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.
Today, the majority of Americans favor the GND, free tuition, a $15 minimum wage, sane gun laws, a repeal of Trump's tax cuts for the rich, overturning Citizen's United and getting money out of politics and a host of other "socialist" priorities. (Photo: Ron Adar/SOPA Images/LightRocket?Getty Images)
Despite the yammering by the mainstream media and the neoliberals running the Democratic Party--not to mention Republicans and Fox News--the overwhelming majority of voters support progressive issues on a case-by-case basis, and the majority support the candidates who espouse them. Doubt that? See here, or here, or here, or any poll based the issues, not on political labels that--as a result of a four decades long branding effort funded by the oligarchy--have ceased to represent any real political perspective.
As for the majority supporting the progressive candidates, Sanders' and Warren's combined share of the voters exceeds Biden's by a factor of two, and both poll far better than Trump.
So you would think that Democrats would embrace progressivism and progressive candidates, but you'd be wrong. Instead, they're mounting a campaign against them with misinformation, distortion, innuendo, and that old time favorite--fear.
Neoliberal centrists and their allies in the mainstream media are using three main arguments in their combined assault on progressives.
First, they say we can't afford the programs progressives are advocating.
The two programs neoliberals most love to criticize as too costly are The Green New Deal and Medicare for All.
The notion that we can't afford the Green New Deal is as ludicrous as it is dangerous. If temperatures are allowed to increase by 3.7 C--about what full implementation of the Paris Agreement would accomplish, and about what the centrists are pushing--climate change would still impose some $551 trillion in damages. So-called moderates are essentially saying we can't afford to prevent $551 trillion in damages. This is madness, pure and simple, and there's nothing "moderate" about it, with climate change already causing unprecedented flooding, wildfires, droughts, storms and heat waves.
In essence, the moderates are trying to portray policies allowing for the destruction of our planetary life support system as prudent. The one thing science and reality is telling us is that climate change is here, now, and it will get worse far sooner than we'd previously predicted.
With the cost of renewable energy now less than fossil fuels in most cases, and with electric vehicles being as cheap as internal combustion cars, solutions are not only available, they're cost effective. Combined with aggressive tree-planting and land management, we could dramatically cut carbon in the near term, at relatively little cost.
But somehow, avoiding $551 trillion in damages while working to assure the transition to clean energy creates jobs and prosperity isn't "prudent" to moderates.
How about Medicare for All? Well, as Stephen Marks showed in a recent article, it's pretty easy to pay for it without imposing additional costs on low and middle income Americans. In fact, the cuts Marks outlined came up with a surplus after paying for Medicare for all. Marks' approach involved expanding the payroll tax above the current cap, and applying it to capital gains. Others have shown how a more rational defense budget could make us safer while freeing up substantial amounts of money for M4A. By the way, if you doubt that we can safely cut our Defense budget, consider this: the US currently has military troops in 138 nations, or about 70 percent of the countries in the world, and it's spending hundreds of billions on weapons even the military says it doesn't want. We don't have a Department of Defense, we're funding a Department of Offense.
The point is, by cutting costs, taxing the wealthy and corporations at levels they've historically been taxed, and adjusting bloated budgets for defense, there are many ways we could fund M4A without impacting the poor and middle class.
At the end of the day, the reason progressive policies such as free tuition, M4A, and the GND are portrayed as unaffordable is because the vast majority of income and wealth in this country now goes to the ultra-rich, who have a lower tax rate than the rest of Americans. And the so-called centrists want to keep it that way, even if it means 30 million Americans go without medical insurance, and the planet withers in a life-threatening permanent heat wave.
Second, they say the way to win is to get some centrists back from Trump. No. Real centrists are a rare breed, and pinning your hopes on getting a few to switch sides will be futile, for two reasons.
First, they're not about to go from Trump to an elitist neoliberal who calls him or herself a moderate. It was the policies and the hypocrisy of the neoliberals that drove them to Trump in the first place. He's their protest vote; their Molotov cocktail tossed in the face of Democrats who promised the moon around election time, then represented Wall Street, corporations, the ultra-rich and big banks the rest of the time. The fact is, Sanders and Warren are more likely to win back a few disgruntled centrists precisely because they understand this and back policies that matter to the people.
Second, there's simply not enough of them. If you add up left leaning Independents and Democrats they equal about 48 percent of the electorate, while right leaning Independents and Republicans add up to 39 percent of the electorate. Real centrists comprise only about 7 percent.
The real key to victory in electoral politics is the no shows. And with the majority of people holding progressive views, the way to get no-shows to show is not to back centrist policies, it's to run on values that favor the people, and that are supported by the majority of Americans.
But this brings us to the next shibboleth raised by neoliberals and centrists.
