Trump Advocates Mass Incarceration, 'Tent Cities' To Address Homelessness
The plan is unlikely to work, and the government already has a sordid recent history of funneling people into tent cities anyway.

On April 18, former President Donald Trump posted a video on his Truth Social account titled "Homelessness Plan." In it, Trump alleged that "the homeless, the drug-addicted, and the violent and dangerously deranged" had ruined America's cities, "turn[ing] every park and sidewalk into a place for them to squat and do drugs." He promised, "When I'm back in the White House, we will use every tool, lever, and authority" to "end the scourge of homelessness and make our cities clean and safe and beautiful once again."
How would he accomplish this? "Working with states, we will ban urban camping wherever possible…. We will then open up large parcels of inexpensive land; bring in doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and drug rehab specialists; and create tent cities where the homeless can be relocated and their problems identified."
Treatment would be catered to individual need: "For those who have addictions, substance abuse, and common mental health problems, we will get them into treatment. And for those who are severely mentally ill and deeply disturbed, we will bring them back to mental institutions where they belong, with the goal of reintegrating them back into society once they are well enough to manage."
Trump's plan may sound magnanimous, but it's anything but. First off, there's no telling what such a plan, or for that matter any plan, would cost. Advocates often say that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates $20 billion as the cost of ending homelessness in America. But that number was an informal, unverified estimate of the annual cost in 2012. And as Nan Roman, president and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, told VERIFY in 2021, "It's not so difficult to figure out what it would cost to end homelessness for everyone who is homeless tonight…. The problem is that more people BECOME homeless every day because they don't earn enough to pay for housing – we're 7 million housing units short to meet the needs of low-income people."
For his plan, Trump merely offered that "with all of the money we will save by ending mass unskilled migration, we will have a huge dividend" to put toward ending homelessness. But the canard that low-skilled immigrants "cost" the U.S. on balance is flawed, and if anything, we have too few.
Far from being beneficent, Trump's plan would force the homeless to either go along or go to jail: "Violators of these [urban camping] bans will be arrested," he clarified, "but they will be given the option to accept treatment and services if they're willing to be rehabilitated. Many of them don't want that, but we'll give them the option."
Unsurprisingly, one cannot simply ban the act of being homeless—at least, not without making life worse for those affected. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, "The criminalization of homelessness is aimed at the visual ramifications of homelessness, not the root causes. Not only does it fail to address the underlying causes, but it further undermines the challenges of homelessness." For example: "A criminal record adds to the already difficult situation of finding employment, getting housing, or being eligible for certain services."
Past incarceration, Trump's plan would force people into either mandatory treatment or mental institutions, based on the government's determination of where they deserve to be. As Reason's Mike Riggs wrote in the May 2023 "Debate Issue:"
No policy model can eradicate homelessness. Not everyone on the street wants or can benefit from intervention. Involuntary commitment, even for the short, multiday periods currently allowed under most state laws, often exacerbates feelings of paranoia. Holding patients indefinitely turns them into prisoners. The only comprehensive solution—make homelessness illegal, and aggressively enforce that law—would be unconstitutional and barbaric.
But let's imagine that Trump's plan is implemented exactly as envisioned, and a significant portion of the more than 500,000 people experiencing homelessness are funneled into open-air tent cities. When the federal government set up shelters for unaccompanied minors who came across the southern border, conditions in the facilities were horrid. In one such shelter at Fort Bliss near El Paso, Texas, thousands of children and teenagers were housed in outdoor tents. Whistleblowers detailed unsanitary conditions and unmet medical needs.
