(Headline USA) A grenade is missing from the scene of an explosion at a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department training facility that killed three members of its arson and explosives unit, authorities said Friday.
At the time of the July 18 blast, the veteran deputies were working on two “military-style” grenades that had been taken into custody by authorities. One of the grenades detonated, and the other is unaccounted for, Sheriff Robert Luna said, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The agency is investigating the explosion and is expected to publish a final report in 45 days.
Luna said authorities X-rayed special enforcement bureau vehicles, searched all around the blast area and examined office spaces and even the gym and haven’t found it.
“You get the drift. We have looked at everything out there that we possibly could,” he said, adding that no one from the public has had access to the area.
The day before the explosion, members of the sheriff’s department’s arson and explosives unit arrived at an apartment in Santa Monica to assist local police after a resident said they found what appeared to be two hand grenades in a tenant’s storage unit in the underground parking garage, Luna said. The detectives X-rayed the devices and believed they were “inert,” or inactive.
The devices were then taken to be “destroyed and rendered safe” at the Biscailuz Training Facility, he said.
It was not known whether the grenades had any connection to the military.
Luna said that since the explosion, he has called for an independent review of the policies and practices of the arson and explosives team and has already changed how they handle these types of situations.
“All future explosive devices, inert or not, will be treated as if they are all live and will be disposed of accordingly,” he said.
The deaths early Friday marked the department’s worst loss of life in a single incident since 1857, when four officers were killed by gunfire, Luna said.
The department identified the deputies who died as Detective Joshua Kelley-Eklund, Detective Victor Lemus and Detective William Osborn. They served 19, 22 and 33 years in the department respectively, Luna said.
“We’re going to turn this upside down,” he said. “We’re going to look at everything we can. Why? Because we need to know what happened. We owe it to the families. And for God’s sake, I never want this to happen again.”
(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Michael Spitze, the father of alleged Satanic pedophile Kyle Spitze, has been charged with threatening one of his son’s victims.
Headline USA first reported on the Spitzes in February 2024, before Kyle had been arrested. This publication had received information that Kyle—who had recently achieved internet fame when a video of his mom’s boyfriend shooting him went viral—was involved in the Satanic pedophile cult “764.”
At the time, Headline USA interviewed Michael, who defended his son—though he did confim that Kyle was in the Satanic cult “764,” which is an offshoot of the Order of the Nine Angles, or O9A—a Satanic-themed accelerationist group involved in multiple terrorist plots.
Look who was just arrested for threatening one of Kyle's victims? 👀 Michael Spitze, whom I interviewed last year, allegedly tried bribing one of Kyle's minor victims. The victim also told the father that Kyle said he indeed killed his mother, who purportedly died of an OD last… https://t.co/6OJMy1x6pipic.twitter.com/X1xwfKOiCz
Spitze said his son, who was 18 at the time, was groomed by a woman named “Tara,” who was nearly 20 years his senior.
“He was just turning 18, and that woman convinced him to move to Washington state. and she groomed him and taught him how to do all that stuff online. I hate her,” Michael Spitze said at the time. “But no, my son is not a pedophile. He just may be associated with some fucked up people, but he’s definitely not involved in those activities.”
Apparently, the father then tried to silence a victim. A July 23 indictment, first reported by CourtWatch, charges Michael with two counts of attempting to tamper with a victim.
“On or about March 4, 2024, to on or about March 18, 2024 … Michael William Spitze did knowingly attempt to intimidate, threaten, corruptly persuade and engage in misleading conduct towards a minor victim (MV) by providing MV money and engaging in manipulative behavior towards MV, with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to law enforcement of information,” the indictment states.
The DOJ’s detention memorandum provided more details, revealing that Michael sent money to the victim to communicate with Kyle in prison. At one point, Michael asked the victim for a ‘clean images less than 5mb’ of herself to send to Kyle, which she sent. He also asked her to delete incriminating evidence.
Eventually, the minor victim sent a blistering message to Michael about her son’s activities.
