
Trump's order on homelessness gets it all wrong
Tribune News Service
President Trump has the answer to homelessness. Forcibly clear the streets. Recently, he signed an executive order to address "endemic vagrancy" and end "crime and disorder on our streets." He called for the use of "civil commitments" to get those who suffer from mental illness or addiction into "humane treatment." This comes after last year's US Supreme Court ruling making it legal for cities to punish people for being homeless, even if they have nowhere to go. There's some truth in what he says, and California's record on housing and homelessness is ripe for criticism. I've watched too many people suffer from addiction and mental illness and asked why the help is so slow to arrive. But I also know there are no simple answers for either crisis, and bluster is no substitute for desperately needed resources. Like a lot of what Trump does, this is another case of grandstanding. In the meantime, the Washington Post reported Thursday that the "Trump administration has slashed more than $1 billion in COVID-era grants administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is proposing to slash hundreds of millions more in agency grants."
As it happens, I was in the middle of a column on the latest Los Angeles homeless count when news of Trump's executive order broke. I had just spent time with two homeless women to hear about their predicaments, and none of what Trump is proposing comes close to addressing their needs, which are tragically commonplace. Namely, they're living in poverty and can't afford a place to live. In his executive order, Trump said that "nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having used hard drugs ... in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions." I don't know where he got those numbers, but truth and accuracy are not hallmarks of this administration. No doubt, addiction and mental illness are significant factors, and more intervention is needed. But that's more complicated than he thinks, especially given the practical and legal issues surrounding coercive treatment — and it's not going to solve the problem. When the latest homeless count in Los Angeles was released, a slight decline from a year ago was regarded by many as a positive sign. But when Eli Veitzer of Jewish Family Service LA dug into the numbers, he found something both unsurprising and deeply disturbing.
The number of homeless people 65 and older hadn't gone down. It had surged, in both the city and county of Los Angeles. "This isn't new this year. It's a trend over the last couple of years," said Veitzer, whose nonprofit provides meals, housing assistance and various other services to clients. "It's meaningful, and it's real, and these people are at the highest risk of mortality while they're on the streets." The numbers from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority showed a 3.4% decrease in the total homeless population in the city, but a 17.6% increase among those 65 and older. The county numbers showed a 3.99% decrease overall, but an 8.59% increase in the 65 and older group. In the city, the increase over two years was from 3,427 in 2023 to 4,680 this year — up 37%. Reliable research has shown that among older adults who become homeless, the primary reason is the combination of poverty and high housing costs, rather than mental illness or addiction. "They or their spouse lost their job, they or their spouse got sick, their marriage broke up or their spouse or parent died," Dr. Margot Kushel of UC San Francisco's Homelessness and Housing Initiative was telling me several hours before Trump's executive order was issued.
Her team's landmark study, released two years ago (and covered by my colleague Anita Chabria), found that nearly half the state's homeless residents were 50 and older, and that participants in the study reported a median monthly household income of $960. "The results ... confirm that far too many Californians experience homelessness because they cannot afford housing," Kushel said at the time. Among the older population, Veitzer said, the jump in homelessness comes against the backdrop of federal and local budget cuts that will make it harder to reverse the trend. And harder for nonprofits, which rely in part on public funding, to keep providing group meals, home-delivered meals, transportation, social services and housing support. "Every provider I've talked to in the city of L.A. is cutting meal programs," Veitzer said. "We're going to have to close two of our 13 meal sites, and last year we closed three. We used to have 16, and now we're down to 11." On Wednesday, I went to one of the sites that's still up and running on Santa Monica Boulevard, just west of the 405, and met Jane Jefferies, 69. She told me she's been camping in her vehicle since February when living with her brother became impossible for various reasons. She now pulls into a Safe Parking LA lot each night to bed down. Jefferies said she collects about $1,400 a month in Social Security, which isn't enough to get her into an apartment. At the senior center, she uses her own equipment to make buttons that she sells on the Venice boardwalk, where she can make up to $200 on a good weekend.
