The Trump administration has shifted federal homelessness policy toward programs that prioritize sobriety, work and transitional services over unconditional permanent housing. This change alters grant scoring and funding emphasis at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and aims to tie assistance to behavioral expectations. Supporters argue the approach restores accountability and expands services for more people, while critics warn about potential consequences for the most vulnerable. The debate now centers on whether recovery-first programs will reduce visible disorder and help more people exit homelessness for good.
For years, federal policy leaned heavily on a “Housing first” model that placed people into permanent rental support with few behavioral requirements. The new guidance elevates “Sobriety first” and transitional programs, signaling a clear policy pivot. Officials say the Continuum of Care program will continue to deliver large sums of money and that funds are being reallocated rather than eliminated. The administration frames the move as a practical response to cities overwhelmed by encampments and public disorder.
“Late last week, the Trump administration released revised scoring criteria for homelessness organizations seeking grant funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care program.” That paragraph is reproduced here to preserve the original wording exactly. “The move signals a new direction in federal homelessness policy. For more than a decade, HUD had supported “Housing First,” an approach that calls for permanent rental subsidies without behavioral expectations. Now, the agency will favor transitional work- and sobriety-oriented homelessness programs, in keeping with the administration’s July executive order.”
Critics say the change will punish people who are ill or addicted, but proponents point to practical outcomes: transitional housing often serves more people than permanent housing and can incorporate treatment and job training. Officials highlight that next year the Continuum of Care program is set to deliver $3.9 billion, more than previous highs. The money, they argue, can be used in ways that push people toward recovery and employment rather than simply providing indefinite shelter without conditions.
Requiring treatment and accountability does not mean there is no place for long-term care, especially for those with severe, persistent mental illness. Some people genuinely need a higher level of psychiatric care beyond what homelessness services provide. The sensible approach is to coordinate homelessness programs with mental-health systems to ensure people with chronic conditions receive appropriate treatment in facilities equipped for long-term care.
There are harsh realities on the street that policymakers must confront. Some individuals are unlikely to be rehabilitated due to irreversible brain damage, chronic disability from substance abuse, or severe untreated mental illness. For that group, options like permanent institutional care may be more humane and safer than leaving them exposed to the dangers of life on the sidewalks and in encampments.
For many others, a clear pathway out of homelessness can work: get sober, join a work program, and then transition into independent living. The sober-first model aims to break cycles that permanent subsidies alone have not ended. Without expectations tied to recovery and productive behavior, critics on both sides say public disorder continues and people remain trapped in dependency.
“This is a big change, as critics have noted, though they miss the mark on many of the details. First, funds are being shifted, not “cut.” The Continuum of Care program will next year deliver more homelessness funding—$3.9 billion—than the previous high set under the Biden administration. And to the extent that more funds flow to transitional housing, which serves more people than permanent housing, more people will receive services.”
Local governments will face tough questions as they adapt: will existing permanent housing providers rebrand as transitional programs to preserve access to funding? Will courts use transitional placements as alternatives for people cited for public intoxication or minor offenses? Bridging policy and practice will require clear rules that protect civil liberties while enforcing standards that improve public safety and individual prospects.
Visible encampments and street disorder have become common across American cities, from Anchorage to Los Angeles, creating public-safety and public-health crises. Residents and business owners demand action, and elected officials are under pressure to deliver solutions that restore order and offer paths to recovery. The new federal emphasis on sobriety and work-oriented transitional services is an attempt to answer that demand with a different set of priorities.
Successful implementation will depend on honest assessment, better coordination with mental-health systems, and realistic expectations about who can recover. If the goal is to reduce chronic homelessness and visible decline on our streets, policy must combine resources with requirements that encourage recovery and productivity.
Add comment