America
Trump order seeks to expand involuntary commitment for the homeless
US President Donald Trump has instructed federal agencies to find ways to involuntarily commit homeless individuals with mental illness and addiction for longer periods.
This is an initiative to combat what the administration considers a threat to US cities, a phenomenon it calls “vagrancy.”
An executive order signed on Thursday compels federal agencies to challenge state and federal legal precedents that limit the authority of local and state governments to involuntarily commit individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others.
The order claims that placing homeless individuals in long-term institutions will ensure public order. “Surrendering our cities and citizens to chaos and fear is neither humane to the homeless nor to other citizens,” states Trump’s order.
The impact of Trump’s executive order is still unclear, as states set the laws and manage the process of involuntary commitment. Critics warn that such a policy could lead to a return to a darker era when people were often unjustly confined to mental institutions and that it will not help people secure housing.
“The safest communities are not those that criminalize being poor or sick, but those with the most housing and resources,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, communications director for the National Homelessness Law Center, in a statement.
Rabinowitz also described the practice of forced treatment as “unethical and ineffective.”
Opponents of the order argue that cash-strapped states will not have the facilities to detain more people.
However, the executive order states that federal resources could ensure “inmates with serious mental illness are not released into the community” due to a lack of beds in prisons or hospitals.
The order also directs agencies to prioritize funding for mental health and drug courts and to defund “harm reduction” programs, which the administration says facilitate illegal drug use.
Furthermore, agencies are asked to prioritize funding for states and cities that “to the maximum extent” enforce laws related to open-air drug use, urban camping, loitering, and trespassing.
The executive order was issued after the Trump administration cut over $1 billion from COVID-19 era grants managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and proposed cutting hundreds of millions more from the agency’s grants.
The perception that homelessness and street crime have become widespread has become a significant issue for Trump and Republican leaders as the country grapples with a growing housing crisis.
Last year, the Supreme Court declined a constitutional challenge to a series of camping bans, ruling that cities can prohibit homeless people from sleeping outdoors.
Trump signed the executive order about three months after asking the Department of Justice to have agency officials brainstorm ways to clear encampments and pursue involuntary commitment as part of an aggressive initiative to remove homeless people from public spaces.
In the last decade, dozens of states, including those controlled by Democrats, have expanded or enacted new laws for involuntary commitment.
For example, in the Democratic state of Oregon, lawmakers are close to passing a bill that would make it easier to force individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others into treatment, following years of contentious negotiations and failed attempts.
In another Democratic state, California, a law that took effect this year expanded the criteria for those eligible for involuntary commitment to include individuals with substance use disorders.
Governor Gavin Newsom, who is frequently criticized by Trump on public safety and is rumored to be a potential candidate for the 2028 presidential election, argues the law will ensure “no one falls through the cracks and that people get the help they need and the respect they deserve.”
In New York, state lawmakers this year codified a previous state directive allowing first responders to involuntarily commit severely mentally ill individuals who cannot meet their basic needs for medical care, shelter, or food.
The law was supported by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, who has faced criticism on public safety due to high-profile violent incidents involving mentally ill individuals in New York City and pressure from Mayor Eric Adams for “more involuntary treatment.”
The country has long struggled with the issue of involuntary commitment. In a landmark 1975 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals with mental illness could not be involuntarily hospitalized unless they were proven to be dangerous, thus securing their right to due process.
Four years later, the court established a higher legal threshold for forcing an individual into treatment against their will.
During his campaign, Trump claimed that US cities were being surrendered to “drug addicts” and the “dangerously mentally ill,” and he floated the idea of placing them in state-sponsored tent cities, vowing to put people in “the mental institutions where they belong.”
America
Iran war costs US economy $265 billion as household burden mounts
The economic toll of the conflict on the US has reached $265 billion in the roughly eight months since the start of joint US and Israeli strikes against Iran.
According to calculations by Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, this amount imposes an additional burden of approximately $2,000 on the budget of an average American family.