But that's still not enough to cover the cost of housing, she told me, and she's given up on government help. "All the funding has been cut, and I don't know if it's because a lot of the city and state funding is subsidised by the federal government. We all know Trump hates California," she said.
As Veitzer put it: "There's nowhere near enough low-income senior housing in L.A. County. Wait lists open up periodically," with far more applicants than housing units. "And then they close." His agency delivers a daily meal to Vancie Davis, 73, who lives in a van at Penmar Park in Venice. Her next-door neighbor is her son, Thomas Williamson, 51, who lives in his car. Davis was in the front seat of the van when I arrived, hugging her dog, Heart. Her left leg was amputated below the knee two years ago because of an infection, she told me. Davis said she and another son were living in a trailer in Oregon, but the owner shut off the utilities and changed the locks. She said she reached out to Williamson, who told her, "I've got a van for you, so you'll have a place to live, but it's going to be rough. And it is. It's very, very rough."
I've heard so many variations of stories like these over the years, I've lost count. The magnitude that exists in the wealthiest nation in history is a disgrace, and a sad commentary on an economic system and public policy that have served to widen, rather than narrow, the inequity gap. On Thursday, Trump's executive order on homelessness grabbed headlines but will do nothing for Jane Jefferies or Vancie Davis and for thousands like them. We know the interventions that can work, Kushel said, but with deep cuts in the works, we're moving in the wrong direction. Davis' son Thomas told Times photographer Genaro Molina about another person who lives in a vehicle and has been a neighbour of theirs in the parking lot. She wasn't there Wednesday, but we'll check back. It's a 91-year-old woman.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Economy ME
2 hours ago
- Economy ME
Crude oil prices decline to $69.4 as OPEC+ increases production levels
Oil prices continued their downward trend on Monday following OPEC+ 's decision to implement another significant production increase in September. Concerns regarding a slowing economy in the U.S., the world's largest oil consumer, are compounding the pressure. Brent crude futures dipped by 40 cents, or 0.57 percent, settling at $69.27 a barrel by 01:15 GMT (currently trading above $69.4). In contrast, U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude stood at $66.96 a barrel, down 37 cents, or 0.55 percent (currently trading above $67.15), after both contracts had closed around $2 a barrel lower on Friday. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their allies, collectively known as OPEC+, reached an agreement on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September. This decision is part of a series of accelerated output increases aimed at regaining market share, citing a robust economy and low stockpiles as the rationale behind this move. This action, which aligns with market predictions, represents a complete and early reversal of OPEC+'s largest set of output cuts, along with a separate increase in production for the United Arab Emirates, totaling about 2.5 million barrels per day, or approximately 2.4 percent of global demand. Investor caution amid sanctions Nevertheless, investors are cautious about potential further U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia, which could disrupt supplies. U.S. President Trump has threatened to impose 100 percent secondary tariffs on Russian crude buyers in an effort to pressure Russia into ceasing its military actions in Ukraine. At least two vessels loaded with Russian oil, destined for refiners in India, have diverted to alternative destinations in light of the new U.S. sanctions, according to trade sources reported on Friday, along with LSEG trade flow data. Concerns regarding U.S. tariffs affecting global economic growth and fuel consumption continue to loom over the market, especially following U.S. economic data indicating jobs growth on Friday fell short of expectations. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated on Sunday that the tariffs imposed last week on numerous countries are likely to remain in effect rather than be reduced amid ongoing negotiations. Read more: Crude oil prices rise above $71.8 amid new tariffs impacting Russian supply U.S. oil consumption projections According to the latest official data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. oil consumption in 2025 is projected at 20.4 million barrels per day, up from 20.3 million barrels per day in 2024, while U.S. oil production is anticipated to reach 13.37 million barrels per day in 2025—slightly below previous estimates due to lower oil prices and ongoing economic unpredictability stemming from shifting U.S. tariff policies. Globally, oil demand is forecast to exceed 105 million barrels per day in 2025, according to Statista, marking a new high in global consumption. OPEC+'s announcement on Sunday, formalizes a full reversal of output cuts initially implemented in 2023, with the latest meeting attended by major producers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman. The monthly production adjustments began in April 2025, and