Newsom unveils aggressive plan to clear homeless encampments across California: 'No more excuses'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom released details about his multibillion-dollar plan to tackle the homeless crisis in the Golden State and is pushing cities and counties to take "immediate action."
On Monday, Newsom shared a model ordinance for cities and counties to "immediately address dangerous and unhealthy encampments and connect people experiencing homelessness with shelter and services."
"There's nothing compassionate about letting people die on the streets," Newsom said in a news release.
Dem City Uses 'Bait-and-switch' Tactic To Approve Homeless Shelter, Locals Erupt
The ordinance is backed in part by $3.3 billion in new Prop 1 funding, Newsom's office announced, adding that the governor is "calling on all local governments to act without delay."
Newsom is also encouraging local leaders to use their authority, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, to address encampments.
Read On The Fox News App
"The Governor is calling on every local government to adopt and implement local policies without delay," Newsom's office said.
Newsom's office said this model ordinance draws from the state's "proven and workable approach," an approach that between July 2021 and May 2025 cleared more than 16,000 encampments and more than 311,873 cubic yards of debris from sites along the state right-of-way.
"These results demonstrate that the policy is both effective and scalable, offering a sound, adoptable framework for jurisdictions to resolve encampments with urgency and dignity," Newsom said.
Progressive Journalist Says Newsom Must Take 'Accountability' For How He 'Destroyed' California
Monday's announcement is in addition to the release of $3.3 billion in voter-approved Proposition 1 funding, which Newsom's office said will be made available later today to communities statewide.
Those funds are being used to expand behavioral health housing and treatment options for the "most seriously ill and homeless in California."
"This model ordinance is not intended to be comprehensive or to impose a one-size-fits-all approach for every city. Tailoring is expected and appropriate to account for local differences and priorities," Newsom's office said.
The guidance doesn't say whether criminal penalties should be enforced but instead would leave it up to cities to enforce how severely those who violate the ban should be punished.
Newsom's office said all local approaches should reflect three basic principles, which include:
No person should face criminal punishment for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.
Encampment policies must prioritize shelter and services and ensure that people experiencing homelessness and their belongings are treated with respect.
Policies must not unduly limit local authorities to clear encampments, meaning officials must be able to enforce "commonsense policies" to protect the health and safety of their residents and maintain their public spaces.
Newsom's announcement comes following the Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson in 2024, which found laws restricting sleeping in public areas did not violate the constitutional restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment."
Dem Mayor Fed Up With Homeless Crisis Proposes Jailing Vagrants Who Refuse Housing
Newsom had encouraged the Supreme Court to take up the case, claiming court decisions preventing the government from punishing vagrants occupying public spaces had created an "unsurmountable roadblock" to addressing the crisis.
Newsom's office told Fox News Digital that the governor has "actively held communities accountable who do not follow state law to address homelessness", sharing an example of when the state sued the City of Norwalk in 2024 for "its unlawful ban on homeless shelters."
The governor's office added that while the nation's unsheltered homelessness last year went up by nearly 7%, California's increase was only 0.45% and was lower than 44 other states.
"Governor Newsom is the first governor to actively address this issue in our state, and he is reversing a crisis that was decades in the making," Newsom's office said.
In addition to cleaning up homeless encampments, Newsom's office also announced $3.3 billion in grant funding to create over 5,000 residential treatment beds and more than 21,800 outpatient treatment slots for behavioral healthcare services.
"Californians demanded swift action to address our state's behavioral health crisis when they voted for Prop 1 in March 2024," Newsom's office said.
"Today, we're delivering our biggest win yet. These launch-ready projects will build and expand residential beds and treatment slots for those who need help. Whether it's crisis stabilization, inpatient services, or long-term treatment, we're ensuring that individuals can access the right care at the right time," the statement continued.
When fully awarded, Newsom's office said funding from Proposition 1 bonds is estimated to create 6,800 residential treatment beds and 26,700 outpatient treatment slots for behavioral health and will build on other major behavioral health initiatives in California.
"Today marks a critical milestone in our commitment to transforming California's behavioral health system," said Kim Johnson, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. "Through these awards, we are investing in bold, community-driven solutions that expand access to care, promote equity, and meet people where they are. These projects are a reflection of our values and vision for a healthier, more compassionate California."
