President Donald Trump issued a March 14 executive order calling for the elimination of all “non-statutory components and functions” of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), an independent federal agency tasked with “preventing and ending homelessness in America.” The move threatens the country’s ability to respond to the growing homelessness crisis.
The order called for the elimination “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” of any activities not explicitly approved by Congress for the USICH and six other agencies, including the Voice of America and the Minority Business Development Agency. The heads of each agency were ordered to submit a report to the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by March 21, confirming their compliance with the order and explaining which, “if any,” parts of their work are statutorily required.
“The gutting of USICH would have a very negative impact on people experiencing homelessness, on communities, and on the federal government’s capacity to respond to homelessness in an effective and strategic way,” former USICH Executive Director Jeff Olivet said.
USICH works with other agencies to coordinate the federal response to homelessness at the state and local levels and is the only federal agency tasked to address homelessness. According to its bylaws, the agency works to conduct research and disseminate information regarding the status of homelessness in the U.S. It also publishes national strategic plans to end homelessness.
According to the USICH website, 13 people currently serve on its staff, though the fiscal year 2025 budget allocated funds for 18 full-time staffers. It is unclear what specific actions the White House has deemed “unnecessary,” but the administration has already suggested rolling back other support for people experiencing homelessness.
OMB Director Russell Vought, who is tasked with determining the effectiveness and compliance of the targeted agencies, was one of the primary authors of the controversial Project 2025, a conservative governing blueprint for the second Trump administration. Project 2025 called for an end to “housing first” policies so the government instead “prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.”
This all-or-nothing approach worries Olivet, who began working in the homeless services field in the 1990s before the housing first policy was widely adopted, and stepped down in December. Housing first policy prioritizes quickly moving people experiencing homelessness into permanent, unconditional housing.
“What we realized as housing first came along was that if you can move people as quickly as possible into housing and provide really good wraparound supports, they can exit homelessness very successfully,” Olivet said.
While Olivet recognizes housing first doesn’t work for everyone experiencing homelessness, he warns against its elimination. “Instead of throwing the whole thing out and saying that doesn’t work, what we need to be more surgical about is what works for different people at different points in their journey,” he said.
The Trump administration also has repeatedly supported clearing homeless encampments, particularly in D.C. On March 6, the city cleared a large encampment next to the State Department the day after the president posted on Truth Social calling it “unsightly.” Kate Coventry, deputy director of legislative strategy for the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, worries about the impact of this kind of language and the president’s ability to influence the District government.
“What we know is that clearing encampments does not end homelessness,” Coventry said. “It disrupts relationships between outreach workers and residents. Most residents do not move into housing or into shelter. They just move to another outside location, and people lose valuable things.”
Many of the Trump administration’s cuts are being done in the name of saving taxpayers money, but as agencies reduce staff and operational functions, experts worry about potential impacts on those same taxpayers. Olivet questions how cuts to USICH will make the agency more effective, especially given its already limited budget.
“This is an agency that was designed to ensure government efficiency, to eliminate duplication and waste, and so to come after this agency under the guise of government efficiency is disingenuous,” Olivet said.
Now, the administration is at an impasse, Olivet said, and must decide whether it is going to invest in evidence-based policies to end homelessness or continue stigmatizing people experiencing homelessness.
“I think there’s a fundamental question for this administration, and that is, what are you willing to do to solve homelessness? Not to strip funding away from communities, not to demonize people who are experiencing homelessness, but to really solve it,” Olivet said. “And that’s a moral question. It’s also a policy question and a budget question.”
