Trump RESURRECTS Asylums — Sixty Years ERASED

President Trump just signed an executive order that tears up sixty years of mental health policy and resurrects an institution most Americans thought belonged to history books: the asylum.

Story Snapshot

Executive order signed July 24, 2025, expands involuntary civil commitment and shifts federal policy toward institutionalizing homeless individuals and those with serious mental illness
Order directs Attorney General to reverse judicial precedents limiting civil commitment authority, challenging decades of court-backed deinstitutionalization doctrine
Federal funding redirected from Housing First programs to treatment-first models, with over $1 billion in cuts proposed to behavioral health initiatives
Individuals institutionalized for more than 30 days may lose Social Security disability benefits as federal government assumes payment responsibility
Trump announced National Guard deployment to clear homeless encampments in Washington, D.C., relocating occupants to unspecified locations “far from the capital”

The Return of Institutional Care After Six Decades

The executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” represents the most dramatic reversal of mental health policy since the deinstitutionalization movement began in the 1960s. That movement closed large state psychiatric hospitals and shifted care toward community-based services, backed by court decisions establishing protections against involuntary commitment. Trump’s order instructs federal officials to actively seek the reversal of these judicial precedents and consent decrees, marking an unprecedented direct challenge to established legal doctrine that has governed mental health treatment for generations.

What the Order Actually Does

The policy directives reshape the entire federal approach to homelessness and mental illness. Federal officials must now review discretionary grant programs and prioritize funding for states that ban public drug use and urban camping. The order authorizes civil commitment or other legal actions to move unhoused people into treatment facilities, allows law enforcement access to homelessness assistance program data, and ensures federal health center funds support comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorders. States receive financial incentives to broaden civil commitment laws and expand psychiatric institutional capacity.

The Housing First Programs Get Axed

The Department of Housing and Urban Development received explicit instructions to end Housing First funding and redirect resources to treatment-first programs. Housing First, which became the dominant approach in recent years, provided immediate housing without preconditions like sobriety or mandatory mental health treatment. The Trump administration proposed a 50 percent cut to HUD’s budget alongside the policy shift, fundamentally transforming how federal dollars support homeless individuals. This represents not merely a policy adjustment but a complete philosophical reversal in addressing homelessness.

Building Capacity Means Building Institutions

The order contemplates expanding mental facility capacity on a massive scale. Analysis suggests that doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the number of mental facilities could address bed availability constraints that currently limit court-ordered commitments. This expansion faces significant obstacles, including federal Medicaid rules that prohibit financing care in psychiatric facilities with more than 16 beds, known as Institutions for Mental Disease. The capital investment required for facility construction represents a substantial financial commitment, though the administration has not specified a timeline or detailed funding mechanism for this institutional expansion.

Social Security Benefits at Stake

Disability attorney Walter Hnot identified a critical consequence that many overlooked: individuals institutionalized for more than 30 days lose Social Security disability benefits. The federal government assumes payment responsibility through Medicare or Medicaid once someone enters long-term institutional care. For recipients who depend on these monthly payments for basic needs, involuntary commitment could trigger immediate financial crisis. This creates a secondary punishment beyond loss of freedom, stripping away the economic safety net that many vulnerable individuals rely upon for survival outside institutional walls.

The National Guard Comes to Washington

Trump announced plans to deploy the National Guard and assume control of D.C. police to clear homeless encampments, though he did not specify relocation destinations beyond stating occupants would receive “places to stay, but far from the capital.” These actions align with campaign statements advocating for relocation to “tent cities” and expanding involuntary psychiatric commitments. The deployment represents an immediate, visible manifestation of the executive order’s intent, moving beyond policy language to direct action that will reshape the urban landscape of the nation’s capital within weeks or months.

Civil Rights Organizations Sound Alarms

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund characterized the executive order as “regressive,” arguing it criminalizes homelessness and harm reduction programs while threatening the safety of unhoused people. The organization contends the order promotes costly punitive methods instead of proven strategies like Housing First programs. Civil rights advocates emphasize that expanded involuntary commitment raises fundamental questions about individual liberty, due process protections, and whether government can forcibly institutionalize citizens based on housing status rather than demonstrated danger to self or others. These concerns reflect deeper anxieties about state power over vulnerable populations.

President Trump Signs HISTORIC Executive Order to Bring Back Mental Institutions and ‘Insane Asylums’ – “Hate to Build Those Suckers But You’ve Got to Get the People Off the Streets!” https://t.co/QRsFrkbOwa

— Warren Hultquist (@whultquist) January 22, 2026

The Kaiser Family Foundation noted that implementation faces potential obstacles beyond legal challenges. Federal Medicaid rules restricting financing for large psychiatric institutions create immediate barriers. The need for substantial capital investment in facility construction requires either congressional appropriations or creative budget reallocation that may face resistance. Perhaps most significantly, reversing established judicial precedents and consent decrees demands lengthy legal battles that could take years to resolve, delaying the policy’s full implementation regardless of executive intent or administrative capacity to build new institutions.