Homelessness is a complex problem with numerous causes, and it stands to reason that a solution would be multipronged as well. This week, Reason's Liz Wolfe reported on the different policies pursued by Texas and California. Needless to say, any serious proposal for ending homelessness should be more complicated than simply criminalizing the act of being homeless.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
His plan is no worse than other pie in the sky plans, but Trump isn't criminalizing anything; he's not rounding up 100% of homelessness. One thing that could be done is to deport every illegal in America '...by any means necessary...'. That would add funds that could be used to address the homeless and fix the non existent shortage of housing problem, i.e. ' we're 7 million housing units short to meet the needs of low-income people....' AI and automation should used to reduce population and need for workers (and thus houses) by 20 40 50% the same way technology reduced the need for farmers and farm workers while food production increased to the point of feeding 300 million and exporting surplus.
but Trump isn't criminalizing anything
"Far from being beneficent, Trump's plan would force the homeless to either go along or go to jail: 'Violators of these [urban camping] bans will be arrested,' he clarified, 'but they will be given the option to accept treatment and services if they're willing to be rehabilitated. Many of them don't want that, but we'll give them the option.'"
The vast majority of homeless and the same percentage both on drugs and mentally ill. That’s the correlation we need to recognize.
As with many mental illness related problems the professional medical community is opposed by lobbyists for mentally ill lifestyles that oppose even the concept of rehabilitation.
The majority of this group don’t need incarceration with criminals but they do need incarceration with controlled separation from their drug dependency in conjunction with the development of self worth through productive labour resulting in them meeting their own basic needs of food, clothing and shelter.
This will help those who can become valued members of society and identify other needs for those who fail to.
The first group that needs to be addressed are the lobbyists advocating the mentally ill lifestyles.
It’s better than doing nothing.
The majority of this group don’t need incarceration with criminals but they do need incarceration with controlled separation from their drug dependency in conjunction with the development of self worth through productive labour resulting in them meeting their own basic needs of food, clothing and shelter.
So you're saying work will make them free?
Yeah, don’t you?
Do you sit on your ass with your hand out and laugh at the suckers who drop two bits on you out of pity?
WHOOOOOOSH
Trying to passive-aggressively irony-challenge? What's he supposed to do, trade bons mots tit for tat? Like he has to acknowledge your riotously funny remarks, or it's like he doesn't get them?
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.“ George Orwell
Freedom is Slavery?
Or, they could get a job and find a place to rent, like the rest of us.
Nuance. "Violators of these urban camping bans" does not mean everyone who's homeless and seeking a home, only people who camp out in the street for us to trip over.
Uh huh. Got it. If Trump doesn’t criminalize everyone it means he isn’t criminalizing anything.
Words, such as “any” and “every” have logical meanings.
What's he advocating changing to criminal status? The only homeless who bother people are the ones violating the laws I mentioned. He's not saying the states should criminalize homeless who aren't bothering people. He's just pointing out that if the states want to deal with the problem, they already have laws — if they choose to enforce them! If not, that's their problem.
One thing that could be done is to deport every illegal in America ‘…by any means necessary…’. That would add funds
Would enhanced law enforcement not require more funding?
Look, some police departments don't even have nuclear weapons yet. How can they be expected to do their jobs?
lol
Reassign all those new, ARMED, IRS agents "for free".
That’s a good idea.
His plan is worse than almost all other plans like this. It ranks above a plan to put Arbeit Mach Frei at the entrance – but I’m sure the Rothbard Caucus will come up with ideas to make those tent cities generate a profit and sell that to Trumpbots
We already have tent cities. Might as well put up a sign "Alles ist frei unter 999 $"
^
And we'll rely on pathetic pieces of lefty shit to offer comments like this.
Unsurprisingly, one cannot simply ban the act of being homeless—at least, not without
making life worse for those affecteda novel virus as an excuse.FTFY.
So today's version of Hooverville would sound too pedestrian if called "Trumpville".
Trump Taj Mahal Playland might be better.
"Trumpville"
Hey, let the man have his legacy!
Donnie would use his beloved Eminent Domain to seize the best real estate, then use another favorite, Asset Forfeiture to fund Trumpville and borrow the rest from future taxpayers.
DREAMY LIBERTARIAN!
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
He's just jealous of everyone else's legacy.
Hey Mike, you’ve found a pal. Too bad it’s the unrepentant pedophile.
