Trump said D.C. homeless people would have 'places to stay.' The White House pointed to shelters or jail.
On Monday, he announced that he was federalizing Washington's Metropolitan Police Department and deploying the National Guard, saying the federal government will be 'removing homeless encampments from all over our parks' in order to 'rescue" Washington "from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.'
There were 'many places' homeless people could go, Trump continued.
As of Tuesday, the administration had provided few details on how that would work, instead suggesting that displaced homeless people take advantage of existing services or face fines or jail time.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that the MPD and U.S. Park Police will begin enforcing 'pre-existing laws that are already on the books' to clear encampments as the president seeks to crack down on crime and 'clean up' the nation's capital.
'Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services, and, if they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time,' she said.
Pressed on Trump's social media post that homeless people would be moved far away from the city, Leavitt said that was still on the table. 'We're exploring how we could do that. But again, homeless shelters, [being] offered addiction and mental health services, or jail if they refuse are the options on the table right now,' she said.
Advocates for homeless people in Washington told NBC News that they have not yet heard of any widespread action against people living on the streets, but they are bracing themselves for Tuesday night.
Andy Wassenich, policy director for Miriam's Kitchen, an organization focused on assisting homeless people in Washington, said he was 'flabbergasted' by Leavitt's suggestion.
'What are these 'mental health services' and who is paying for it? What does 'leave' mean? Are you going to give them subway fare to Silver Spring or are you going to put them on a bus? What does that mean?' he said.
'I just know that the resources that are available in the city are not able to accommodate the people who are currently sleeping outside,' Wassenich continued. 'What happens if someone says 'I will go to treatment' and all of those slots are full? Then their choices are to go jail or go away? What if they are not mentally ill or drug addicted but just poor and they live here?'
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, homelessness is at an all-time high across the United States. In Washington, there were 5,616 homeless people in 2024, the latest year for which there is data, up from 4,922 in 2023. The majority of those people already stay in emergency shelters, according to the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness, while nearly 800 people live unsheltered on the streets on any given night in Washington.
Leavitt said that there are only two remaining homeless encampments in federal parks in Washington that are under the jurisdiction of the Park Police, adding that 70 encampments had been removed since Trump signed an executive order in March directing Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to direct the National Park Service to remove homeless encampments.
Those two encampments are scheduled to be removed this week, a White House official told NBC News.
There are existing procedures for local officials to coordinate with the federal government to clear encampments, according to a D.C. official, and that could include shelters and hospitals. One encampment, near P Street NW, was already scheduled to be cleared prior to Trump's latest actions.
Mayor Muriel Bowser said Monday that she hadn't been briefed on the plan for homeless people but planned to follow up with Attorney General Pam Bondi, whom she met with on Tuesday.
The district's 'goal is always to get people housed, stable and independent,' the D.C. official added, stressing that the mayor has said she wants homelessness to be 'brief, rare and non-reoccurring.'
Wassenich compared clearing encampments to 'a game of whack-a-mole.'
'You can't be here, so they move somewhere else,' he said. 'They are moving all over the place.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republican Says He Doesn't 'Buckle Up' in D.C. Amid Fear of Carjacking
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said he does not "buckle up" when driving in the nation's capital for fears of carjackings and his hindered response time if caught in one. Newsweek reached out to a political analyst via text message Wednesday for additional comment. Why It Matters President Donald Trump's move to federalize Washington, D.C., represents one of the most aggressive uses of federal authority over local law enforcement in recent memory and raised questions on the balance between local control and federal emergency powers in the district. Trump cited the District of Columbia's Home Rule Act in the enabling of federal control for a limited period. In a news conference addressing the administration's decision, district Mayor Muriel Bowser said in part that she believes Trump's view of D.C. was shaped during his first term in office, during and post-COVID, noting the spike in crime during the period. What To Know While speaking with Fox News on D.C. crime, Mullin said that "If you look at car theft only ... if Washington, D.C., was a state, Washington, D.C., would be three times higher than any other state. And we're talking about a city. And we're comparing it to full states." "And by the way, I'm not joking when I say this. I drive around in Washington, D.C., in my jeep and, yes, I do drive myself," the Oklahoma lawmaker continued. "And I don't buckle up. And the reason why I don't buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me, again, is because of carjacking." Mullin added: "I don't wanna be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry because I got a seat belt around me. And ... I wear my seat belt all the time, but in