Sharing data on his X account on Tuesday, Zandi noted that the cost per household since the war began stands at about $2,000, with nationwide economic losses reaching $265 billion.
This estimate is seven times higher than the direct military spending figure reported to Congress by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, which covers the period between the start of the strikes on 28 February and the end of July.
While Hegseth’s official figures cover only direct military operations, the conflict’s impact on global markets and oil prices is driving up inflation and day-to-day living costs, deepening the real burden on household budgets.
Fuel and heating costs strain budgets
Energy items account for the largest share of the additional expenses facing American households. The surge in fuel, home heating, and transport costs has generated an extra bill of about $1,100 per family.
Zandi noted that the price of regular petrol, which hovered just below $3 per gallon before the war, has risen to $4.37, while diesel has exceeded $6 and jet fuel has nearly doubled.
Pointing out that a marked rise in residential heating fuel costs is driving up spending as winter approaches, Zandi said current price levels continue to add roughly $50 a week to family budgets.
Researchers at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs are also tracking the impact of rising fuel prices on consumers.
According to data from the institute, US consumers have paid an extra $133.3 billion for fuel products since 28 February.
During this period, petrol prices rose by more than 46% and diesel climbed by over 70%. Of this additional burden borne by consumers, $73.5 billion stemmed from petrol and $59.8 billion from diesel. This calculation translates into an extra cost of $1,017.76 per household nationwide.
Loan interest rates and operational outlays inflate the bill
Another decisive factor in the economic picture has been the rise in interest rates.
Zandi reported that climbing interest rates have created a cost of approximately $540 per household.
Fixed-rate home mortgage rates, which stood below 6% before the war, have climbed to roughly 7.5%, Zandi said, adding that long-term rates have also increased substantially.
Direct military operations, meanwhile, represent a cost of $360 per household based on Pentagon data.
However, experts point out that repair, maintenance, and equipment replenishment expenses are excluded from the published figures, meaning actual military spending on the ground could exceed Pentagon estimates.
Linda Bilmes, a war budget specialist who teaches public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, said she is certain the conflict’s bill will reach $1 trillion, adding, “Maybe we’re already there.”
Trump defends spending as public support drops
The mounting economic strain is fuelling backlash against the military campaign and US President Donald Trump’s handling of the process.
A Pew Research Centre survey conducted on 28 September-4 October among 5,062 adults revealed that 65% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling the Iran strikes.
The proportion of those who consider the use of military force justified dropped four percentage points compared with March, falling to 34%.
Emphasizing that the total cost has wiped out roughly half of the average American household’s income gains over the past eight months, Zandi said it is natural for public support for the war to remain so low.
According to figures shared by pollster Nate Silver, Trump’s net approval rating has tumbled to an all-time low of minus 23.5 points.
Defending the military intervention against Iran, Trump described the costs as “a small price to pay to keep our country and the world safe.”
With the surging cost of living piling pressure on Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections, Trump announced last month that he would provide a $5,000 cash payment to every adult in the country if his party maintains its majorities in both chambers of Congress.
America
US fines Bank of America $1.21bn over money laundering and sanctions
The US Department of the Treasury has imposed a total of $1.21 billion in financial penalties on Bank of America, one of the country’s largest financial institutions, for violating anti-money laundering legislation and sanctions regimes.
According to a statement published by the department, the bank was accused of failing to report suspicious transactions in a timely manner, failing to monitor financial movements that posed national security risks, and providing services to clients on sanctions lists.
Decisions by units operating under the Treasury Department accounted for the largest components of the penalty package.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) penalised the bank for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions in a timely manner.
More than $1 billion of that amount was noted to be directly linked to national security risks, including the operations of China-based money laundering networks.
Under the settlement reached with FinCEN, Bank of America admitted to willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank was required to conduct an additional review covering suspicious transactions and to assess the effectiveness of its financial monitoring system.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) separately fined the bank $750 million over structural deficiencies in its financial monitoring system.