“Micahel im only 16 years old kyle has been grooming and extorting me for months now, i wasnt lying about being kicked out and sexually assaulted im actually kicked out of my house and have been struggling really bad but micahel kyle isnt a good person at all ive watched him first hand groom and extort other girls he claims he isnt a pedophile and that hes something called a hebephile is what he said he is, when melanie tragically passed away,” the victim told him, referring to Kyle’s mother, Melanie, who reportedly died of a drug overdose in January 2024.
“He said he had killed her and posted photos of her all over the internet, everything everyones been saying is completely true im sorry I didnt tell you sooner i was so afraid of kyle but the authorities contacted me today i didnt give any information to them at all.”
Kyle Spitze pled guilty to sex abuse crimes last December after striking a deal with the Justice Department last week—agreeing to plea guilty to four of the eight crimes he was originally charged for. Part of his plea agreement entails him admitting that he committed his crimes with a terroristic purpose in mind.
Michael is being held on pretrial detention. A hearing for him has yet to be scheduled on the court docket.
Ken Silva is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.
(Ken Silva, Headline USA) GREENSBORO, NC – Oran Alexander Routh, the son of alleged would-be Trump assassin Ryan Routh, was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment on Friday for after pleading guilty to one count of possessing child pornography in January.
Oran shook his head while looking at the floor as the judge read his sentence. His lawyer has asked Judge Willam Osteen for a sentence of between 41 and 51 months, while the Justice Department wanted a sentence of 87 to 108 months. Routh was also ordered to pay $37,500 in restitution to his victims.
Judge Osteen said Routh’s lack of sexual criminal history and his good standing in the community warranted a lesser sentence. But at the same time, Oran’s participation in what’s commonly known as “comm”—online forums that discuss and promote child sex abuse—warranted a greater sentence.
Before he gave his sentence, Routh’s defense attorney, John Coalter, detailed his childhood history. He said Oran’s parents, Ryan and Laura Routh, divorced when he was 12 years old.
Oran lived with his mother until she kicked him out of the house at the age of 15 for refusing to go to church. He then lived with Ryan until the father pushed him down the steps, Coalter said, citing a letter to the judge from Laura, who described Ryan as a “sex addict.”
Laura’s letter further stated that Ryan would frequently “belittle” Oran as a child—giving him 10 or more books to read at once. Oran did do well in school, earning a scholarship to Guilford College. However, he dropped out after a little more than a year due to “burnout,” according to the mother.
The sentencing memos—where the parties argue what the punishment should be—are typically public records. But in this case, they are sealed by Judge Osteen—presumably because of the graphic conduct described, but also because Ryan wrote letters to the judge. Ryan is currently facing attempted assassination charges in Florida, and is set to stand trial in September.
Law enforcement started investigating Oran for child pornography in late 2023, when the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or NCMEC, flagged a video allegedly on his phone. NCMEC passed that tip along to the Guilford County Sheriff’s Office, which visited his mother’s home last February. Law enforcement didn’t follow up until Oran’s father allegedly tried to kill Trump.
Ken Silva is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A House Oversight Subcommittee voted on Wednesday to advance a subpoena against Bill Clinton, the disgraced former president and Hillary Clinton, the twice-failed presidential candidate, as part of a congressional probe into Jeffrey Epstein.
The subcommittee is seeking to find potential links between the Clintons and Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking and related offenses.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., introduced a motion during the subcommittee hearing to demand that Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., subpoena the Clintons and others tied to the probe.
“I have a motion to subpoena the following individuals to expand the full committee’s investigation into Miss Maxwell – and the list reads as follows,” Perry said, before naming: “William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, James Brian Comey, Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, Eric Hampton Holder, Jr., Merrick Brian Garland, Robert Swan Mueller III, William Pelham Barr, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the third, and Alberto Gonzales.”
“That’s the full list, Mr. Chairman. And that’s the motion,” Perry added, as quoted by Fox News.
According to the outlet, the motion passed by voice vote 8-to-2. Comer must still formally issue the subpoenas.