Stop quoting those homeless advocacy morons who pretend that homeless is about lack of houses.
It’s not. It’s about mental illness, substance abuse, and an inability/refusal to confirm to basic societal expectations of behavior. Simply giving these people housing won’t fix the rest of their problems, and those problems are severe enough that most of them won’t be able to keep the housing without significant additional help.
People in supportive housing have better outcomes for treatment than people on the street. One of the reasons is treating people on the street is difficult because you can't always find them when it's treatment time, therefore adherence to treatment is low or falls off.
You are absolutely correct in saying what it's about. But no one talking about just giving them housing alone, treatment is still necessary. Housing first has shown success helping with treatment outcomes because it removes many of the barriers of doing it on the street. Better adherence, better outcomes.
I'm not advocating for it, but I understand the concept.
I'm more in the fuck you, cut spending camp.
"basic societal expectations of behavior"
Hmmm... I don't see that in the Constitution anywhere nor did I ever vote on such.
I get your point. But where does shitting on the sidewalk or jerking off in public fit?
It's Shrike, so where do you think?
Nor can I find my requirement to support deadbeats, miscreants, junkies, bums, or mentally unstable individuals anywhere in the Constitution.
In a document preambled with the first three words of “We the people” you couldn’t find anything about social expectations of behavior? Because I don’t see anywhere that it says we should punish your murderer or afford your social expectation of a vote on such either.
This doesn't sound like concentration camps at all.
Nope. Not at all. Let's start by "re-locating" the Romany first. Then proceed with other groups...
Fuck off, faggot.
Or post your address.
any serious proposal for ending homelessness should be more complicated than simply criminalizing the act of being homeless.
"Oh, very well. Also criminalize procreation by the homeless."
I'd buy that for a dollar!
The federal government needs to stay far away from what is a state and local issue.
Are you stuck in 1900 or something? Do you seriously think the federal government cares about staying out of state and local issues?
I myself don’t really care that much about state’s rights, since I view almost any action done by any level of government (whether state, local or federal) as tyrannical. I never understand the people who view tyranny as okay as long as it's not done by the federal government.
So you would rather live under one tyranny than have the option to move to the tyrant you prefer? Government will exist. If gov = tyranny then tyranny will always exist. The ability to pick your preferred tyrant is a much better system than everyone living under the one.
^^ WELL SAID ^^ +100000000000000
There's a long history of states and local forcing homeless and poor people into someone else's jurisdiction.
I agree that feds offer nothing re what to do. But they are the only ones who can prevent the states from doing what they shouldn't either.
Trumps RINO tendencies are surfacing... Must be election time.
Funny how the people praise the "Big" Gov-Gun "Plans" while also cursing the "Big Gov-Gun" dictation. I remember a day when people weren't F'En retards and praised Individual Liberty and Justice for all instead of [WE] mobs packing Gov-Guns with a "Big Plan" to ROB the citizens bank.
I would be more excited about this if it were directed at prominent democrats and RINO collaborators.
1. State issue.
2. Where are you going to find psychiatrists and other med professionals who want to work in the middle of nowhere on "large parcels of inexpensive land"?
3. Are there enough psychiatrists, anyway?
4. Is it wrong to hope that both presumptive 2024 frontrunners suffer massive strokes?
Given the job psychiatrists have been doing they may be a large part of the problem in the first place.
It's not wrong to hope that the 2024 frontrunners suffer massive strokes. It's wrong to hope that would make a damn bit of difference to voters.
Vinegar strokes?
I still think we should round them up and ship them to Mexico City. Or possibly Caracas. Seems like a fair trade.
One idea I've had for a long time: bomb other countries with people (have to nod to Castro's move as inspiration).
Instead of using explosives, round up the crackheads, burglars, rapists, etc and loaf them on a plane. Fly that plane over enemy territory and shove them out.
Would be most useful if you give them parachutes. Let Kim Jong and the Ayatollahs deal with hundreds of thousands of these dudes running loose inside their borders.
