Part 3: Trump’s Executive Order 14321

That catches us up to the modern day, where the Trump administration has issued a new policy called Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets in all caps for some reason.

It explicitly seeks to reverse the trend of deinstitutionalization and encourage a return to involuntary institutionalization for certain populations, particularly unhoused individuals with mental illness or substance use disorders. This is a direct challenge to the Olmstead mandate for community-based services.  

In particular, the executive order directs the Attorney General, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, to actively pursue the reversal of federal and state court decisions that "impede" the policy of encouraging civil commitment for individuals with mental illness who "pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves." This directly targets Supreme Court precedents like Olmstead v. L.C. and Donaldson v. O'Connor, which protect individuals from unnecessary institutionalization and ensure due process before involuntary commitment.  

In addition, it seeks to "remove vagrant individuals from our streets" and address "urban camping and loitering." To do this, they want to prioritize federal grants for states and localities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping, loitering, and squatting.   The order itself explicitly states the policy goal of "shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order."

The response from disability groups like the ACLU has been a strong stance against the measure.

Scout Katovich, an experienced Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU's Trone Center for Justice & Equality, argues that "Pushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won't solve homelessness or support people with disabilities. The exact opposite is true – institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn't work. Every action this administration takes displays remarkable disdain for the rights and dignity of vulnerable people."

The National Alliance on Mental Illness also stands against this measure. Daniel H. Gillison, NAMI's CEO, said that "Mental illness is not a crime, and people with mental illness deserve to be treated as human beings, with dignity and respect. While addressing the nationwide homelessness crisis is urgent and necessary, yesterday's executive order promoting institutionalization of people with mental illness raises grave concerns for NAMI and our community."  

But is it really ableist if we prevent people with severe mental disorders, particularly ones that have manifested themselves in a violent or self-destructive way, from living on the streets and potentially harming themselves or others? Many family advocacy groups say no.

Some groups, especially those working with the elderly, are focused on those whose loved ones suffer from severe, persistent mental illness (often with anosognosia, preventing them from recognizing their illness) and resist voluntary treatment, have long advocated for stronger involuntary commitment laws, including Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT). They often feel that current legal standards make it too difficult to intervene until a crisis escalates. The EO's push for "maximally flexible" commitment standards and a focus on getting individuals off the streets and into treatment may appeal to this desperate need for intervention.

In other words, if grand-dad suffers from confusion due to dementia or enters a psychotic state, their family can have them sent to a psychiatric facility. This would also apply to non-elderly family members suffering from other disorders. Most would agree, in these particular circumstances, that this executive order might be beneficial.

Some major Democratic lawmakers have also joined in. New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s recent initiatives strengthen involuntary commitment laws in her state, by clarifying that intervention is possible when individuals are at "substantial risk of harm due to their inability to meet basic needs," reflecting a similar, albeit state-level, effort to broaden the criteria for compelling treatment. This, of course, creates tension between individual liberty and public safety, and the challenge of providing effective care for those most in need.  

Ultimately, Executive Order 14321 forces a critical confrontation over the direction of disability policy in the United States. It signals a potential pivot back toward institutionalization and coercive measures, challenging the hard-won progress towards community inclusion and self-determination. The coming months will undoubtedly see robust legal challenges and intensified advocacy as disability rights organizations mobilize to protect the foundational rights affirmed by Olmstead, ensuring that the promise of community living remains a reality for all.

So, what is my personal opinion on this? As far as I am concerned, implementation will be the true test of whether this measure is either good or bad for the community. If the institutions are well run and there is a focus on family care, that could work. If a small group of loved ones can make that decision a bit more easily, that could even save lives.

But if this law is just used to remove “undesirables” from the streets, it could prove to be one of the worst policies for people with disabilities. Unfortunately, I suspect that is exactly what’s going to happen.

Let’s hope it doesn’t.