In an X post, Comer thanked Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., for leading the bipartisan vote and vowed to prepare the subpoenas.
“I commend Representative Robert Garcia for being bipartisan in one of his first official acts as Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee by voting to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales,” Comer said.
“The Oversight Committee is preparing subpoenas for these individuals and the Epstein files and will issue them in the near future,” he added.
The same subcommittee also passed a motion to subpoena Maxwell, demanding Comer seek a deposition from the convicted trafficker, who is now in federal custody.
In a separate X post, Comer announced the DOJ had agreed to work with the committee’s investigation.
“I have issued a subpoena to Ghislaine Maxwell for a deposition to occur at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee on August 11, 2025,” Comer said. “The Department of Justice is cooperating and will help facilitate the deposition at the prison.”
🚨 I have issued a subpoena to Ghislaine Maxwell for a deposition to occur at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee on August 11, 2025.
The Department of Justice is cooperating and will help facilitate the deposition at the prison. pic.twitter.com/N0J6Gul37g
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., also a member of the Oversight Committee who initiated the subpoena vote for Maxwell’s testimony, said her sentence could be reduced if she provided critical information to federal investigators.
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A new House report revealed on Tuesday that the FBI, under the Biden administration, lied about not spying on traditional Catholics. Worse still, the bureau fabricated the illusion of radicalism within Catholic groups to justify its surveillance.
The House Judiciary Committee disclosed that the FBI and former Director Christopher Wray devoted more law enforcement resources to surveil Catholics than previously known.
This information comes from over 1,300 pages of documents turned over to congressional investigators by FBI Director Kash Patel. It is detailed in the House report titled “How the Biden-Wray FBI Manufactured a False Narrative of Catholic Americans as Violent Extremists.”
According to the report, the FBI’s Richmond field office spied on a Catholic priest after he refused to disclose private conversations with a parishioner. The Richmond field office monitored his travel, credit card records, and background despite having no legitimate law‑enforcement justification
The House Judiciary Committee also revealed that the FBI field office coordinated with FBI Headquarters, as well as the bureau’s London Office, and used derisive labels such as “radical traditionalist Catholic” to describe Catholics seeking to preserve practices of the Church before the Second Vatican Council.
Worse still, the FBI relied on a single leftist source for its surveillance: the Southern Poverty Law Center, a controversial group known for lumping reputable conservative groups and individuals in with racist hate groups.
The SPLC claimed some Traditional Catholic groups were influenced by or affiliated with white supremacist movements, though its evidence was dubious at best.
The FBI’s probe into alleged ties between “radical traditionalist” Catholics and the “far‑right white nationalist movement” was first made public via a leaked memorandum from the Richmond field office in February 2023.
Wray and former Attorney General Merrick Garland subsequently downplayed the scope of the FBI’s targeting of Catholic groups, which began with the now-infamous 2023 memo.
(Jesse Colombo, Money Metals News Service) Surges in the gold-to-silver ratio above 100 in both March 2020 and April 2025 preceded powerful silver rallies—and if the 2020 analog holds, even more silver gains are ahead.
I wanted to share an update highlighting a fascinating development—and the successful confirmation of a theory I proposed during the bleak days of early April.
That was when silver, along with most financial markets, plunged following President Trump’s surprising ‘Liberation Day’ tariff announcement. Silver sank a staggering 21% in just three trading sessions—a move that was both shocking and disheartening for precious metals investors.
Yet even then, I saw a glimmer of hope in the parallels with the early 2020 COVID lockdowns, which initially caused panic but ultimately sparked a powerful silver rally to seven-year highs. In this update, I’ll walk through how that theory played out—and what it still indicates for silver’s path ahead.
First, I want to show how silver recently broke out above its long-standing $32 to $35 resistance zone—a ceiling that held firm for over a year, from May 2024 to June 2025. This breakout marks, in my view, the official start of silver’s next major bull market. I believe silver is now on track to target $50 and even higher in the months ahead.
