. . . and determination 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 . . .

Bad idea that jeopardizes civil liberties to suggest the state should be able to incarcerate people because the state decides they "cannot care" or "pose risks". You can imagine how easily this would be to abuse such state power and who the likely targets will be. https://t.co/DfKV4uGA8R

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) July 25, 2025

Lucien Wolfe explains that,

Trump’s new executive order just flipped the script on 60 years of mental health policy. By greenlighting states to involuntarily re-institutionalize those deemed dangerous or incapable of self-care, he’s doing what no president dared since the asylums closed. For decades, city streets became default wards — not by accident, but by design. Now the pendulum swings back. But here’s the question no one’s asking: Who decides who’s “too unstable” to live free?

And what happens when that definition gets political?