Addressing homelessness in the United States has become a major systemic failure, leading to a troubling record of 771,480 individuals without stable housing as of 2024—an estimate that many experts consider to be significantly understated. This situation highlights the urgent need for effective policies to combat homelessness.
Yet, the situation has been shaped by powerful tech elites referred to as accelerationists. These techno-capitalists are transforming public perceptions and policies around homelessness as they dismantle existing structures, creating systems that resemble a disturbing mix of slavery and eugenics. In this article, we will explore the driving forces behind current homelessness policies, particularly those associated with the Trump administration, as well as the implications for American society.
The Cicero Institute
The disturbing trajectory of US homelessness policy took a darker turn about four to five years ago when many local governments began criminalizing “unauthorized street camping.” This effectively rendered being homeless illegal.
At the center of this push is the Cicero Institute, a relatively obscure think tank founded in 2016 by billionaire venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, who also co-founded Palantir alongside billionaire Peter Thiel. The Cicero Institute has garnered support from other wealthy backers, including the Koch brothers. Its board consists of Lonsdale, his Silicon Valley connections, and some insiders from Washington, D.C.
As part of a nationwide effort to outlaw homelessness, the Cicero Institute employed lobbyists across various states to advocate for anti-homelessness laws and provided model legislation that has been adopted in multiple areas.
Cicero also utilized litigation efforts that played a role in the 2024 Supreme Court case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which broadened local authorities’ rights to prosecute homelessness.
With the onset of what some refer to as Trump 2.0, Cicero’s framework made its way to Washington, D.C.
Cicero’s Influence on Trump Administration Policy
The model bill proposed by Cicero calls for a fundamental shift in homelessness funding, diverting resources from the “Housing First” approach to prioritize mental health and substance abuse treatment instead.
The “Housing First” model was embraced during the George W. Bush administration and received further support under both Obama and Trump’s first term. This model focuses on swiftly placing homeless individuals into permanent housing before addressing any underlying issues such as mental health or addiction—services that are often difficult to access due to long wait times and affordability challenges.
Despite being generally effective, with multiple studies showing that stable housing significantly reduces reliance on emergency services, the biggest hurdle has been securing sufficient funding to accommodate the growing homeless population. Yet, under the influence of Cicero’s billionaires, the Housing First model is being systematically dismantled.
The revised policies, championed by Cicero-affiliated individuals, advocate that homeless individuals must “save themselves” before receiving housing assistance—an approach starkly contrasting the principles of Housing First.
In July, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to redirect funding away from Housing First and toward enforcement measures against encampments. This shift has created a significant disruption in housing services, leading to chaos within departments across the country.
Federal contracts faced cancellation, and local agencies were given a limited timeframe to completely revamp their operational systems. Unease has risen among those managing Continuum of Care (CoC) programs, many of whom share concerns about new restrictions limiting permanent housing funding, which could push over 170,000 people back into homelessness.
Discussions with 64 administrators from 55 CoC programs revealed an alarming consensus about these new regulations:
“We are not against transitional housing or substance use treatment programs. However, we are worried about funding being pulled from permanent supportive housing and allocated to transitional services without adequate planning.”
Cicero representatives argue that it is time for a shake-up, claiming that the Housing First model has failed, citing the increase in homeless numbers as evidence. They neglect to consider significant contributing factors such as skyrocketing housing costs, a deficit of 7.3 million rental units for low-income tenants, and cutbacks in social services.
Moreover, the Cicero approach did not fundamentally alter federal assistance programs aimed at those who had been homeless for at least 12 months and had documented disabilities—an initiative with a proven success rate of keeping over 90 percent of participants in stable housing.
In essence, the federal strategy did not significantly decrease homelessness numbers because it was never designed to solve the root causes. Yet, the focus of Cicero and its affiliated policies shifts concern away from economic structures, blaming individuals for their circumstances instead.
Counterproductive but Intentional
Even from a fiscal standpoint, these policies are not sound. Research from Eric Tars, senior policy director at the National Homelessness Law Center, states, “Studies show that it can actually cost two to three times more to cycle individuals through the criminal justice system than it does to simply provide housing.”
What does the Cicero-Trump policy accomplish?
- It increases the police state. After Georgia enacted a Cicero-inspired law imposing strict camping bans, an audit revealed that 50 percent of the Marietta Police Department’s time was dedicated to managing homeless issues, which in turn leads to increased funding for law enforcement.
- Enhanced surveillance. Urban digital surveillance technologies are reshaping policing practices, enabling increased monitoring of homeless populations through collaboration with private tech firms.
- More prisons. Criminalizing homelessness contributes to incarceration, where those experiencing homelessness are disproportionately affected, adding complexity to their challenges.
Individuals experiencing homelessness are 11 times more likely to be arrested than those with housing. This criminalization creates barriers to employment, further entrenching the cycle of homelessness and incarceration.
- Exploitation through low-wage labor. Many corporations profit from mass incarceration by using inmate labor for minimal wages.
Furthermore, private equity firms have significant interests in extended-stay hotels that provide a costly alternative for those who’ve been evicted, and many of these firms are deeply embedded in prison healthcare, benefitting from lack of oversight and stable revenue streams. Cyclists have begun shifting the narrative away from systemic economic issues, focusing instead on alleged personal failings among those experiencing homelessness.
Cicero and associated policies imply that homelessness stems from personal problems such as mental illness or substance abuse rather than economic exploitation. The emphasis on individual failings serves their investors’ goals rather than genuinely addressing the root causes of homelessness.
The Los Angeles County jail system now operates as the largest mental health facility in the country—an unfortunate result of neglecting adequate community-based psychiatric services, as evidenced by the escalating incarceration rates of those requiring treatment.
Bipartisanship in the Problem
For those believing this is strictly a Trump issue, it’s alarming to note that Cicero’s strategies parallel policies enacted in California under Governor Gavin Newsom. Democrats are also considering ways to revive their ties with Silicon Valley and are adopting a similar “Abundance” agenda that supports the interests of impactful billionaires like Lonsdale.
In the upcoming California gubernatorial race, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has gathered substantial financial backing from tech moguls and is pushing policies that criminalize homelessness while curtailing affordable housing opportunities. Although his polling numbers are low, the allegiances formed between wealthy investors and political figures exemplify a disturbing trend in the ongoing battles over homelessness policy.
Conclusion
In summary, the current approach to homelessness policy in the United States, led by institutions like the Cicero Institute, not only drains resources but also exacerbates the suffering of those without homes. As the focus shifts away from addressing the systemic issues that contribute to homelessness, we must remain vigilant and advocate for a more humane and practical approach. The future of vulnerable populations depends on adopting policies centered around the dignity and humanity of every individual, rather than resorting to punitive measures that only exacerbate the problem.