I also want to revisit gold briefly to point out how, from 2020 to 2024, it was capped below the $2,000 to $2,100 resistance zone. This ceiling kept gold suppressed for years until it finally broke out, igniting the powerful bull market it remains in today.
I see strong parallels between gold’s struggle then and silver’s recent battle under the $32 to $35 resistance zone. Now that silver has decisively broken out, there is a very strong chance it will follow in gold’s footsteps—and it’s even likely to outperform gold for the near future.
What’s remarkable—and encouraging—about this rally to 14-year highs is how unexpected it was, especially considering the dramatic selloff in early April when silver plunged 21% in just three trading sessions, falling from around $35 to as low as $27.54.
At the time, many pessimistic voices—including battle-weary and cynical silver investors—were convinced the metal was finished and headed back to $20 or even the teens. But the opposite happened—thankfully.
I have seen strong parallels between the tariff-induced plunge and the sharp 37% drop during the 2020 COVID lockdowns, when silver sank dramatically in just one month:
As a quick aside, it’s worth explaining why silver often sinks during periods of economic panic—despite its status as a precious metal.
Unlike gold, silver is far more tied to the industrial economy, with a much larger share of its demand coming from industrial use. That economic sensitivity can be both a blessing and a curse.
As the pie chart below shows, the majority of silver demand—about 55%—comes from industrial use, while only around 20% comes from investment.
In contrast, gold demand is driven largely by investment (44.57%) and jewelry (48.74%), with much of that jewelry serving as a form of investment as well, particularly in developing countries like India and China.
Returning to the main narrative, the weekly silver chart below highlights the striking parallels between silver’s 2020 and 2025 plunges—both followed by sharp recoveries to new highs:
Another key factor that tipped me off to a likely silver rebound after the April plunge was the behavior of the gold-to-silver ratio. In both 2020 and 2025, the ratio spiked above 100—an extreme level that signaled silver was deeply undervalued relative to gold.
For perspective, the long-term average since 1915 is 53, so a reading above 100 is a true anomaly. Such extremes have historically marked bullish turning points, and I saw it as a clear signal that silver was a screaming buy.
I likened the ratio to a rubber band stretched to its limit—unsustainable and primed to snap back. And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened.
Assuming the 2020 analog still holds, there is even more room for the ratio to decline, which would imply much higher silver prices ahead. That’s precisely what I expect.
As I mentioned earlier, the long-term gold-to-silver ratio dating back to 1915 averages 53, making the current reading of 86.3 still extremely elevated by historical standards.
Using some rough math, if gold remains at its current spot price of $3,367 and the ratio returns to its historical average of 53, that would imply a silver price of $63.52—a remarkable gain of about 63%. And that’s assuming gold doesn’t rise any further.
If gold continues to climb, as I expect it will, then the upside potential for silver grows even larger. I fully expect gold to reach at least $15,000 an ounce within the next five to ten years, driven by a severe global debt crisis and an eventual financial reset.
If the gold-to-silver ratio returns to its historical average of 53, that would imply a silver price of $283—an astonishing 625% gain from current levels.
Assuming that plays out, and the gold-to-silver ratio merely returns to 70 (where it was as recently as 2021), it would imply a silver price of $57—a solid and realistic gain of nearly 50%.
To wrap things up, the recent plunge in the gold-to-silver ratio has powerfully validated the theory I shared back in early April—that the ratio was stretched to an unsustainable extreme, like a rubber band ready to snap back.
And snap back it did, in a big way. If silver continues to track the 2020 analog, we should see the ratio drop even further and silver prices climb significantly higher. That would be a long-overdue reward for us patient, battle-tested silver investors—and will finally attract the broader attention and capital this undervalued asset deserves.
If you found this report valuable, click here to subscribe to The Bubble Bubble Report for more content like it.
Jesse Colombo is a financial analyst and investor writing on macro-economics and precious metals markets. Recognized by The Times of London, he has built a reputation for warning about economic bubbles and future financial crises. An advocate for free markets and sound money, Colombo was also named one of LinkedIn’s Top Voices in Economy & Finance. His Substack can be accessed here.