Third, they say that progressives need to focus--they are all over the place, and that's not how change happens. Here, Democrats need to take a lesson from Republicans, who managed a sweeping change in our national political dialogue in a few short decades.
They did it by focusing on values and principles (albeit ones that favored only the rich and powerful for the most part), not specific policies.
As Kevin Drum put it:
Every American over the age of ten knows what the GOP and the conservative movement stand for. Sing it with me now: low taxes, small government, strong defense, traditional families. See? You know the tune, and the harmony line, too...Everybody knows what the conservative brand stands for, because the conservative leadership has spent four decades nurturing a consistent brand identity for themselves.
And it delivered results.
If you go back to the early sixties, about half the people identified as Democrat, and only about a quarter Republican. At the same time, about 80 percent trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Today, only about 17 percent do, and only 3 percent believe government "does what's right" just about always, and Democrats make up only about 31 percent of the voters.
Today's neoliberal Democrat is ideologically closer to yesterday's Republican, and Republicans? Well, they're the new know-nothing party, immune to facts, impermeable to truth, and consumed by hate, fear, greed, anger, xenophobia and racism.
That's change. That's a virtual revolution. And the failure of Democrats to confront the Republican narrative by embracing values that put people first explains a big part of why their party has shrunk by 40 percent over the past five decades.
Wait, did someone say revolution? Isn't that exactly what Sanders has been calling for? In fact, he's already started it. Back in 2015 when he was advocating Medicare for All, the press ridiculed him and said America wasn't ready for "happy dreams." Today, the majority of Americans favor it, as well as the GND, free tuition, a $15 minimum wage, sane gun laws, a repeal of Trump's tax cuts for the rich, overturning Citizen's United and getting money out of politics and a host of other "socialist" priorities.
The Revolution, it seems, is here. Democrats ignore it at their peril.
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. |
Despite the yammering by the mainstream media and the neoliberals running the Democratic Party--not to mention Republicans and Fox News--the overwhelming majority of voters support progressive issues on a case-by-case basis, and the majority support the candidates who espouse them. Doubt that? See here, or here, or here, or any poll based the issues, not on political labels that--as a result of a four decades long branding effort funded by the oligarchy--have ceased to represent any real political perspective.
As for the majority supporting the progressive candidates, Sanders' and Warren's combined share of the voters exceeds Biden's by a factor of two, and both poll far better than Trump.
So you would think that Democrats would embrace progressivism and progressive candidates, but you'd be wrong. Instead, they're mounting a campaign against them with misinformation, distortion, innuendo, and that old time favorite--fear.
Neoliberal centrists and their allies in the mainstream media are using three main arguments in their combined assault on progressives.
First, they say we can't afford the programs progressives are advocating.
The two programs neoliberals most love to criticize as too costly are The Green New Deal and Medicare for All.
The notion that we can't afford the Green New Deal is as ludicrous as it is dangerous. If temperatures are allowed to increase by 3.7 C--about what full implementation of the Paris Agreement would accomplish, and about what the centrists are pushing--climate change would still impose some $551 trillion in damages. So-called moderates are essentially saying we can't afford to prevent $551 trillion in damages. This is madness, pure and simple, and there's nothing "moderate" about it, with climate change already causing unprecedented flooding, wildfires, droughts, storms and heat waves.
In essence, the moderates are trying to portray policies allowing for the destruction of our planetary life support system as prudent. The one thing science and reality is telling us is that climate change is here, now, and it will get worse far sooner than we'd previously predicted.
With the cost of renewable energy now less than fossil fuels in most cases, and with electric vehicles being as cheap as internal combustion cars, solutions are not only available, they're cost effective. Combined with aggressive tree-planting and land management, we could dramatically cut carbon in the near term, at relatively little cost.
But somehow, avoiding $551 trillion in damages while working to assure the transition to clean energy creates jobs and prosperity isn't "prudent" to moderates.
How about Medicare for All? Well, as Stephen Marks showed in a recent article, it's pretty easy to pay for it without imposing additional costs on low and middle income Americans. In fact, the cuts Marks outlined came up with a surplus after paying for Medicare for all. Marks' approach involved expanding the payroll tax above the current cap, and applying it to capital gains. Others have shown how a more rational defense budget could make us safer while freeing up substantial amounts of money for M4A. By the way, if you doubt that we can safely cut our Defense budget, consider this: the US currently has military troops in 138 nations, or about 70 percent of the countries in the world, and it's spending hundreds of billions on weapons even the military says it doesn't want. We don't have a Department of Defense, we're funding a Department of Offense.
The point is, by cutting costs, taxing the wealthy and corporations at levels they've historically been taxed, and adjusting bloated budgets for defense, there are many ways we could fund M4A without impacting the poor and middle class.
