2026年7月28日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:26 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：艾伦·纳瓦罗 数字记者
艾伦·纳瓦罗是哥伦比亚广播公司新闻数字记者，曾报道2024年大选，2021年和2022年选举周期期间曾任哥伦比亚广播公司新闻政治部门助理制片人。
查看完整简历
在特朗普总统签署旨在让无家可归者离开街头的行政令一年后，联邦各机构已为各州扩大对患有精神疾病或药物滥用问题的无家可归者实施民事收容铺平了道路。
在法院作出裁决之前，美国住房和城市发展部可能会对帮助无家可归者的组织的主要资助体系进行改革，以符合特朗普的行政令要求。
总统的行政令称，以往的政策忽视了无家可归的“根源”，并造成了公共安全风险。
反对者表示，本届政府会加剧本已有限的州治疗中心的负担，将无家可归者群体刑事化，并且是对“住房优先”政策的不必要背离。住房优先政策主张为无家可归者提供无条件的住房准入——即不要求戒毒、遵守治疗方案或对受助者提出其他要求。
民事收容措施
特朗普的行政令促使司法部和卫生与公众服务部优先向那些开展非自愿精神疾病治疗——或对“对他人构成危险、流落街头且无法自理”的精神疾病患者实施“最大限度灵活的民事收容”的州提供资助。
他的行政令称，将无家可归者收容到“长期机构环境中接受人道治疗”将恢复“公共秩序”。
该行政令要求司法部撤销任何阻碍此类民事收容的同意令。此外，该行政令还优先向禁止城市露营、城市占道居住和公开非法吸毒的州和城市提供资助。
根据国家毒品控制政策办公室的数据，约30%的长期无家可归者患有严重精神疾病。与此同时，三分之二的无家可归者存在物质使用障碍或其他慢性健康问题。
呼吁采取更强硬的法治政策，促使多个共和党州通过法律处罚无家可归者营地，或扩大非自愿收容机构的规模。
犹他州今年早些时候批准了超过4300万美元的支出，部分用于针对“高频率使用者”——即反复往返于无家可归者收容所和监狱的人群。一项新法律强化了这一举措，允许将这些人置于犹他州成人缓刑和假释局的监管之下。
印第安纳州和路易斯安那州今年都通过了法案，将在公共财产上过夜或露营定为刑事犯罪。路易斯安那州的HB 211法案被称为“街头到成功法案”，对首次违规者处以最高500美元的罚款。符合条件的个人可以申请新的“无家可归者法庭项目”，以避免长达六个月的监禁。
该项目将对参与者进行为期一年的监管，并为他们提供药物滥用治疗、心理健康服务、职业培训和住房援助。完成项目的参与者可以撤销定罪，未完成项目者则可能面临监禁。
该州法律规定，参与者“可能被关押在治疗机构”或获得假释释放。法院还可以对参与者施加康复条件。
全国无家可归者法律中心称该法案是“最残忍、最极端的反无家可归法案之一”。路易斯安那州州长杰夫·兰德里为无家可归者法庭辩护，称其将有助于“开始将无家可归者从街头带走，安置到他们该去的地方”。
沙伊娜·贝索内特是路易斯安那州的一名牙科保健师，2022年1月至2026年3月期间无家可归，她在州议会前作证反对该法案。
“仅仅因为某人无家可归，只是因为没有睡觉的地方，并不意味着任何人有权将他们带走并仅仅因为无处可去而惩罚他们。这不能解决问题，反而会让问题变得更糟，”她告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻。
西塞罗研究所政策主任德文·库尔茨表示，这项行政令和司法部6月的法律意见，让各州在精神疾病护理方面拥有“大得多的自由裁量权”。该意见让各州更容易将精神疾病患者留在收容机构中，而非为他们提供居家或社区护理服务。
西塞罗研究所是由帕兰蒂尔联合创始人乔·朗斯代尔创立的保守派智库，曾为白宫起草这项行政令提供咨询。
“这项行政令实际上是向这些机构发出信号，要求它们重新审视所有这些关键的接触点，这些点正在给各州进行政策试验带来不必要的负担和限制，”库尔茨说。
他认为，住房优先政策和类似理念“一直在奖励那些表现最差的地区”。
但巴泽隆心理健康中心副主任詹妮弗·马西斯表示，民事收容可能比提供长期住房成本更高，应该是“最后才会采用的手段”。
马西斯曾是拜登政府时期司法部民权司的官员，她表示这项行政令“营造了一种环境，让各州要么感到压力，要么被允许专注于更强制的策略，而更少将住房作为解决方案”。
“这项行政令背后的基本理念似乎是，这些无家可归的人不配拥有住房，”她说。“他们要么是罪犯，要么是问题人物，我们应该强迫他们接受治疗，因为这本质上是他们自己的错。”
“这从根本上就是错误的，”她说。
资金调整陷入司法诉讼
政府官员称，特朗普的行政令已促成7亿美元的卫生与公众服务部资金，用于帮助有成瘾和精神疾病问题的人群以及解决无家可归问题，但该资金对住房优先或“减少伤害”政策的使用设有限制。
但政府关于住房和城市发展部如何在逾40亿美元的无家可归者援助拨款中“加强问责”的愿景，目前陷入了诉讼僵局。
自2013年以来，住房和城市发展部及其他联邦机构一直采用住房优先政策解决无家可归问题。住房优先政策最初由乔治·W·布什政府于2004年确立为全国性联邦战略。
住房和城市发展部2025年的无家可归问题报告称，自2013年以来，无家可归人数 Roughly 增长了约27%。
与2024年相比，住房和城市发展部2026年预算将永久性支持住房拨款从约30亿美元削减至24亿美元。同时，2026年住房和城市发展部预算将更多资金——13亿美元——转向新的过渡性临时住房项目，而2024年预算中这一拨款约为60万美元。
最近一起诉讼援引了全国结束无家可归联盟的说法，称转向临时过渡性住房可能会导致9.7万人被赶出永久性支持住房。
来自21个州的总检察长和全国结束无家可归联盟于7月就最新的资金计划起诉住房和城市发展部。此前阻止住房和城市发展部2025年资金计划的法律挑战已于4月胜诉。
住房和城市发展部部长斯科特·特纳称9.7万人这个数字是“危言耸听”，并表示诉讼阻碍“早就该进行的改革”是“荒谬的”。
“没有人会被扔到街上，”特纳在一份声明中说，他辩称住房和城市发展部的计划将“提供比以往任何时候都多的资金”，并为无家可归者倡导者和团体“提供更大的灵活性，以投资于他们所在社区需要的住房和服务”。
