Homelessness increased every year under the Trump administration

March 22, 2021

Trump's legacy: More people living on the streets
Homeless people were among the many marginalized groups scapegoated by Republicans during the Trump era: probably because the problem of homelessness steadily worsened on Trump's watch, and victim-blaming is one of reactionaries' favorite pastimes. A report published last week by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated that 580,466 people experienced homelessness last year, which amounts to a 2.2 annual increase, and a 5.5 percent increase in the measure since 2016. More disturbingly, the number of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness was up 7 percent last year to 226,080. Both measures of homelessness steadily increased every year that President Trump was in office, after declining almost every year since 2007, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Both sheltered and unsheltered homelessness were up in 2010, amid the Great Recession foreclosure crisis. Unsheltered homelessness also increased again under the Obama administration in 2015.

The measured increase in homelessness last year might seem shocking, given that emergency housing measures that were implemented to stop people from being thrown out on the streets during the pandemic. But the numbers calculated in HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report come from research that was conducted before COVID spread throughout the United States. “The one-night counts are conducted during the last 10 days of January each year,” the agency explained. We will have to wait until next year's estimate to gauge how homelessness changed during the pandemic, with emergency restrictions on foreclosures and evictions. Based on a report issued last week by the Government Accountability Office, it seems that the restrictions had some positive impact in cities and states that implemented them throughout the year. In December 2020, U.S. jurisdictions with active eviction moratoriums saw 91 percent fewer eviction filings than they did in December 2019, according to GAO “whereas those without an active local moratorium had only about 36 percent fewer.”

Freedom of Global Empire
One way that the United States government is trying to ratchet up conflict with China these days is by dredging up claims about freedom of navigation. But while the term evokes images of navies bullying random fishermen and cargo ships and such, people should harbor little concerns about the matter, unless they have an interest in maintaining a worldwide empire. Earlier this month, the Pentagon issued its annual report about “excessive maritime claims.” Most amount to restrictions imposed by countries on the movement of other countries' naval vessels.

The Pentagon, for example, considers it to be a violation of freedom of navigation for Algeria, Yemen, and Vietnam to require foreign warships to ask for permission to pass through their territorial waters. Brazil, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Uruguay, and Ecuador should not require consent for military exercises in their exclusive economic zones, according to the DOD, even if they involve live fire. The Pentagon also believes that it's wrong for Malaysia to impose restrictions on nuclear-powered vessels, and for Samoa to require authorization for “for vessels carrying radioactive wastes or other inherently dangerous, noxious or hazardous wastes, or substances harmful to the environment.” Why shouldn’t they? And China is running afoul of freedom of navigation by restricting mapping and surveying activities, foreign aircraft flights through air defense zones, and the passage of foreign military ships. Does this sound like it’s worth risking World War III to you?

The grand irony of this is that the U.S, consistently claims that it is fighting for “rules-based international order” when confronting China (and other countries) about freedom of navigation. But, in airing its annual grievances, the Pentagon cites the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which the United States government refuses to sign. You just can't make this stuff up.

Won't someone think of the oil companies?
Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee are upset about reports that the Federal Reserve is considering financial regulation as a tool to mitigate climate risk. The lawmakers wrote to the central bank last week saying that banking supervision and regulation should not be used “to further environmental policy objectives.”

At the heart of these senators' concerns is, as you probably guessed, the possibility that regulation will cut off oil companies from the cheap capital that is fueling the slow asphyxiation of the planet. The lawmakers wrote that “a major threat to [energy-related] assets is the effort by regulators to impair their value, including through onerous regulations and increased financing costs.” Perhaps, but only because these “energy-related assets” pose a threat to billions of human beings.

The Republican senators also complained that regulators shouldn't impose restrictions on banks’ investments in dirty energy concerns simply because these assets might lose value due to a transition to cleaner energy sources. The legislators insisted that “banks are in the best position to assess and price for risks in their portfolios.” Tell that to the cohort of people who became homeless in 2010.