The OCC stated that the bank failed to maintain adequate oversight over trillions of dollars in fund transfers and did not remedy the violations despite a formal notice served in December 2024.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also stepped in over millions of dollars in transactions carried out in breach of sanctions regulations. OFAC reached an $11.6 million settlement agreement with Bank of America concerning 475 distinct potential sanctions violations.
Assessing the matter, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “The actions taken today send a clear message that even the largest financial institutions are not above the law.”
UK fines banks over breaches of Russia sanctions
Alongside the penalty decision in the US, similar sanctions scrutiny is being carried out across European financial centres.
In September, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), an agency of the UK Treasury, fined Citibank’s London branch (CBNA London) £4.7 million for violating sanctions targeting Russia.
According to findings by the British regulator, between February and November 2022 following the outbreak of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the bank processed 970 payments worth a combined £19.7 million, circumventing asset freezes and other restrictions. The government stated that the majority of the violations were linked to corporate accounts owned or controlled by sanctioned individuals. Russia, meanwhile, describes sanctions imposed by Western nations as illegal.
During the spring, OFSI also fined the London branch of Germany’s Deutsche Bank £165,000 ($221,000) for transferring funds to the Russian online streaming platform Okko.
Over the same period, the watchdog imposed a £390,000 fine on Apple’s European entity, Apple Distribution International (ADI), for a similar violation.
America
Musk boosts Republican midterm funding despite pledge to curb spending
The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, has donated $276 million over the past three months to political action committees and conservative organizations supporting Republicans ahead of the upcoming US midterm elections.
The latest transfer brings the total midterm donations from Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, to $366 million.
First reported by The New York Times, the figures were confirmed to The Hill by a spokesperson for America PAC, which Musk founded. These latest expenditures establish Musk as the largest known donor of the 2026 midterms.
The bulk of Musk’s financial backing between July and September was directed towards congressional races.
The US billionaire transferred $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, and $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, which finances House Republicans.
Millions divided among various committees
Musk, who provided more than $76 million during the period to America PAC, an entity he founded during the 2024 election cycle, also funded state-level contests.
The businessman transferred $10 million to the Lone Star Liberty PAC, which supports Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, while donating $10 million to the Republican Governors Association and $2 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association.
In statements given to The New York Times and confirmed by The Hill, America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo argued that if Democrats take control in Washington and win critical state races, the country faces the risk of becoming one with indefensible borders.
Romeo said the investments enable the Republican apparatus to deliver its messages to voters.
Field spending continues despite talk of retreat
Musk, who kept his distance from politics for many years, entered the arena by spending hundreds of millions of dollars for Donald Trump during the 2024 election.
Accompanying Trump on campaign trails, Musk subsequently took charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sparked controversy through federal employment and budget cuts.
Musk stepped down from his White House role in late May 2025 and remained politically quiet for months following a public rift with Trump.
After announcing last May that he would sharply scale back his political spending, Musk told The Economist in a July interview that he had become overly involved in politics and had gone too far.
Despite those remarks, Musk pressed ahead with political activity in July by authorizing America PAC to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a fresh field operation aimed at driving conservative voter turnout in the 2026 midterms.
Having repaired ties with Trump following their public spat, Musk joined the US president on an official visit to China in May and was also present during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington last month.
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman interior ministers drop unanimity rule to counter AfD veto
-
Europe2 weeks agoKey European allies excluded from US-led NATO meeting in Poland
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoWhile the West breeds crises, Eurasia weaves peace and development, says Prof. Zhang Weiwei
-
Middle East2 weeks agoNetanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoThe European Union’s peace project has collapsed, MEP von der Schulenburg says
-
Opinion2 weeks agoA new world in the East, old dogmas in the West
-
America2 weeks agoMusk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative
-
Asia2 weeks agoSouth Korea plans $120B spend on eight US nuclear power plants