全国结束无家可归联盟首席执行官安·奥利瓦为住房优先政策辩护，称政府的反对“不真诚”，且无视过去十年住房成本上涨“将人们推入无家可归境地”的背景。
“这就好比他们说急诊室导致了癌症，所以我们应该取消急诊室？因为癌症仍然存在？这是目光短浅的，”她说。
Trump policy clears way for civil commitment of homeless in some states
July 28, 2026 / 10:26 PM EDT / CBS News
By Aaron Navarro Digital Reporter
Aaron Navarro is a CBS News digital reporter. He covered the 2024 elections and was previously an associate producer for the CBS News political unit in the 2021 and 2022 election cycles.
Read Full Bio
In the year since President Trump signed an executive order aimed at moving homeless people off the streets, federal agencies have given states a green light to expand the use of civil commitment for homeless individuals with mental illness or substance abuse problems.
Pending a court challenge, the primary system of funding for organizations combating homelessness could be transformed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to comply with Mr. Trump’s executive order.
The president’s order argues that past policies neglected “root causes” of homelessness and created a public safety risk.
Opponents say that the administration would strain the limited number of state treatment centers, criminalize the homeless population and would be an unnecessary shift away from “Housing First” policies. Housing First is an approach that promotes non-conditional access to housing — that is, without requiring sobriety, compliance with treatment or making other demands of recipients.
Civil commitments
Mr. Trump’s order prompted the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments to prioritize funding for states that carry out involuntary psychiatric treatment — or “maximally flexible civil commitment” of individuals with mental illness who “pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.”
His order argued that “public order” would be restored by committing homeless people to “long-term institutional settings for humane treatment.”
It called on the Justice Department to reverse any consent decrees that would impede these civil commitments. The order also prioritized funding for states and cities that ban urban camping, urban squatting and open illicit drug use.
About 30% of those experiencing chronic homelessness have a serious mental illness, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Meanwhile, two-thirds have a substance use disorder or other chronic health condition.
The call for a tougher law-and-order approach has prompted multiple Republican states to pass laws that penalize homeless encampments or expand the facilitation of involuntary institutionalizations.