(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) Women love gold! The popularity of gold jewelry makes this pretty apparent. But that’s not the full extent of women’s love affair with the yellow metal. American women also tend to prefer gold as an investment.
A recent survey by the World Gold Council reveals that women in the U.S. are less likely than men to have bought stocks in the last 12 months, but they are nearly as likely as men to have purchased gold in the past year. And we’re not just talking about gold jewelry.
Unsurprisingly, women were more likely to have bought fine gold jewelry in the last year, with about 28 percent reporting a purchase compared to about 19 percent of men.
The number of men and women who said they bought investment gold, excluding jewelry, was almost equal, with about 23 percent of men and 22 percent of women reporting a purchase.
Interestingly, females were slightly more likely to report buying gold bars or coins in the last year (15 percent) than men (14 percent).
Investment in gold ETFs was dead even, with around 14 percent of both men and women reporting a purchase.
When combining all forms of gold, including fine jewelry, 36 percent of women reported at least one purchase compared to 28 percent of men.
Women were less likely to have invested in stocks or cryptocurrencies.
Oddly, while men are less likely to invest in gold than women, they tend to have more conviction about gold’s positive investment attributes.
Looking at investment philosophies, men and women unsurprisingly report different priorities. Women are most concerned about investing for financial security, while men tend to prioritize building wealth and maintaining a diversified portfolio.
Women gravitate toward simple, straightforward investments and are far more risk-averse than men. Males are more likely to experiment with different investments, and they express a higher willingness to lose money.
The primary financial goal for women is to have an emergency fund, followed by growing wealth. Men ranked growing wealth as their number one priority.
Men and women expressed similar views on why they hold gold, with most saying it helps stabilize their portfolios. They also view gold as separate from their other investments.
The World Gold Council surveyed 3,025 people aged 18-65 in the U.S. (Female: 1,185; Male: 1,822). Respondents had to have made an investment from a defined product list within the last year.
Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for Money Metals with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.
(Caroline Boda, The Center Square) More than 230,000 unaccompanied minors were released from immigration custody into the U.S. during the Biden administration and subsequently became unaccounted for, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. He said 31,000 children were sent to invalid home addresses in the U.S. and that sponsors were not properly vetted before the unaccompanied children were released to them.
The Oversight panel was called to review the findings of a March 2025 report by DHS that found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is unable to track the status of all unaccompanied minors currently in the U.S. The report’s findings “reveal significant gaps” in ICE’s management of these children, Cuffari testified.
“This is not simply an administrative problem,” Cuffari said. “It’s a systemic breakdown that poses grave risks to unaccompanied alien children (UACs) and the integrity of our legal immigration system.”
DHS’s report found that more than 43,000 of these children failed to appear for court hearings and can no longer be tracked by ICE. The report said these children are “considered at higher risk for trafficking, exploitation or forced labor.”
“The findings are a double-edged sword,” Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., said during the hearing. “While some vulnerable children have likely been trafficked, exploited and subject to forced labor, the report also found other older teens that were convicted criminals and gang members.”
Cuffari testified that a team of special agents was set up by ICE in February to locate and carry out welfare and health checks on unaccompanied minors who have been lost by DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services. With assistance from the FBI and U.S. Marshals, the unit has visited 50,000 homes so far to locate 200,000 children, Cuffari said.
Democrats on the panel pushed back against the Trump administration’s “reckless” immigration initiatives and argued that DHS has increasingly targeted children in its deportation efforts.
“Are these little kids the dangerous criminals Trump vowed to go after?” Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., said.
The panel’s meeting is the first in a series of hearings that will examine past shortcomings of DHS, determine how the U.S. immigration system can be reformed to locate and better monitor unaccompanied minors and establish how DHS and HHS can work together effectively on this issue.
(Carleen Johnson, The Center Square) The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee is changing its “athlete safety policy,” pledging to follow President Donald Trump’s executive order protecting “opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports.”
