Trump cracks down on homelessness with executive order enabling local governments
The order the US president signed on Thursday will seek the 'reversal of federal or state judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees' that restrict local governments' ability to respond to the crisis, and redirect funds to support rehabilitation and treatment. The order aims to 'restore public order', saying 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe', according to the order.
The action comes as the homelessness crisis in the US has significantly worsened in recent years driven by a widespread shortage of affordable housing. Last year, a single-day count, which is a rough estimate, recorded more than 770,000 people experiencing homelessness across the country, the highest figure ever documented.
Cities and states have adopted an increasingly punitive approach to homelessness, seeking to push people out of parks and city streets, even when there is no shelter available. The supreme court ruled last year that cities can impose fines and even jail time for unhoused people for sleeping outside after local governments argued some protections for unhoused people prevented them from taking action to reduce homelessness.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told USA Today, which first reported on the executive order, that the president was 'delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again' and end homelessness.
'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need,' she said.
The president's order comes after last year's US supreme court ruling, which was one of the most consequential legal decisions on homelessness in decades in the US.
That ruling held that it is not 'cruel and unusual punishment' to criminalize camping when there is no shelter available. The case originated in Grants Pass, a city in Oregon that was defending its efforts to prosecute people for sleeping in public.
Unhoused people in the US have long faced crackdowns and sweeps, with policies and police practices that result in law enforcement harassment, tickets or jail time. But the ruling supercharged those kinds of aggressive responses, emboldening cities and states to punish encampment residents who have no other options for shelter.
In a report last month, the American Civil Liberties Union found that cities across the US have introduced more than 320 bills criminalizing unhoused people, the majority of which have passed. The crackdowns have taken place in Democratic- and Republican-run states alike.
Advocates for unhoused people's rights have long argued that criminalization only exacerbates the housing crisis, shuffling people in and out of jail or from one neighborhood to the next, as they lose their belongings and connections to providers, fall further into debt and wind up in increasingly unsafe conditions.
During his campaign last year, Trump used dark rhetoric to talk about the humanitarian crisis, threatening to force people into 'tent cities', raising fears that some of the poorest, most vulnerable Americans could end up in remote locations in settings that resemble concentration camps.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU chief von der Leyen heads to Scotland for trade talks with Trump
BRUSSELS/EDINBURGH, July 26 (Reuters) - EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen headed to Scotland on Saturday ahead of a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday afternoon, commission spokespeople said, as EU officials said the two sides were nearing a trade agreement. Trump, in Scotland for a few days of golfing and bilateral meetings, told reporters upon his arrival on Friday evening that he was looking forward to meeting with von der Leyen, calling her a "highly respected" leader. He repeated his view that there was a 50-50 chance that the U.S. and the 27-member European Union could reach a framework trade pact, adding that Brussels wanted to "make a deal very badly". If it happened, he said it would be the biggest trade agreement reached yet by his administration, surpassing the $550 billion accord agreed with Japan earlier this week. The White House has released no details about the planned meeting or the terms of the emerging agreement. The European Commission on Thursday said a negotiated trade solution with the United States was within reach, even as EU members voted to approve counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in case the talks collapse. To get a deal, Trump said the EU would have to "buy down" that tariff rate, although he gave no specifics. EU diplomats say a possible deal between Washington and Brussels would likely include a broad 15% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S., mirroring the U.S.-Japan deal, along with a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum. The broad tariff rate would be half the 30% duties that Trump has threatened to slap on EU goods from August 1. It remains unclear if Washington will agree to exempt the EU from sectoral tariffs on automobiles, pharmaceuticals and other goods that have already been announced or are pending. Combining goods, services and investment, the EU and the United States are each other's largest trading partners by far. The American Chamber of Commerce in Brussels warned in March that any conflict jeopardized $9.5 trillion of business in the world's most important commercial relationship.
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump bids to release Epstein grand jury files – what secrets might they hold?