Utah recently approved more than $43 million in spending earlier this year in part to target “high utilizers,” those who repeatedly cycle through homeless shelters and jail. It is reinforced by a new law that allows these individuals to be put under the supervision of Utah’s Division of Adult Probation and Parole.
Both Indiana and Louisiana passed bills this year that make it a crime to sleep overnight or camp on public property. Louisiana’s HB 211, called the “Streets to Success Act,” punishes first-time violators with fines up to $500. To avoid spending up to six months in jail, eligible individuals may sign up for a new “Homelessness Court Program.”
The program would supervise participants for a year and give them access to substance abuse treatment, mental health services, job training and housing assistance. Those who complete the program could have their conviction erased. Those who don’t risk a jail sentence.
Participants “may be confined in a treatment facility” or released on a probationary basis, the state law says. The court could also impose rehabilitation conditions on participants.
The National Homelessness Law Center called it “one of the cruelest, most extreme anti-homeless bills.” Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry defended the homeless courts, arguing they’d help “start removing the homeless off of our streets and into the places that they belong.”
Shaina Bessonet, a dental hygienist in Louisiana who experienced homelessness from January 2022 to March 2026, testified against the bill before the state legislature.
“Just because someone is homeless, because they don’t have a place to sleep, doesn’t give anybody the right to take them and punish them just for not having a place to go. It’s not fixing the problem, it’s making it worse,” she told CBS News.
Devon Kurtz, a policy director at the Cicero Institute, said the executive order and a June Justice Department legal opinion, gives states “considerably more discretion” on their psychiatric care. That opinion made it easier for states to keep those with mental illness institutionalized, rather than provide them with in-home or community-based care.
The Cicero Institute, a conservative think tank that was established by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, advised the White House on the crafting of the executive order.
“This executive order was really a signal to those agencies that they have to revisit all of these key touch points that are creating these unnecessary burdens and ceilings on state experimentation with policy,” Kurtz said.
He argued that the Housing First approach and similar ideas have “been rewarding the places that have done the worst.”
But Jennifer Mathis, deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health, said civil commitment could be more expensive than providing long-term housing and should be “a last resort.”
Mathis, a Biden-era official in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said the executive order “created an environment where states felt either pressured or permitted to focus on more coercive strategies, to focus less on housing as a solution.”
“The basic notion behind the executive order seems to be that these people who are unhoused don’t deserve housing,” she said. “They’re either criminals or they’re problem people, and we should basically be forcing them into treatment because it’s just their own fault.”
It’s “just wrong at its core,” she said.
Funding changes stuck in the courts
Administration officials claim Mr. Trump’s order has resulted in$700 million in HHS funding aimed at helping people with addiction and mental illness, as well as homelessness, though there are limits on the funding being used on Housing First or “harm reduction” policies.
But the administration’s vision of how HUD can “increase accountability” in the over $4 billion in grants proposed for homelessness assistance has been stuck in litigation.
Housing First policies have been used by HUD and other federal agencies to address homelessness since 2013. Housing First was initially adopted as a national federal strategy by President George W. Bush’s administration in 2004.
The department’s report on homelessness in 2025 claimed there’s been a roughly 27% increase in homelessness since 2013.
HUD’s 2026 budget cut the available funds for permanent, supportive housing funding from about $3 billion to $2.4 billion, compared to 2024. And the 2026 HUD budget shifts a greater portion of funding — $1.3 billion — to new transitional, temporary housing programs, compared to the approximately $600,000 allocated in the 2024 budget.
A recent lawsuit cites a claim by the National Alliance to End Homelessness that the shift towards temporary, transitional housing could kick 97,000 people out of permanent supportive housing.
Attorneys general from 21 states and the National Alliance to End Homelessness sued HUD in July over the latest plan for funding. A legal challenge to stop HUD’s 2025 plan for funding was successful in April.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the 97,000 figure was “fear-mongering” and said it was “absurd” that litigation was blocking “long-overdue changes.”
“No one is being kicked out on the streets,” Turner said, arguing in a statement that the HUD plan would provide “more funding than ever before” and give homeless advocates and groups “greater flexibility to invest in the housing and services their neighborhoods need.”
Ann Oliva, the CEO of NAEH, defended Housing First policies and called the administration’s opposition “disingenuous” and lacking context regarding how the increase in housing costs over the last decade “funnel[ed] people into homelessness.”
“It’s like they’re saying the emergency room is causing cancer. So we should just get rid of emergency rooms? Because cancer is still happening? That’s short-sighted,” she said.