Did Trump sign an executive order to institutionalize handicapped people
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” on July 24, 2025 that explicitly directs federal agencies to promote expanded use of civil commitment and to “shift” unhoused people into long‑term institutional settings as part of a public‑order strategy [1]. Advocacy groups, disability‑rights organizations, legal scholars and public‑health experts characterize the order as a policy that facilitates forced institutionalization of people with mental health conditions and people experiencing homelessness and say it threatens decades of civil‑rights precedent protecting community living for people with disabilities [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The text of the order: language that encourages civil commitment and institutional settings
The White House text of the executive order states that “shifting homeless individuals into long‑term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order” and authorizes technical guidance, grants, and “maximally flexible” civil‑commitment and institutional standards to be promoted to states and localities [1]. That wording is explicit policy direction from the federal government favoring expanded civil commitment and institutional treatment for people identified as homeless and unable to care for themselves [1].
2. How advocates and disability groups interpret the order: a move toward forced institutionalization
National disability and homeless‑service organizations and self‑advocacy groups have denounced the order as a federal push to criminalize homelessness and to make it easier to involuntarily confine people with mental‑health and substance‑use disabilities, warning it would reverse Olmstead‑era protections against unjustified institutionalization under the Americans with Disabilities Act [2] [3] [6]. Groups such as Disability Rights California, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and others argue the order prioritizes removing people from streets over investing in housing and community supports and explicitly contemplates driving people “into locked institutions against their will” [7] [3].
3. Legal and historical context: why this raises alarm
Legal analysts point out the order’s call to “reverse” or undermine judicial precedents such as Olmstead v. L.C., which held unjustified institutionalization is unlawful discrimination under the ADA, and note U.S. Supreme Court decisions have long treated involuntary commitment as a profound deprivation of liberty [6] [8]. Disability advocates and policy researchers say the policy echoes earlier eras of mass institutionalization and could violate civil‑rights safeguards if implemented, while also warning that shifting people into institutions often harms health and life expectancy [6] [8] [9].
4. Administration framing and competing interpretations
The White House frames the EO as a public‑safety and order measure intended to restore safe streets and provide “humane treatment” through institutional pathways, and it directs federal agencies to offer legal and financial assistance to states pursuing those approaches [1]. Critics counter that the order conflates homelessness and disability with criminality, overlooks evidence favoring housing‑first and community‑based care, and may withhold funds from jurisdictions that refuse to follow the EO’s punitive conditions [10] [8] [7].
5. Bottom line answer to the question asked
Yes — President Trump signed an executive order that explicitly encourages and facilitates the expanded use of civil commitment and the movement of unhoused people into long‑term institutional settings, which disability advocates describe as directing states toward institutionalizing people with mental‑health and substance‑use disabilities [1] [2] [3]. That said, the order does not literally say “institutionalize anyone disabled” in blanket terms; it targets people characterized as posing safety risks or “unable to care for themselves,” but its language is broad and would, if acted upon, make involuntary institutionalization legally and practically easier in many jurisdictions, a prospect that rights groups and legal scholars vigorously dispute and are preparing to challenge [1] [6] [8] [11].