Brent crude prices have remained close to $70 a barrel, rebounding from lows in April. Decline in Russian oil exports Recent shifts in Russian oil exports, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, show that Russia exported 24.8 million tonnes of oil by sea in June 2025, a 5 percent month-on-month decline, with over half of these volumes now transported on G7+ tankers (representing 56 percent of exports, up from 36 percent in January). The U.S. Department of the Treasury intensified sanctions in early 2025, targeting two major Russian oil producers, over 180 vessels, oil traders, and oilfield service providers, substantially increasing sanctions risks for the Russian oil trade. These actions are underpinned by determinations made under Executive Order 14024 and accompanied by parallel measures from the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, President Trump's new tariff schedule imposes duties ranging from 10 percent to 41 percent on goods from several countries including India and Indonesia, and he continues to threaten even higher tariffs on countries that import Russian oil. Experts warn that continued tariff uncertainty could constrain global economic growth and potentially curtail future oil demand. The Energy Information Administration recently lowered its global oil demand growth forecast for 2025 by 400,000 barrels per day, attributing the cut to economic uncertainty and trade tensions.


Gulf Today
9 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The politics of compromise and conviction
Luke Harris, Tribune News Service Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of US Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about 'being the best we can,' and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That 'one more step' toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends. During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, 'We need servant leaders.... People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what's popular today.' He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the 'prestige' of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation. An NBC affiliate network reported that 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for HUD rental assistance receive benefits. Turner is championing time limits, which means taking away benefits from more low-income households still unable to afford the cost of living. Trump has further plans to remove people from homeless encampments and place them in large camps or tent-cities, where they will be mandated to receive mental health or addiction treatment. Seemingly in conflict with his views on homelessness and background, these policies are consistent with his previous stances representing Texas, for example, restricting welfare, requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits, voting against free-lunch programs in Texas schools, and opposing the Affordable Care Act. He defined his career as a Texas Representative as an uncompromising advocate for transparency, leading extensive investigations into the conduct of his colleagues, and voting on policies to increase accountability. For example, he voted for HB 1690, which authorized rangers to investigate misconduct of an official or public administration and refer cases to the State Attorney General. He has parted ways with these values, perhaps to advocate for his conservative policies on social programs such as welfare and housing subsidies. However, compromising his fight against improper leadership or self-interested governance — accepting the numerous examples of corruption and secrecy — to achieve an agenda or implement a policy, is not leading on principle or conviction. The Epstein scandal is a recent example of something that clearly runs against Turner's previous views on government transparency and accountability. The footage and DOJ reports are inconsistent, and the Administration, DOJ, and FBI have refused to comment. For example, the files obtained by the AP provide a Suicide Timeline; at 6:33 a.m., staff found Epstein unresponsive, and at 6:45 a.m., EMS arrived. The DOJ released raw footage from the hallway camera. According to the FBI, anyone entering the cell would have been visible on that camera, but the footage shows no one entering his cell around the provided timeline. More concerningly, Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, has directly undermined the investigation into the Epstein files, ordering thousands of FBI agents to redact files. Bondi allegedly pressured the FBI to recruit 1,000 personnel to review 100,000 files relating to Jefferey Epstein and 'flag' any that mentioned Donald Trump. It would not be an exaggeration to compare the redaction of the Epstein files to the shredding of papers or deletion of tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Furthermore, his treatment of the press, on the Epstein Scandal and throughout his two terms, displays a hostility not seen since Nixon's 'Enemy List': revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass, restricting AP reporters' access to White House events, ending funding for public broadcast stations, suing 60 Minutes, recently launching a $22 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal, and attacking reporters for 'fake news' or calling journalists 'nasty.'