As Donald Trump reels from political fallout related to his justice department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, the US president has directed his loyal attorney general, Pam Bondi, to 'release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval'. It is an effort at damage control for a White House now engulfed in endless speculation – especially among Trump's previously devoted Maga base – about the extent of Trump's relationship with the late, disgraced sex trafficker and wealthy financier who killed himself in jail in 2019. Justice department attorneys quickly filed paperwork in Manhattan and south Florida federal courts requesting unsealing of grand jury testimony for Epstein. Justice department officials have also asked a New York judge to release grand jury transcripts for Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein's sometimes girlfriend and longtime confidante who in 2021 was convicted of sex trafficking for luring teenage girls into his orbit. A grand jury is a panel that decides whether evidence presented by prosecutors shows 'probable cause' that someone committed a crime, and whether they should be tried. Should the grand jury, which is not the trial jury, find that there is sufficient evidence, an indictment will be issued. But veteran US attorneys, including those who have represented Epstein victims, told the Guardian that any release of grand jury transcripts around Epstein and Maxwell might not provide much insight into Epstein's crimes and whether others were involved in abusing minors – or in covering up his years of predation of young girls and women. The lawyers, however, insist that meaningful information does exist in yet-to-be released Epstein files held by federal law enforcement authorities from multiple investigations into Epstein. Whether the political will – and legal ability – exists to release any or all of those files remains to be seen. 'Grand juries serve two functions: to indict and to investigate. The transcripts may contain testimony of victims or cooperating witnesses if the grand jury was investigating Epstein,' Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, and a former federal prosecutor, said of grand jury processes. The grand jury transcripts could include graphic and explicit evidence, but they could also include more pro forma information about the actions of Epstein and Maxwell, who is serving jail time in Florida. 'If they were indicting Epstein, we can expect to see law enforcement witnesses summarizing the evidence of probable cause to support the charges. That would probably be less interesting, and similar to the factual allegations in the Epstein indictment,' Rahmani said. He added: 'There is likely much more salacious evidence out there than the grand jury transcripts. 'The FBI interview summaries and internal Department of Justice memoranda probably contain the juiciest details. The grand jury transcripts are just a small part of the picture. If Bondi was serious about transparency, she would make public the complete Epstein files, subject to redactions to protect the privacy rights of the victims.' Top lawyer Gloria Allred, who has represented multiple Epstein victims, said government files should be made public with several exceptions, such as redaction of victims' names and identifying information, attorney-client communications and material depicting abuse. 'I think there is information that the government could release, such as texts, emails and other electronic communications of Jeffrey Epstein and anyone with whom he communicated. In addition, any communications on behalf of Mr Epstein made by his employees who may have played a part in recruiting or dealing with victims at the request of Mr Epstein and/or Ms Maxwell could be released,' Allred said. 'All evidence in the file of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York which was gathered for the prosecution of Mr Epstein, with the exceptions which I have listed previously, could be released.' Allred believes 'all files, both federal and state that reflect the investigation and potential prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida should also be made public'. Thorough investigations of Epstein were conducted in New York and Florida, Allred pointed out, and those investigations would be in those files. Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for Epstein victims, voiced similar sentiments. 'The real documents that the public needs to see are the documents maintained by the FBI and Department of Justice. They have thousands of hours of videotapes and investigative memos and documents regarding the data that was seized at his homes,' he said. Kuvin said that unsealing grand jury testimony was a 'good first step' but limits information to four victims over whom Epstein was charged in New York. 'I am aware that the FBI had interviewed over 40 girls during their investigations. Where are those interviews, where are those reports? 'The abusers should be disclosed to the public so that we may all know who they are,' Kuvin also said, insisting that victims' privacy must be protected in such a process. He called on Trump to act. 'This administration could end the dispute tomorrow by the president signing an executive order demanding the release of all the material in the custody of the FBI and DoJ,' Kuvin said. 'Either Trump has the power to do this, or he must admit that he is not as powerful as he has professed to be to the public and his Maga followers.' Trump's current political woes stem from his backtracking on previous vows to release the Epstein files. On the campaign trail, he vowed to declassify the files, but then attracted scathing criticism when his justice department released a memo claiming that there was no 'incriminating' client list within the tranche of documents related to Epstein. The justice department's claim that they did not find evidence implicating third parties has further fanned the flames of suspicion, especially as last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Bondi had warned Trump that his name appears in the files. A smattering of reports highlighting Trump's friendship with Epstein several decades ago – which reportedly ended following a real estate dispute, several years before the late financier admitted to a state-level charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida – has proved yet another political minefield. Even if federal authorities and Trump drag their feet in releasing these documents, it is possible that new civil litigation could eventually force them to do so raising the prospect of yet more political scandals heading Trump's way. Maria Farmer, an Epstein survivor who in 1996 told authorities he and Maxwell were abusing minors including her sister, is suing the federal government over their handling of these claims. Farmer's suit alleges that the FBI 'chose to do absolutely nothing'. Farmer also claims that the FBI agent taking her call 'hung up on her, and no one at the FBI attempted to follow up with her or pursue her valid and serious allegations, most of which continued for many years, if not decades, with wide-ranging tragic consequences.' If this litigation progresses, both sides would exchange evidence related to the claims in a process called discovery. While discovery is typically subject to a confidentiality agreement, and solidified by a court order, information from this exchange could come up in subsequent court papers that are public. 'What this lawsuit could reveal is what the FBI and the department did and did not do, what they failed to do – they failed to do their job,' Farmer's attorney, Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, told the Guardian. Freeman noted, for example, that she has a redacted set of pages from what appears to be a 2006 field interview with Farmer, during which an FBI agent went to her home and spoke with her. Freeman said she had some 20 pages of handwritten notes, 'many of which are redacted'. She said: 'That's the kind of information we need. It's redacted. I've been trying to get this information for years now, through Foia [Freedom of Information Act] requests, but we've been stymied every time.' Neither the White House nor Department of Justice commented.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Why didn't the SNP act when they had power in the UK?