Send them to Ukraine; we've sent almost everything else, might as well give them some cannon fodder along with the kitchen sink.
This is a great idea.
I've wondered about it for years.
The homeless are an aggressive force, and steal a significant amount of money from taxpayers.
This is a great idea.
It has some potential. Personally, I think shipping them all to Martha's Vineyard would be better but that seems like it would offend Trump's sense of himself.
I note a distinct lack of police or other regulatory presence in relocating these masses of people identified for their inability to self-regulate to the middle of nowhere. Will there be walls and razor-wire fences? No cars and/or visitors? Or will it be more of a game preserve type of situation where the locals are free to shoot anyone who steps foot off the preserve?
I know more than a couple farmers who are already aggravated by vagrants stealing vehicles or meth addicts stealing 1,000 gal. ammonia tanks to cut their meth.
George Carlin recommended golf courses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk
Well, the "The only blacks you'll find in country clubs are carrying trays." comment sure didn't age well.
Great idea. Never mind things like zoning, housing codes, minimum wage, crappy schools, occupational licensing and other things government does to increase the cost of housing and prevent people from earning money. Let’s fix this with MORE government!
"Let’s fix this with MORE government!" <----- The CURSE....
You pegged that one on the head.
May not be a great plan, but it is a plan, and it would work.
One other option is mobs of outraged citizens with torches and pitchforks.
(Amazon sells both)
"...(Amazon sells both)..."
I can see the headlines, "The Tiki-Torch Riots!" (humor)
It would not work.
It's similar to what Guliani did in the 90s and it did work to a noticeable degree. That's probably were Trump got the idea.
Greenland. Ship them there. Drop off raw food supplies monthly. Enough lumber for each to build there own shelter. A revolver with three bullets.
Each person gets a revolver with three bullets or just one revolver with three bullets is dropped with the whole group?
We talking homeless Hunger Games here?
Everyone gets a revolver and 3 bullets. Should be standard with all incarceration. Equity for everyone.
There's a noticeable lack of "death squads" in Trump's proposal.
More homeless would just form... Democrats have been teaching people for years that being productive should be punished (taxed to death) and being useless is a blessing (?free? money).
It's no secret; it's just the blatant ignorance to the reality of calls to "Tax/STEAL from the Rich" and "Subsidize the poor/useless" mentality.
""advocates often say that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates $20 billion as the cost of ending homelessness in America.""
The advocates are wrong. $20 Billion is a joke. To claim it can be done as a lump sum is a bigger joke. The amount would be more than $20 Billion annually.
NYC DHS claims to have a budget of $2 Billion annually. Although I've seen a lesser number elsewhere. But DHS is only one entity that give money that providers services to the homeless. NYS and the feds kick in a lot of cash.
""As an agency comprised of 2,000 employees, with an annual operating budget of over $2 billion, DHS is one of the largest organizations of its kind committed to preventing and addressing homelessness in New York City.""
https://www.nyc.gov/site/dhs/about/inside-dhs.page
Advocates often say that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates $20 billion as the cost of ending homelessness in America.
That quote is horseshit and Reason knows it.
King County alone has proposed $25.5 billion to end homelessness, 99% of which resides in one city.
An no, a little bit of ‘upzoning’ will not fix the problem of people shooting up under an overpass surrounded by a pile of stolen mountain bikes.
Think about that for a moment, that's $25.5 billion on a five year plan with an estimated $3.5 billion per year to "manage the program".
This is AFTER King County's failed "ten year plan to end homelessness" unveiled in 2005.
Not only did they fail to end homelessness, but they made the problem orders of magnitude worse, expanded the size, scope and reach of government, the administrative state, and created one of the biggest Homelessness Industrial Complexes human civilization has ever seen.
Yep. If 20 Billion could end homelessness, we could talk Musk into coughing up the cash.
If $20 billion could end homelessness, we wouldn't have any homelessness because we've (as a country) spent 100 times that in the last year alone.