Gulf Today
12 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Britain is in the midst of one long, hot, nervous summer
Adrian Wooldridge, Tribune News Service There is an ominous sense in the air in Britain — a sense that the country is headed toward the rocks and that the captain has no idea how to steer the ship. This feeling is vague — hardly the stuff of graphs or numbers — but vague feelings can sometimes tell us more about the future than the hardest economic statistics. The two biggest rocks on the horizon are labeled debt crisis and civil unrest. Blood-curdling warnings from the right are par for the course. Andrew Neil warns in the Daily Mail that 'broke Britain is on the edge of financial disaster ... I'm scared for what's to come.' But equally dire warnings are coming from the left — and even from the very heart of government. Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB union, notes that 'our finances are precarious ... this could unravel very quickly.' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has told her boss that Britain could face a repeat of last year's summer riots unless 'the government shows it can address people's concerns.' Seven in 10 Britons think that it's likely the country will experience race riots in the future, according to a poll for The Economist. Why are the British in such a state of angst? And, more importantly, are they right to be so worried? The country's economic problems stem from a combination of rising debt and dismal growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility recently warned of Britain's 'relatively vulnerable' position, with the sixth-highest debt among 36 advanced economies, the fifth-highest deficit and the third-highest borrowing costs. The government recorded the second-highest June borrowing figure since records began in 1993 (and that was only exceeded by June 2020 when COVID was raging). Bond markets have traditionally given a lot of leeway to Britain because of its reputation for seriousness. They also give leeway to governments that have a large majority and a clear plan for dealing with their debt. But Starmer's Labour looks more like a divided minority government on its last legs than a one-year-old government with a huge majority. It failed to pass a modest package of welfare reforms that would raise £1.5 billion ($2 billion) from means-testing winter fuel payments and £5 billion from cutting health and disability benefits, when public spending stands at £1.3 trillion a year. The government's promise that it will grow its way out of its fiscal hole has evaporated, with Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves instead digging deeper by increasing taxes on labor and driving away wealthy people (particularly non-doms) who pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The last fortnight has seen a couple of tense street protests — in Epping and Canary Wharf. In both cases, locals protested the government's decision to take over local hotels and fill them with young male asylum seekers, chanting 'send them home' and 'save our kids.' The protests quickly gained national resonance: Organized agitators from both the left and the right came in from across the country, and the internet lit up with furious posts. We have no equivalent of the OBR to give a balanced assessment of the state of the country's social fabric, but a bipartisan report by Sajid Javid, a former Conservative home secretary, and John Cruddas, a Labour grandee, published by the think tank British Future, makes for sobering reading: The authors warn that Britain is sitting on a 'powder keg' of social tensions that could easily ignite again. The social bonds that have traditionally held society together have been fraying for decades, they say, but the tensions have been significantly increased by rapid immigration and poor assimilation. Trust in politicians is at an all-time low with 45% of people in the 2024 British Social Attitudes Survey saying they 'almost never' trust governments of any party to put the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party, up by 22 percentage points from 2020. I think it is still more likely than not that Britain will muddle through without either a debt crisis or a major series of riots, let alone a civil war, as one academic, David Betz, a professor of war studies at King's College, London, has predicted. Reeves has the option of breaking her electoral promise and raising general taxation. The government is, finally, giving the impression that it is taking the small boats crisis seriously by targeting the international gangs that profit from people smuggling and cracking down on the food delivery services that profit from illegal labor. What we are probably in for instead is prolonged pain rather than sudden crisis. But a major shock cannot be ruled out. The most serious worry is that the barriers that protect us from either a debt contagion or a social conflagration have been eroded. Britain's credit with the global markets is not what it was since the Liz Truss fiasco. And many people's trust in the establishment has been weakened by that establishment's failure to control the pace of immigration or manage the social consequences.