As I have said many times in these pages and to SNP leadership, when we had a majority of SNP MPs at Westminster, and were the third-biggest party there, that if the FM spent less time strutting around like a world leader, distracting from the job at hand, and allowed the SNP group at Westminster to actually do their job, we could have had either independence or another referendum by now. As I said, in my simplistic view: 1. In 1707, it was Scottish parliamentarians who voted to unionise with England, not through a referendum or public opinion which was very much against it at the time. 2. The [[SNP]] in 2011 achieved what was meant to be improbable, due to the way the proportional representation system was set up at [[Holyrood]], and won a majority. Independence polling was in the low 30% at the time and [[Westminster]] thought they would lay to rest once and for all Scottish independence and reset the narrative. READ MORE: 'Not in our name': Hundreds gather in Scottish cities to protest Donald Trump Scots sensing freedom rallied around the cause as the polls rose, only for Westminster to panic and reach out to the vast Union media to spread doom and fear about Scotland's chances to surviving on its own (see point 5). Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were not prepared for the referendum fight that ensued, failing to deliver on the big questions in debates. Which isn't surprising because the [[SNP]] were probably taken aback when David Cameron said yes to a referendum, the [[SNP]] hadn't done all the preparative homework (ie currency, pensions, trade, the border, etc) to allay the fears of Scots never mind that of Scottish businesses and institutions. Even now, they are not prepared 11 years on and the SNPs hierarchy of 'it's my way or the highway approach to independence' is a flaw in their DNA. Scots' democracy is a consensus-based system, that's how the convention brought about devolution, and it's about time the SNP woke up to this fact. The SNP hierarchy don't even listen to their own rank and file or their activists! Even Swinney's recent independence reset is so bland, it wasn't worth the airtime. The concern of independence voters is who will be their political voice, certainly not the SNP at this time, the reason more than half a million voters failed to vote for them last time not many of these voters jumped the divide to Labour if you look at the voter breakdown. Worrying times indeed for both the SNP and independence voters. The independence voter churn is likely to continue. (Image: PA) 3. [[Westminster]] and the House of Lords (monarchy) demand power and obedience to rule which make the privilege richer and give the middle and lower classes just enough to keep them in line. So, the [[SNP]] need to be strategic and be prepared to gamble all to deliver independence. They had a whole parliamentary term when they were in the ascendancy to do this and failed miserably, partly due to internal squabbling at [[Westminster]] and interference from the FM and the FM's inner circle who acted as though [[Holyrood]] had political precedence and would deliver independence. Oh how wrong this attitude was, and it's been a slippery downward slope ever since. The best they could do was ask 'please sir can I have one more referendum?' and their reply was 'more, you had your day and the people of Scotland voted to remain, now is not the time for another referendum'. 4. At this time, the SNP should have shaken this up by electing a 'majority Scottish leader' at Westminster. Reintroduce the Scottish Grand Committee to review all Westminster's reserved matters like the constitution, eg another independence referendum or to vote on the impact of Westminster land-grab legalisation the 'Internal Market Act'. To vote on these and relay to the speaker of the house and the government the Scottish MP majority outcomes are token and disruptive gestures maybe, but it does echo the Scottish electorate will to the Parliament. More importantly, at this time the UK was out of Europe, a fundamental material change from the referendum debate of 2014 where membership of the European Union was one of [[Westminster]]'s key fear strategies, and from a democratic perspective, the [[SNP]] were the third-largest party at [[Westminster]] (unheard of achievement), the biggest party at [[Holyrood]] and biggest party of elected councillors in Scotland. If I was in charge at that time, I would have given the Westminster government the simple either/or ultimatum; to grant a second referendum or Scotland will unitarily leave the Union based on the elected mandate. The latter throwing the UK into a constitutional crisis, spooking the Bank of England (not UK!) and the financial markets. I am sure this would have led to a lot of activity behind the scenes as when the city of London catches a cold, Westminster sits up and takes note and then there is the probable granting of a second referendum. As I said, gamble big, better than the limp approach to the English Supreme Court approach! 