That quote is horseshit and Reason knows it.
Lancaster didn't say otherwise. In fact, the rest of the paragraph goes on to give reasons it is too low.
just wall off one city ... Omaha ... put them all there and have some off-book military types run the show
hamsterdam
Omaha, somewhere in middle America?
grew up hating the Huskers it's a grudge thing.
It's a Counting Crows thing.
thought it might be a reference. mme. dillinger was not a fan.
The problem is that more people BECOME homeless every day because they don't earn enough to pay for housing – we're 7 million housing units short to meet the needs of low-income people."
People UN-BECOME homeless every day too.
If you think the reason people become homeless is they don’t earn enough to pay for housing, the National Alliance to End Homelessness will fail under your leadership. If you do not understand the problem, you will not be part of the solution.
So let's have a nationwide witch hunt to fill up some concentration camps. Sounds like a Trump policy. The only thing missing is locating the magic rehab camp in Death Valley.
He fucked up by not tying it in to COVID policy. That way he would have gotten Democratic buy-in.
Yea, better to coddle the absolute dregs of humanity, letting them do whatever they want wherever they want, and consume massive public resources.
Providing a place where they can be worthless without imposing on other people’s lives would be just awful. Their malevolent, predatory behavior must be tolerated, even encouraged, without limits. Otherwise you’re literally Hitler.
Sounds like a typical leftist eunuch plan.
Humorously; Trump is pitching the exact same Sh*t the Democrats have been pitching for centuries. Funny how the leftards start to *think* all the sudden once they find an opportunity to ditch on Trump.
Filling up the camps will be easy. Just have pied pipers wander around singing:
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
You never change your socks
And the little streams of alcohol
Come trickling down the rocks
The brakemen have to tip their hats
And the railroad bulls are blind
There's a lake of stew
And of whiskey too
You can paddle all around them
In a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
"Trump Advocates Mass Incarceration, 'Tent Cities' To Address Homelessness"
Fascist
"Fauci Advocates Mass Incarceration, 'Tent Cities' To Address Vaccine Resistors"
American hero.
They're not remotely the same situation though.
The alternative to sending people who forego the vaccine to camps is that they live normal lives on their own property and engaging in society according to clear order.
The alternative to sending the homeless to camps is that they continue occupying others' property and harassing people who are just trying to go about their lives unmolested.
It's a question of reasonable imposition.
Cities and towns, the people living in them, have no duty to support and tolerate people who refuse to support themselves. Every city/town could justly kick out all the homeless and let them wander the wilderness. That would be appropriate, but rural folk would then be forced to deal with them.
Or you could set up camps/reservations designated for those who have nowhere to live, and no desire to legitimately acquire the means for somewhere to live.
Because the current situation, that of tolerating widespread vagrancy, is allowing them to do whatever they want wherever they want regardless of the effect on other citizens.
It’s the democrat way.
It's possible that not rewarding bums for being bums might possibly reduce the number.
Universal Misinformation
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)
In the matter of so-called homelessness, let's call it that which it really is; namely, vagrancy. One can be homeless without being an indigent vagrant or derelict; e.g., migrating from one five-starred hotel to another.
In the matter of who are indigent vagrants, truly most are either addicts or mentally ill or both. Sadly, a gullible American public is led to believe that "rehabilitation" for addiction and Mental Health Centers for the mentally ill are effective. They are not. Reality, however, doesn't stop politicians and others from peddling them as solutions.
Are there solutions? Yes, as described in the semi-fictional novel, Retribution Fever; but, by and large, the American public prefers to deny the reality of many issues; e.g., racial differences. Those who deny reality are doomed to a dismal destiny.
https://www.nationonfire.com/negroes/ .
There's no need to organize this. We already have assisted living facilities for the demented. I have a friend here who's an old figure in the American libertarian movement and is now well into dementia. I know eventually I'll have to get rid of him, but there are places exactly for that purpose. Are we running out of them? It's one of the problems of the aging of the population, maybe there's a temporary shortage and more money is needed for them. Other than that, just enforce laws against trespassing and blocking traffic.
