President Trump signed a new executive order aimed at addressing homelessness by encouraging local governments to expand the use of civil commitment the practice of placing individuals with mental illness into treatment facilities without their consent.
The order frames civil commitment as a way to provide “humane treatment” and restore public order, calling for homeless individuals to be moved into long-term institutions. Federal officials are instructed to assess whether existing federal resources can ensure that individuals with serious mental illness are not released solely due to a lack of available space in government facilities. Additionally, the Justice Department is now required to evaluate whether homeless individuals arrested on federal charges should be designated as “sexually dangerous persons.”
Critics argue the order does not address the core issue of housing affordability and instead revives a historically controversial practice. Donald Whitehead, Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said the measure reflects a punitive strategy that fails to resolve homelessness and worsens challenges faced by vulnerable populations. He noted that decades of evidence-based housing and support programs have proven more effective than involuntary institutionalization.
Civil commitment is a legal process through which a judge or authorized figure mandates that someone be placed into a psychiatric hospital or outpatient program without their consent. Although specific criteria for commitment vary by state, they generally involve individuals with mental illness, developmental disabilities, or substance use disorders who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. Modern civil commitment laws must comply with due process protections under both state and federal law.
Historically, the system was far more punitive. Before reforms in the 1960s, individuals with mental health conditions were often jailed under vague vagrancy laws with little to no legal oversight. In the 1950s, more than 500,000 people were institutionalized. By the 1990s, that number had dropped to around 30,000 as treatment-oriented approaches replaced incarceration-based models.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the limits of civil commitment. In a 1975 ruling, the Court held that a person must present a danger to themselves or others in order to be confined involuntarily. A subsequent 1979 decision established that such confinement requires “clear and convincing” evidence.
Certain populations have historically been disproportionately affected. Until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, which allowed many LGBTQ+ individuals to be committed based solely on their identity. Racial disparities also persist. A 2022 report from the APA found that Black and multiracial individuals are more likely to be involuntarily hospitalized compared to white patients, even after adjusting for other factors.
The broad definitions used in civil commitment statutes have also raised concerns about overreach. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, vague terms like “mental abnormality” can sweep large groups particularly people with disabilities into the system, making it difficult to quantify how many individuals are affected or to track demographic disparities with precision.
Trump’s executive order reignites a long-standing debate about the balance between public safety and civil liberties, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable populations. While supporters argue it provides structure and care, critics warn that it risks repeating the mistakes of the past.