Liberals Compare Trump’s Plan Requiring Treatment or Work for Housing to the Holocaust

Liberals and Democrats frequently accuse Republicans of being indifferent to homelessness, claiming they neither care about nor help the homeless. Yet homelessness did not disappear under President Obama and surged dramatically during the Biden administration. This reality suggests that the issue is far more complex than critics admit and that the political left does not possess a proven or superior solution.

When President Trump returned to office, he inherited a nation burdened not only by Biden-era illegal immigration but also by an exploding homeless population plagued by widespread drug addiction. Major cities such as San Francisco and Philadelphia had devolved into large, lawless zones dominated by encampments and open-air drug use, rendering entire neighborhoods unsafe. These areas were marked by severe sanitation problems and high rates of crime, including drug trafficking, prostitution, theft, and violent offenses.

Homelessness statistics are often inconsistent and, in many cases, selectively presented to advance political narratives. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports that 771,480 individuals experienced homelessness at some point during the year, including those in shelters, transitional housing, or unsheltered locations. However, many of these individuals cycle through existing systems, meaning the number of people living permanently on the streets is often lower than headline figures suggest.

For decades, the prevailing understanding has been that a large portion of the street homeless suffer from serious mental illness, substance abuse, or both—conditions that make steady employment impossible without treatment. Simply providing free housing does not resolve these underlying issues. To defend the housing-first approach, liberals face a contradiction: they must minimize the role of addiction and mental illness to argue that housing alone solves homelessness, while simultaneously emphasizing those same issues to justify funding for voluntary treatment programs.

As a result, studies on homelessness are frequently contradictory. Some claim addiction rates as low as 25 percent, despite surveys showing that 68 percent of cities identify substance abuse as the leading cause of homelessness among single adults. Other research indicates addiction rates as high as 75 percent. A 2024 Journal of the American Medical Association analysis found that 67 percent of homeless individuals suffer from a mental health disorder, while other studies conclude that roughly three-quarters face mental illness or substance abuse severe enough to prevent employment without treatment.

In response, President Trump issued a July 24, 2025, executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.” The order shifts federal homelessness policy toward treatment and recovery, emphasizing court-supervised care and civil commitment for individuals with severe mental illness or addiction who are unable to care for themselves or pose a danger. It expands assisted outpatient treatment programs and drug courts and encourages institutional or structured treatment settings when necessary.

This treatment-first—or recovery-first—model differs sharply from housing-first policies. It requires sobriety, compliance with treatment, and demonstrated stability before permanent housing is provided. The approach prioritizes addressing root causes, particularly addiction and mental illness, and aims to restore individuals to independence and self-sufficiency.

Liberals oppose this model, arguing that it constitutes forced treatment or a return to pre-1960s institutionalization. They contend that adults have the right to remain addicted if they choose and that the state has no authority to impose behavioral standards. Conservatives counter that while individuals may make such choices, taxpayers should not be required to subsidize them indefinitely.

Treatment-first policies assume taxpayer support is temporary. Once individuals receive care and recover, they can return to work and support themselves. Under housing-first models, by contrast, there is no expectation of recovery, employment, or progress—leaving taxpayers responsible for permanent subsidies.

To discredit treatment-first policies, liberal media outlets and activists have drawn extreme and inflammatory comparisons to Nazi-era atrocities. Social media narratives have claimed that institutional treatment is merely the first step toward mass extermination. A July 2025 Mind-War Blog article likened the policy to Aktion T4, falsely alleging that the administration seeks to strip constitutional rights from those deemed “unfit.” Truthout and other outlets echoed similar claims, framing the executive order as ableist, racist, and authoritarian. Earlier media pieces even described Trump’s proposals as equivalent to concentration camps.

This pattern is familiar: the left imagines a catastrophic scenario, amplifies it through media and activism, and then demands increased funding to prevent the disaster they themselves invented—funding that ultimately entrenches failed policies.

Baltimore’s Sojourner Place at Park exemplifies the housing-first alternative. The $28 million project includes 42 units, with 28 designated as permanent supportive housing. Residents receive housing with no requirements for sobriety, employment, or treatment; services are voluntary. Funded through Low Income Housing Tax Credits and private grants, the project locks units at below-market rates for 40 years.

This model effectively imposes rent control or full taxpayer subsidization, creating a permanent financial obligation. It allows residents to remain housed indefinitely while addicted, unemployed, and untreated. Meanwhile, liberals remain reluctant to compel participation, leaving those who choose street living free to remain there.

In the end, housing-first does not solve homelessness—it institutionalizes it.

original source