At the end of the day, the reason progressive policies such as free tuition, M4A, and the GND are portrayed as unaffordable is because the vast majority of income and wealth in this country now goes to the ultra-rich, who have a lower tax rate than the rest of Americans. And the so-called centrists want to keep it that way, even if it means 30 million Americans go without medical insurance, and the planet withers in a life-threatening permanent heat wave.
Second, they say the way to win is to get some centrists back from Trump. No. Real centrists are a rare breed, and pinning your hopes on getting a few to switch sides will be futile, for two reasons.
First, they're not about to go from Trump to an elitist neoliberal who calls him or herself a moderate. It was the policies and the hypocrisy of the neoliberals that drove them to Trump in the first place. He's their protest vote; their Molotov cocktail tossed in the face of Democrats who promised the moon around election time, then represented Wall Street, corporations, the ultra-rich and big banks the rest of the time. The fact is, Sanders and Warren are more likely to win back a few disgruntled centrists precisely because they understand this and back policies that matter to the people.
Second, there's simply not enough of them. If you add up left leaning Independents and Democrats they equal about 48 percent of the electorate, while right leaning Independents and Republicans add up to 39 percent of the electorate. Real centrists comprise only about 7 percent.
The real key to victory in electoral politics is the no shows. And with the majority of people holding progressive views, the way to get no-shows to show is not to back centrist policies, it's to run on values that favor the people, and that are supported by the majority of Americans.
But this brings us to the next shibboleth raised by neoliberals and centrists.
Third, they say that progressives need to focus--they are all over the place, and that's not how change happens. Here, Democrats need to take a lesson from Republicans, who managed a sweeping change in our national political dialogue in a few short decades.
They did it by focusing on values and principles (albeit ones that favored only the rich and powerful for the most part), not specific policies.
As Kevin Drum put it:
Every American over the age of ten knows what the GOP and the conservative movement stand for. Sing it with me now: low taxes, small government, strong defense, traditional families. See? You know the tune, and the harmony line, too...Everybody knows what the conservative brand stands for, because the conservative leadership has spent four decades nurturing a consistent brand identity for themselves.
And it delivered results.
If you go back to the early sixties, about half the people identified as Democrat, and only about a quarter Republican. At the same time, about 80 percent trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Today, only about 17 percent do, and only 3 percent believe government "does what's right" just about always, and Democrats make up only about 31 percent of the voters.
Today's neoliberal Democrat is ideologically closer to yesterday's Republican, and Republicans? Well, they're the new know-nothing party, immune to facts, impermeable to truth, and consumed by hate, fear, greed, anger, xenophobia and racism.
That's change. That's a virtual revolution. And the failure of Democrats to confront the Republican narrative by embracing values that put people first explains a big part of why their party has shrunk by 40 percent over the past five decades.
Wait, did someone say revolution? Isn't that exactly what Sanders has been calling for? In fact, he's already started it. Back in 2015 when he was advocating Medicare for All, the press ridiculed him and said America wasn't ready for "happy dreams." Today, the majority of Americans favor it, as well as the GND, free tuition, a $15 minimum wage, sane gun laws, a repeal of Trump's tax cuts for the rich, overturning Citizen's United and getting money out of politics and a host of other "socialist" priorities.
The Revolution, it seems, is here. Democrats ignore it at their peril.
Despite the yammering by the mainstream media and the neoliberals running the Democratic Party--not to mention Republicans and Fox News--the overwhelming majority of voters support progressive issues on a case-by-case basis, and the majority support the candidates who espouse them. Doubt that? See here, or here, or here, or any poll based the issues, not on political labels that--as a result of a four decades long branding effort funded by the oligarchy--have ceased to represent any real political perspective.
As for the majority supporting the progressive candidates, Sanders' and Warren's combined share of the voters exceeds Biden's by a factor of two, and both poll far better than Trump.
So you would think that Democrats would embrace progressivism and progressive candidates, but you'd be wrong. Instead, they're mounting a campaign against them with misinformation, distortion, innuendo, and that old time favorite--fear.
Neoliberal centrists and their allies in the mainstream media are using three main arguments in their combined assault on progressives.
First, they say we can't afford the programs progressives are advocating.
The two programs neoliberals most love to criticize as too costly are The Green New Deal and Medicare for All.
The notion that we can't afford the Green New Deal is as ludicrous as it is dangerous. If temperatures are allowed to increase by 3.7 C--about what full implementation of the Paris Agreement would accomplish, and about what the centrists are pushing--climate change would still impose some $551 trillion in damages. So-called moderates are essentially saying we can't afford to prevent $551 trillion in damages. This is madness, pure and simple, and there's nothing "moderate" about it, with climate change already causing unprecedented flooding, wildfires, droughts, storms and heat waves.
