Contrasting Trump’s Executive Order with Oregon’s Shelter Program Bill

WASHINGTON, July 27, 2025 — President Donald Trump’s executive order, signed July 24, 2025, and Oregon’s House Bill 3644, passed in 2025, both address homelessness but diverge sharply in their approaches, priorities, and methods. While the federal order emphasizes public safety, civil commitment, and enforcement, Oregon’s bill focuses on expanding shelter capacity, fostering regional coordination, and promoting equity and housing stability through a structured, state-funded program.

Federal Executive Order: Enforcement and Civil Commitment

Objective: Trump’s executive order aims to restore public order in U.S. cities by addressing what it describes as “endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks” linked to homelessness. It cites a record-high 274,224 unsheltered individuals in the last year of the prior administration, emphasizing drug addiction and mental health issues as root causes.

Key Provisions

Civil Commitment: The order directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reverse judicial precedents limiting civil commitment and assist states in adopting flexible standards to institutionalize individuals with mental illness or substance use disorders who pose risks or cannot care for themselves.

Enforcement Priorities: Federal grants will prioritize states and municipalities enforcing bans on open drug use, urban camping, loitering, and squatting. The order also mandates tracking homeless sex offenders and ensuring detainees with mental illness are not released due to lack of forensic beds.

Funding Reallocation: It rejects “housing first” and “harm reduction” policies, redirecting funds to evidence-based treatment programs, drug and mental health courts, and shelters requiring treatment participation. It also calls for legal action against programs operating drug injection sites.

Public Safety Focus: The order frames homelessness as a public safety threat, criticizing past programs for failing to address root causes and leaving citizens vulnerable.

Approach: The federal policy is top-down, with a strong emphasis on law enforcement, accountability, and institutional solutions. It seeks to shift individuals off the streets into treatment facilities, prioritizing public order over individual autonomy. The order’s tone suggests skepticism of existing homelessness programs, particularly those emphasizing harm reduction or low-barrier access.

Oregon’s House Bill 3644: Shelter Expansion and Regional Coordination

Objective: Oregon’s bill establishes a permanent statewide shelter program to reduce unsheltered homelessness and transition people into housing stability. Building on Governor Tina Kotek’s emergency response, it projects supporting over 4,800 shelter beds, rehousing 3,300 households, and preventing homelessness for 24,000 households by June 30, 2025.

Key Provisions:

Statewide Shelter Program: The Housing and Community Services Department will administer a program dividing Oregon into regions, each managed by a regional coordinator (a local government or nonprofit). Coordinators will develop regional assessments and plans to address local needs.

Funding and Accountability: The bill appropriates $217.9 million for the 2025-2027 biennium to fund shelters and services. At least 70% of regional funds must support low-barrier shelters, with the remainder for recovery-based options. Annual reports and a grievance system ensure accountability.

Equity and Flexibility: The program prioritizes equity for communities disproportionately affected by homelessness, supports culturally specific and rural providers, and integrates tribal sovereignty. Shelters must use evidence-based practices, cultural responsiveness, and harm reduction principles.

Low-Barrier Access: Shelters must be available 24/7, prioritize immediate housing access, and use coordinated entry systems. The bill emphasizes flexibility to meet diverse community needs while maintaining consistent standards.

Approach: Oregon’s policy is collaborative and regionally tailored, focusing on expanding shelter capacity and supporting housing stability through partnerships with local governments, nonprofits, and service providers. It embraces harm reduction and low-barrier shelters, contrasting sharply with the federal rejection of these approaches.

Key Contrasts

1. Philosophical Approach

Federal: Prioritizes public safety and order, viewing homelessness through a lens of enforcement and institutional treatment. It frames unsheltered individuals as potential threats, emphasizing civil commitment for those with mental illness or addiction.

Oregon: Focuses on reducing unsheltered homelessness and promoting housing stability with an equity-driven, community-based approach. It emphasizes access to shelter and services without mandating treatment.

2. Treatment of Harm Reduction:

Federal: Explicitly rejects “harm reduction” and “safe consumption” programs, labeling them as facilitators of illegal drug use, and threatens legal action against such initiatives.

Oregon: Incorporates harm reduction as a core principle, requiring shelters to use evidence-based, culturally responsive practices that include harm reduction strategies.

3. Role of Enforcement:

Federal: Ties federal funding to strict enforcement of laws against open drug use, camping, loitering, and squatting. It also emphasizes tracking sex offenders and preventing releases of detainees with mental illness.

Oregon: Does not mention enforcement or criminalization, focusing instead on service provision, regional planning, and voluntary engagement with shelter and housing programs.

4. Funding and Structure:

Federal: Redirects existing discretionary grants to prioritize enforcement and treatment-focused programs, without specifying new funding. Implementation relies on federal agencies like the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development.

Oregon: Allocates $217.9 million for a structured, state-administered program with clear timelines (e.g., rules by January 1, 2026, regional coordinators by May 1, 2026). It establishes a regional framework with ongoing funding and accountability mechanisms.

5. Shelter and Housing Policies:

Federal: Rejects “housing first” policies and requires treatment participation for individuals with substance use disorders or mental illness in federally funded programs. It also allows shelters to segregate women and children and exclude sex offenders.

Oregon: Supports diverse shelter options, including low-barrier and recovery-based models, and prioritizes immediate housing access. It does not mandate treatment but encourages integration with housing stability services.

6. Tone and Framing

Federal: Uses language emphasizing disorder, danger, and the failure of past programs, positioning homelessness as a public safety crisis requiring decisive action.

Oregon: Adopts a solution-oriented tone, building on existing efforts and framing homelessness as a manageable issue through coordinated, equitable, and sustainable interventions.

Implications

The federal executive order and Oregon’s bill represent contrasting visions for addressing homelessness. The federal approach risks alienating communities that rely on harm reduction or low-barrier shelters, potentially reducing access to services for those unwilling or unable to enter treatment. Its focus on enforcement and civil commitment may face legal and ethical challenges, particularly regarding individual rights.

Oregon’s bill, conversely, aligns with progressive homelessness strategies, emphasizing accessibility, equity, and local flexibility. However, its success depends on effective regional coordination and sufficient funding to sustain long-term outcomes. The state’s approach may struggle to address public safety concerns in areas with high rates of visible homelessness or related crime.

While the federal order applies nationwide, its impact in Oregon could create tension with the state’s program, particularly if federal funding is withheld from regions that prioritize low-barrier or harm reduction models. The contrasting policies highlight a broader national debate over whether homelessness is best addressed through enforcement and treatment or through accessible, voluntary services.