said Monday. "Sending heavily armed federal agents and National Guard troops from hundreds of miles away into our nation's capital is unnecessary, inflammatory, and puts people's rights at high risk of being violated."
Shamsi stressed that "federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution, including our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process, and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures. If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable."
On Friday, the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration to block its order asserting federal authority over the MPD, arguing the move violated the Home Rule Act. U.S. Attorney General Bondi subsequently rescinded her order to replace DC Police Chief Pamela Smith with Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole.
Also on Friday, a group of House Democrats introduced a resolution to terminate Trump's emergency declaration.
The deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops onto our streets is a brazen abuse of power meant to create fear in the District.Join us in the fight for statehood to give D.C. residents the same guardrails against federal overreach as other states: dcstatehoodnow.org
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 18, 2025 at 7:23 AM
ACLU of DC executive director Monica Hopkins argued Monday that there is a way to curb Trump's "brazen abuse of power" in the District.
"We need the nation to join us in the fight for statehood so that DC residents are treated like those in every other state and have the same guardrails against federal overreach," she said.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that the proposal could increase the number of homeless people in the US by 36%.
As US President Donald Trump moves forward with a nationwide purge of homeless people from America's streets, his administration is moving to kill a program that has helped many of those in need find permanent housing.
The White House's fiscal year 2026 budget proposes ending a program under the Department of Housing and Urban Development known as Continuum of Care, which has helped cities across the country address or, in some cases, nearly eliminate their homelessness problem.
To receive federal funds, cities are required to adopt community-wide plans to end homelessness with the goal of moving people from the streets into shelters and then into stable housing.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness describes Continuum of Care as "the federal government's key vehicle for distributing homelessness funds."
As the Washington Post reports, Dallas has become a model for the program's effectiveness:
Instead of shuffling people to other neighborhoods, [the city] offered wraparound social services—and a permanent place to live.
The approach worked. Even as homelessness nationwide has surged to record levels, Dallas has emerged as a national model. The city declared an end to downtown homelessness in May after more than 270 people moved off the streets.
Other places, it says, have used Continuum of Care to substantially reduce homelessness, including San Bernardino, California, and Montgomery County, Maryland.
But the White House budget, unveiled in May, would eliminate Continuum of Care, instead shifting its resources to the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program, which prioritizes shelters and transitional housing, as well as mental health and substance abuse counselling, rather than "Housing First" solutions.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness says the administration's plan to consolidate the program "would place thousands of projects and the hundreds of thousands of people they serve at risk."
The Alliance estimated that the proposal would effectively end funding of permanent supportive housing for 170,000 residents and potentially increase the number of homeless people in the US by 36%.
In addition to eliminating Continuum of Care, the White House budget cuts $532 million in funding to the federal government's Homeless Assistance Grants account. That money, the Alliance says, could fund over 60,000 Rapid Re-Housing Units—enough to serve 8% of the US homeless population.
"Between 2023 and 2024, homelessness increased by 18%, yet this proposal would strip funding for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s homelessness programs by 12%," said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. "That is a recipe for disaster. We know that these programs have been chronically underfunded for decades."
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has declared an all-out war on the nation's homeless population. In July, he signed an executive order requiring states and cities to remove homeless people from public places, expanding cases where they must be involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals, and requiring sobriety preconditions for them to receive housing assistance.
During his federal takeover of Washington, DC, Trump ordered homeless people in encampments to move "FAR from the Capital." Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said those who refuse to accept services at a shelter will face jail time.
The advocacy group Housing Not Handcuffs reported Friday that "police evicted and destroyed the property of homeless people throughout DC, throwing away people's personal belongings, including tents and other property."
"Homelessness is a market failure, a housing problem," said Rob Robinson, a formerly homeless community organizer in New York City, in USA Today. "Rent prices have exceeded income gains by 325% nationally since 1985. Rates of homelessness are tied to rental affordability."
"The White House's recent moves toward the criminalization of homelessness and forced institutionalization," he said, "ignore decades of research and real-world outcomes."
"If Donald Trump really wanted to help people and solve homelessness, he would use his power to lower rents and help people make ends meet," said Jesse Rabinowitz from the National Homelessness Law Center. "Estimates show that taxpayers are spending over $400,000 a day for Trump to use the DC National Guard for photo ops. Why can they find money for that but not for housing and help?"