In essence, the moderates are trying to portray policies allowing for the destruction of our planetary life support system as prudent. The one thing science and reality is telling us is that climate change is here, now, and it will get worse far sooner than we'd previously predicted.
With the cost of renewable energy now less than fossil fuels in most cases, and with electric vehicles being as cheap as internal combustion cars, solutions are not only available, they're cost effective. Combined with aggressive tree-planting and land management, we could dramatically cut carbon in the near term, at relatively little cost.
But somehow, avoiding $551 trillion in damages while working to assure the transition to clean energy creates jobs and prosperity isn't "prudent" to moderates.
How about Medicare for All? Well, as Stephen Marks showed in a recent article, it's pretty easy to pay for it without imposing additional costs on low and middle income Americans. In fact, the cuts Marks outlined came up with a surplus after paying for Medicare for all. Marks' approach involved expanding the payroll tax above the current cap, and applying it to capital gains. Others have shown how a more rational defense budget could make us safer while freeing up substantial amounts of money for M4A. By the way, if you doubt that we can safely cut our Defense budget, consider this: the US currently has military troops in 138 nations, or about 70 percent of the countries in the world, and it's spending hundreds of billions on weapons even the military says it doesn't want. We don't have a Department of Defense, we're funding a Department of Offense.
The point is, by cutting costs, taxing the wealthy and corporations at levels they've historically been taxed, and adjusting bloated budgets for defense, there are many ways we could fund M4A without impacting the poor and middle class.
At the end of the day, the reason progressive policies such as free tuition, M4A, and the GND are portrayed as unaffordable is because the vast majority of income and wealth in this country now goes to the ultra-rich, who have a lower tax rate than the rest of Americans. And the so-called centrists want to keep it that way, even if it means 30 million Americans go without medical insurance, and the planet withers in a life-threatening permanent heat wave.
Second, they say the way to win is to get some centrists back from Trump. No. Real centrists are a rare breed, and pinning your hopes on getting a few to switch sides will be futile, for two reasons.
First, they're not about to go from Trump to an elitist neoliberal who calls him or herself a moderate. It was the policies and the hypocrisy of the neoliberals that drove them to Trump in the first place. He's their protest vote; their Molotov cocktail tossed in the face of Democrats who promised the moon around election time, then represented Wall Street, corporations, the ultra-rich and big banks the rest of the time. The fact is, Sanders and Warren are more likely to win back a few disgruntled centrists precisely because they understand this and back policies that matter to the people.
Second, there's simply not enough of them. If you add up left leaning Independents and Democrats they equal about 48 percent of the electorate, while right leaning Independents and Republicans add up to 39 percent of the electorate. Real centrists comprise only about 7 percent.
The real key to victory in electoral politics is the no shows. And with the majority of people holding progressive views, the way to get no-shows to show is not to back centrist policies, it's to run on values that favor the people, and that are supported by the majority of Americans.
But this brings us to the next shibboleth raised by neoliberals and centrists.
Third, they say that progressives need to focus--they are all over the place, and that's not how change happens. Here, Democrats need to take a lesson from Republicans, who managed a sweeping change in our national political dialogue in a few short decades.
They did it by focusing on values and principles (albeit ones that favored only the rich and powerful for the most part), not specific policies.
As Kevin Drum put it:
Every American over the age of ten knows what the GOP and the conservative movement stand for. Sing it with me now: low taxes, small government, strong defense, traditional families. See? You know the tune, and the harmony line, too...Everybody knows what the conservative brand stands for, because the conservative leadership has spent four decades nurturing a consistent brand identity for themselves.
And it delivered results.
If you go back to the early sixties, about half the people identified as Democrat, and only about a quarter Republican. At the same time, about 80 percent trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Today, only about 17 percent do, and only 3 percent believe government "does what's right" just about always, and Democrats make up only about 31 percent of the voters.
Today's neoliberal Democrat is ideologically closer to yesterday's Republican, and Republicans? Well, they're the new know-nothing party, immune to facts, impermeable to truth, and consumed by hate, fear, greed, anger, xenophobia and racism.
That's change. That's a virtual revolution. And the failure of Democrats to confront the Republican narrative by embracing values that put people first explains a big part of why their party has shrunk by 40 percent over the past five decades.
Wait, did someone say revolution? Isn't that exactly what Sanders has been calling for? In fact, he's already started it. Back in 2015 when he was advocating Medicare for All, the press ridiculed him and said America wasn't ready for "happy dreams." Today, the majority of Americans favor it, as well as the GND, free tuition, a $15 minimum wage, sane gun laws, a repeal of Trump's tax cuts for the rich, overturning Citizen's United and getting money out of politics and a host of other "socialist" priorities.
The Revolution, it seems, is here. Democrats ignore it at their peril.
"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?"