The new policy, announced on Monday, did not come with fanfare, but with a quiet change on the USOPC’s website and a letter sent to national sport governing bodies.
Trump’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” executive order was issued in February.
“In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports,” the executive order states. “This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”
There are many states deemed to be out of compliance with Trump’s directive focusing on Title IX and the participation of transgender women in women’s sports. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.
According to a July 15 post from Defending Education, a national organization that aims to combat the perceived politicization of education, states out of compliance and at risk of losing federal education dollars include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
The 27-page USOPC “Athlete Safety Policy” now includes a section 3.3 which doesn’t overtly mention transgender athletes, but does say, “The USOPC is committed to protecting opportunities for athletes participating in sport. The USOPC will continue to collaborate with various stakeholders with oversight responsibilities, e.g., IOC, IPC, NGBs, to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201.”
Beth Parlato, senior legal advisor at the Independent Women’s Forum, did not see this coming.
“It did come as a surprise,” she said. “There was no notice; however, there was that mandate from the president’s executive order back in February, where he called them out specifically and other governing bodies to make their policies compliant with his executive order.”
Parlato applauded the policy change, telling The Center Square she and IWF members have been waiting and watching to see if USOPC would comply.
“And then it just happened so quietly,” she said. “They just updated their policy on the website, just saying that they’re not going to allow men to compete. That’s their policy.”
She explained that USOPC is putting the onus on governing bodies of different sports organizations to follow its lead.
“So the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee [is] setting the policy, and now they’re asking everybody else, you know, each individual sport, which has their own governing body, their own federations [to comply],” Parlato said. “So, every individual sport has their own national governing body, so they are asking that all the various national governing bodies of all the different sports follow their lead.”
Parlato said details on how enforcement will work, or if there will be enforcement, are unclear.
“They basically just said that the various sports federations must change their policy,” she said. “As a lawyer, I’m just kind of figuring out why they would have done it that way.”
USOPC is a federally chartered organization, she noted, so there is congressional oversight.
“They are a private nonprofit entity, so they are basically a quasi-governmental entity, so they have to comply with federal law,” Parlato said. “So when President Trump’s executive order to keep men out of women’s sports was signed on February 6th, they had to comply with the EO.”
Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, issued a statement in response to the USOPC policy change.
“The world is watching with alarm at the loss of freedom and opportunity in our country, especially as the United States is expected to host future Olympic events,” she said.
“The Committee will learn – as so many other institutions have – that there is no benefit in appeasing the endless, shifting, and petulant demands coming out of the White House.”
The USOPC move follows the NCAA’srecent decision to stop allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports.
(Sarah Roderick-Fitch, The Center Square) With the sight of homeless encampments plaguing cities nationwide, President Donald Trump has issued an executive order to get many of the homeless off the streets and into “long-term institutional settings.”
The announcement came as Trump toured the ongoing multi-billion-dollar Federal Reserve building complex construction project.
Citing addiction and mental health issues as leading causes for homelessness, Trump’s executive action argues that states and the federal government have failed to address homelessness’s “root causes,” adding that the problem leaves “other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.”
The order targets safe injection sites and other community services that critics of those programs argue only enable drug use.
The president’s order outlines a plan to place homeless individuals in “long-term institutional” facilities for “humane treatment.” It underscores that the status quo is “neither compassionate to the homeless” or to others.
The White House claims there were 274,224 “individuals living on the streets” across the country “on a single night during the last year” of the Biden administration.
The order calls for the attorney general and the secretary of Health and Human Services to partner to “seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time.”
In addition, the federal government would be charged with offering assistance in the form of grants and “technical guidance” to provide institutional treatment for individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others and “cannot care for themselves.”
The order provides “priority” for grantees in localities and states actively cracking down on open drug dens, homeless encampments and squatting. It would restrict federal funds to support “harm reduction” or “consumption” sites, which the White House argues “facilitate[s]” drug use.
The order didn’t indicate a price tag for the president’s plan.