5. Many countries have successfully left British rule and never looked back. As stated at point 1), Scots parliamentarians decided to join England in an Union, so it is not unrealistic to do the same in reverse, irrespective of the language of the treaty. Labour rules the UK with only 33.7% of those voted, so having greater than 50% is not necessary. Also, when a small group of Tory MPs like the 1922 club can oust an elected leader that won them a general election, it just goes to show how democracy works for English privilege and not for the democratic masses, like for Scotland. Also, when a Westminster party comes to power, there is no penalty or forfeit for not following their manifesto, so just because the SNP manifesto didn't explicitly say Scotland would leave the UK, anyone that votes for the SNP knows their DNA is independence, so shock horror if they deliver on it. From an European perspective, precedent was set when the Slovakian party announced the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, resulting in the separation in 1992 and the resultant independent sovereign states of Slovakia and Czech Republic where future EU ascension wasn't an issue, so why would Scotland's independence be a roadblock to independence or EU ascension, certainly not now after Brexit? A Wilson Stirlingshire THE Government has recently announced changes to the Contracts for Difference scheme, with a view to speeding up the development of renewable energy projects across the country. One of the new changes to the scheme is to extend the length of contracts for onshore and offshore windfarm project development. This provides an incentive for developers bidding for new contracts, as it gives them more time to recoup their costs. The new cycle for applications to the scheme opens on August 7, 2025. This incentivising highlights the point that Pat Kane made in his article on July 12, titled 'Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent'', that after oil comes wind power. He also made reference to Lesley Riddoch's equally excellent article of June 19, about the multiple windfarm applications which are currently being made across the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Kane reflected back to a time when the play, The Cheviot, The Stag And The Black, Black Oil, by John McGrath dramatised the issues surrounding oil extraction in Scotland's waters, and went on to ask rhetorically, 'What kind of single dramatic 'representation' could take purchase?' in relation to the issues surrounding renewable energy generation in Scotland today. He lays down the gauntlet when he suggests that: 'Creatives worth their salt should rise to the challenge'. In the comments section at the end of his article, I did point out that in terms of dramatising the issues surrounding renewable energy being generated in Scotland, much of the problem creatives like myself face is getting our work heard. It's not that we are not offering a commentary, or perspective, on these issues, but without the following which the celebrity cult seems to generate in today's publishing world, it is hard to get your work noticed. Oblivious as to whether or not I am one of those who are 'worth their salt', I had just started the process of uploading, finalising and then releasing my latest humorous novel, An t-Eilean Dorcha (The Dark Island) at the time of his article. This was finally released in paperback on July 21 on Amazon. The novel focuses on a renewable energy project which is proposed for a small island, and the community has to evaluate its impact and consider how best to respond. My hope is that as well as providing the reader with some light entertainment and an escape from their day-to-day life, it will also, give voice to the very real concerns people have expressed about renewable energy resource generation in the Highlands and Islands. Gordon Ian MacLeod via email MUCH angst has been expressed recently about the high cost of electricity in Scotland. Hardly surprising in the UK's cradle of green, affordable generation. Disgruntled consumers may hold meetings, march, post banners and write letters – all protesting against high charges. The privatised electricity companies will ignore them, assuming that people will pay up for this essential necessity; and most probably will. In 1915, at the height of the First World War, greedy landlords in Glasgow increased rents beyond what was reasonable. Already poor people were incensed, but didn't know what to do about it. That is until local woman Mary Barbour stepped in and created an army which united in a rent strike. They surmised that if they hit the landlords in their pockets they would soon begin to squeal – and indeed it was not long before they did back down, realising that some rent was better than none. All the passive actions I mention above will not disturb the power companies one iota, so I suggest that folk in the Highlands and Islands emulate Mary Barbour's army, and refuse to pay their electricity bills en masse until they are charged the same per kilowatt that Londoners pay, backdated to 2020. Yes, the companies will hold out for as long as possible, they will take a few people to court, and as with any strike there will be folk who capitulate. But with solidarity, mutual support and determination, I believe the people will prevail. Richard Walthew Duns THE article in the digital edition reporting on the sale of an estate near Fort Augustus indicates that there will be a lot of interest from overseas. If this parcel of Scottish land is sold to an overseas buyer then there should be a hefty tax burden on the buyer and they should only be allowed to purchase it if everything is transparent so that the people of Scotland know who owns the land that should belong to the people of Scotland. Audrey Maceachen via email YOUR article on the electric super highway mentions a subsea cable from Fife into England. Meanwhile, Scotland is faced with giant pylons ruining the land? Our 'green' electricity, for which we are charged extortionate rates, being fed into another country. Has Mr Swinney and the [[SNP]] anything to say in this? Or is this robbery getting the silence that Grangemouth got. Jim Butchart via email