Is your friend Hank Phillips?
No. Donald Meinshausen. He was a figure at or near the center of the formation of the Radical Libertarian Alliance out of YAF in 1970. He was great at networking, was a mutual contact of lots of people who might never have met otherwise. Ask old libertarians. They know him or know of him.
I thought it might be Hank. He’s clearly losing his mind, based on his posts.
One of the biggest airlines in the world, British Airways flies millions of passengers each year. Even while the airline works hard to deliver a dependable and effective service, occasionally flights can be cancelled for circumstances beyond its control. Understanding your alternatives and your rights as a passenger are crucial if you ever find yourself in this circumstance. British Airways Flight cancellations can occur for various reasons, such as adverse weather, aircraft malfunctions, limits on air traffic control, or strikes. Sometimes an airline will cancel a flight for operational or low demand reasons.
Nobody is planning on banning "the act of being homeless". What people are banning is the act of camping in places where camping is not permitted, the act of defecating in the streets, the act of littering. In fact, those acts are in place and need to be enforced.
We call that "economic incentives."
Look, many homeless are homeless as a result of choices and incentives. Those who are genuinely ill and unable to work have government programs and charities available for them.
Until the democrats are expunged form our government things will rapidly get worse.
The PROBLEM is that housing, energy, and environmental codes, "renters rights", taxes, and regulations have made it so expensive, risky, and slow to build and provide housing that housing is in short supply.
^^ BINGO ^^
Government induced problem that advertises it to be the cure-all.
As practically everything goes; in this Nazi-Addled nation.
A big part of the "homeless problem" has happened because both the left and right sides of the aisle collaborated to shut down state and local mental institutions. The inmates (many of whom did present as reasonably functional, at least while on their meds) were forced out, but with nowhere to go. They went off their meds and went right back to crazytown.
If I had a relative with Alzheimer's and allowed him to wander the streets being as senile as he wanted to be, I'd be in a lot of trouble for "elder abuse." But if it's someone younger with serious mental problems, he or she can wander all he wants, and anybody objecting is a Grade-A meanypants.
That’s sort of it. But an awful lot of homeless are junkies that don’t give a shit about anything other than a getting high and are unwilling to work or follow basic rules to stay at a shelter. We need to quit enabling those people.
“unwilling to work”.. And I’ll go one step further and say that NOT paying for one’s own livelihood (dependency) should’ve always been a crime properly addressed by the criminal system. The prison system is an excellent welfare system.
Somewhere it became popular to think people not paying their contractually enforceable bills/debts was somehow not criminal. It’s always been a crime (act of theft) in every angle one can throw at it. If one is going to “borrow” money they better d*mn be sure they can “return” that money instead of using it as an excuse to steal endlessly.
Gov-Guns cannot make sh*t. It can only STEAL it. And once everything is stolen; there is nothing left (the very reason socialism fails). And the one's being stolen from are going to get tired of making anything at all. The USA is actually teetering on this pit of despair right now. Plenty of jobs but no one wants to work. Why would they want to work? They get taxes up the *ss if they work and ?free? checks are in the mail.
So what is the big deal?? Just because “Orange hair” said it, it’s bad? Portland Oregon is GIVING tents to the homeless (at taxpayer expense), and attempting to provide drug intervention and other health care. The “Tent Communities” get moved occasionally when neighboring citizens get robbed and property vandalized, then it’s on to another neighborhood to get the scorched earth treatment. Incidentally, when the homeless get moved on, they leave their garbage and free housing behind in tatters, to be cleaned up at taxpayer expense. The only folks skinning a fat hog are the “Homeless Advocates” that get taxpayer money to fix the problem. And the problem doesn’t get fixed. “Homeless Industrial Complex”. You cannot get an answer from city / county government when asked for metrics of success. Just spend more money, we'll see if we get it right sometime.