Newsom's office also said the Department of Housing and Community Development will oversee up to $2 billion in Proposition 1 funds to build permanent supportive housing for veterans and others who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and have mental health or substance-use disorder challenges.
"This is a generational investment in California's behavioral health future. We are not just building facilities. We are building hope, dignity, and pathways to healing for thousands of Californians," said Michelle Baass, director of the state Department of Health Care Services, in a statement.Original article source: Newsom unveils aggressive plan to clear homeless encampments across California: 'No more excuses'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests , over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website . 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back , saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals , and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
Thursday was a surprising day at the Supreme Court, and a religion case was part of the action. The justices released six unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in a closely watched battle over the scope of faith-based tax breaks. In that religion case, the full court agreed that Wisconsin officials were unlawfully privileging certain religious nonprofits over others by basing access to religious exemptions on how they expressed their beliefs. Organizations that served only members of their own religion or that openly evangelized were typically eligible for the tax break, while organizations that served all comers with no strings attached often were deemed not religious enough to qualify. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion, which reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling against a group of Catholic nonprofits. The decision is significant, since it could lead to changes to religious exemptions nationwide. But the fact that it was unanimous isn't as surprising as it may, at first, have appeared. If there's a case to be made that the Supreme Court's ruling was unexpected, it centers on the role religious freedom advocates played in the battle. Faith-related groups did not speak with one voice on how the justices should interpret the First Amendment. They put together competing legal briefs and press releases. More liberal organizations and individuals supported Wisconsin's narrow religious exemption, arguing that an overly broad tax break would harm workers, including people of faith. More conservative groups, on the other hand, said religious freedom law requires broad exemptions, which enable faith-based organizations to operate according to their beliefs. While these arguments were specific to the Supreme Court case on Catholic nonprofits, they should be familiar to anyone who follows faith-related policy debates. Religious groups and faith-related advocacy organizations no longer agree on what religious freedom means — nor on whether or not conservative Christians, in particular, are demanding too many concessions in the public square. Those disagreements help explain why different religious freedom advocates held very different views on President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during last year's election, as the Deseret News previously reported, and why some faith groups support a push to limit the application of a landmark religious freedom law. More liberal advocates generally believe religious liberty protections work best when they're balanced with other types of protections, including LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, while more conservative advocates generally say religious freedom should win out. If you dig into the justices' track record on religion over the 20 years Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court, you'll find several rulings that reflect this tension. Among other issues, the court has split along ideological lines in cases involving school prayer, state funding for religious schools and the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. In these decisions and others, the court's conservative majority embraced a broad interpretation of religious exercise protections, while the court's more liberal justices called for limitations on religious freedom in their dissents. These split decisions are often what people think of when they think of the Supreme Court and religion — but they're actually the exception, not the rule. From Roberts' confirmation in September 2005 to April 2021, religious freedom claims succeeded in front of the Supreme Court 13 times. Nine of those 13 rulings were either unanimous or from a mixed 7-2 majority, according to a Deseret News analysis from 2021. In the four years since that analysis was released, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion claims in merits cases seven more times. Four of the decisions were unanimous, while a fifth was 8-1. In other words, the justices are finding ways to bridge the gap between conservative and liberal takes on religious freedom, including in cases involving LGBTQ rights. When you consider the court's record on religion, Thursday's unanimous ruling no longer seems surprising. But it might still feel worth celebrating, especially if you're worried about the state of the religious freedom landscape. Before the Supreme Court enters its summer recess in early July, the justices will have one more opportunity to model consensus-building in a religious freedom case. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court is considering whether the First Amendment gives religious parents a right to opt their kids out of reading or hearing books about LGBTQ issues. During oral arguments in April, the court appeared divided along ideological lines, as the Deseret News reported at the time. More liberal justices seemed to support the school district, which said that religious freedom protects you from being coerced into changing your beliefs, not from being exposed to other ideas. More conservative justices seemed to support the families, who felt like their religious teachings were being drowned out. It wasn't immediately clear what a compromise ruling would look like. But even as Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked tough questions of the school district's attorney, he reminded everyone to keep searching. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win,' he said.