Washington, D.C., I do not because it is so prevalent of carjacking. ... And I don't want the same thing to happen to me what's happened to a lot of people that work on The Hill." Trump also discussed D.C.'s crime record in comparison to other states Wednesday night on Truth Social, saying in part, "If D.C. were a State, it would have the highest Homicide Rate of any State in America. The Violent Crime Rate in D.C. has worsened, and the Murder Rate has essentially DOUBLED in just over a decade — But these are only the 'official' statistics released by corrupt City Officials." A Newsweek analysis of local and federal data reported violent crime in 2024 had hit a 30-year low in the district, and the Washington Metropolitan Police Department had also reported 2025 decreases in violent crime, including a 37 percent decline in carjackings. Recent incidents, however, did prompt national attention, including the D.C. attack on Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, former employee at the Department of Government Efficiency. What People Are Saying Bowser posted to X on Monday: "Washington, DC is a beautiful city. DC is home to 700K people and welcomes millions every year. We have the #1 park system, fantastic public schools, and a tremendous public transportation system. And we are at a 30-year low in violent crime. It's important for all who live here and visit to know how beautiful our city is and how proud we are of all that we've accomplished." Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma prepares for a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29. (Photo by) Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma prepares for a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29. (Photo by) This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.
Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Chinese Imports Fell During Trump's First Term. It's Happening Again.
President Trump recently delayed for 90 days raising tariffs on China to give the two sides more time to negotiate a trade deal. Where the sides ultimately end up is an open question: The president hasn't said how much more he will impose on China beyond the 30% currently in place if a deal isn't reached. But this much is clear: The U.S.'s reliance on Chinese goods has fallen off since Trump first put tariffs on China in 2018.
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Law Firms That Settled With Trump Are Pressed to Help on Trade Deals
Two of the law firms that reached deals with President Trump this year to avoid punitive executive orders were connected in recent months with the Commerce Department about working on trade deals, according to three people briefed on the matter. The firms, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, were connected to the department by Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, two of the people said. Mr. Epshteyn, who does not hold a government position, played a direct role in brokering the initial deals between Mr. Trump and the law firms, in which the firms agreed to do pro bono work on causes the president has championed, like helping veterans, military families and first responders. His previously undisclosed efforts connecting the firms with the Commerce Department shows how he is seeking to impose Mr. Trump's expansive view of the deals, including recruiting firms to work for the government in advancing the administration's agenda. After Mr. Epshteyn helped connect the firms with the government in recent months, Kirkland and Ellis went on to work on the trade deals the administration struck with Japan and South Korea, which were announced in July, according to three of the people. It is unclear if Skadden Arps has done work for the administration. Earlier this year, after the law firms struck deals with Mr. Trump, the president said that he had a broader understanding of the terms than the firms had let on, saying the pro bono work included helping the administration on trade deals and could even be applied to representing him in a personal capacity. It's unclear whether Kirkland & Ellis did the work for free or charged the Commerce Department. But the revelation of the firm's work marks the first time that it has been publicly revealed that one of the firms that cut a deal with Mr. Trump is now doing work for the administration. Representatives of Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps did not immediately respond to requests for comment. When asked for comment, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, did not directly address the latest developments. Instead, he said, Mr. Trump 'has radically changed the business of discrimination, including by ending D.E.I. in Big Law.' He added: 'Law firms that have for years propelled one-sided justice by providing pro bono resources to those causes that make our nation more dangerous and less free have started serving their nation.' Benno Kass, the director of public affairs for the Commerce Department, said the agency and the secretary, Howard Lutnick, 'are working with some of America's top law firms and legal minds to cement the truly historic trade deals that President Trump negotiated for the American people.' He did not specify which firms or what work they were doing. Mr. Epshteyn would not provide comment. Nine firms reached deals with Mr. Trump to head off executive orders. In total, the firms pledged nearly a billion dollars in pro bono legal work. At least some of the other firms are said to have been connected with the administration to do work for the government, but it's unclear which firms or what issues they were discussing working on. None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump's political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him. The deals have been criticized by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic, and have led to splits inside some of the firms about the wisdom of agreeing to terms with the White House.
