After a year-long fight, labor's challenges remain in 2026

Following the 43-day government shutdown last year, the January 30 end of that temporary deal may be an early dispute affecting working people. A couple of unions reportedly were so anxious to end the shutdown, they pressured Democrats to end their holdout. The American Federation of Government Employees and, indirectly, UNITE-HERE via its Culinary Union in Nevada lobbied Dems or didn’t use their clout to stand firm to address expiring health-care subsidies. In contrast, unions also representing some federal workers, including the Service Employees and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees, held firm.

Besides the shutdown, the Trump administration’s more dramatic budget rescissions, mass layoffs, termination of labor rights for a million other federal workers, and the ongoing roundup of immigrant workers (potentially eliminating 6 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute) set the nasty tone for 2025, when even the NLRB was effectively neutered with no quorum (only recently returned to full strength with the appointments of anti-union members).

It was a time of “unrelenting attacks on working people,” said AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler. “This has been the most hostile administration to workers in our lifetimes.”

Nevertheless, Starbucks workers continued to battle for bargaining, newspapers such as the New York Daily News unionized, Philadelphia teachers settled difficult negotiations, dockworkers on both coasts reached a contract after a short strike, the United Food & Commercial Workers ratified contracts at chains in California, and 21,000 University of California workers ratified a deal following 16 months of bargaining and four brief work stoppages.

 

The year ahead will be busy.

The highest profile union challenges will be the Major League Baseball Players Association, whose Collective Bargaining Agreement will expire Dec. 1; the Screen Actors Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (scheduled to bargain Feb. 9-March 6 with contract expiration June 30); the Directors Guild (with contract talks launching May 11 before their contract also ends June 30); and the Writers Guild of America (set to start negotiating March 16 prior to contract expiration May 1).

In alphabetical order, here’s a rundown of other unions’ activities in 2026:

* American Federation of Teachers: On Aug. 15, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Graduate Employees’ Organization (AFT Local 6300) contract will expire, and at Brown University, 1,000 graduate student workers (Graduate Labor Organization, AFT) have a contract up June 30.

* Communications Workers of America: AT&T Mobility’s contract with 9,000 CWA members expires next month; The contract for 20,000 Verizon workers on the east coast expires Aug. 1 – also involving the …

* International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which also represents 12,000 members in Los Angeles, where their contract expires June 30.

* International Brotherhood of Teamsters: 3,500 members at DHL have a March 31 expiration.

* National Association of Letter Carriers: With their contract ending in May, 200,000 members have to follow a previous contract imposed by a mediator.

* National Nurses United: Veterans Affairs members total about 96,000, and their current agreement ends in May; another 24,000 members at Kaiser in California have a contract expiring in August.

* New York city workers (some affiliated with AFSCME): 300,000 municipal workers’ contracts are up this year.

* Service Employees International Union: 96,000 workers at the State of California will talk before their June 30 expiration; in Oregon 2,000 educators and staff across eight community colleges and 3,000 other staff represented by Local 503 will bargain at seven state universities. In health care, the contract for 80,000 nurses and other health-care workers at New York’s League of Voluntary Hospitals will expire Sept. 30; and the New York Metro Residential contract covering 34,000 doorpeople, porters and handypersons who maintain and clean thousands of  New York Metro Residential contract, covering 34,000 doorpeople, porters, supers, and handypersons who maintain and clean thousands of New York City homes is up in April.

* United Auto Workers: 2,500 members at Nexteer will be bargaining, as will 29,000 academic student employees (Local 4811) at the University of California, where the contract is up Dec/ 31; 4,300 workers are still organizing at Volkswagen’s Tennessee plant.

* United Food & Commercial Workers: In February, a contract covering 30,000 Food & Commercial Workers at New England grocery giant Stop & Shop is set to expire; the unions also faces bargaining for 19,500 UFCW members across 123 Fry’s stores (owned by Kroger), for 20,000 Ohio Kroger workers, and for 14,000 members at Kroger in Michigan

* United Steelworkers: Oil refinery contracts expire Jan. 31 for 30,000 members, as do pacts at Alcoa for 4,400 workers May 15; 25,000 others at US Steel and Cleveland Cliffs face a Sept. 1 expiration; and 6,400 others at Bridgestone-Firestone and Goodyear will be negotiating.

Supreme Court threatens campaign finance - again

Oil companies contribute to presidential candidates; backtracking happens on climate change action.

Insurance corporations donate to Congress; Medicare for All isn’t even considered.

The National Rifle Association enriches candidates; the ones who win make sure nothing’s done about guns.

Such influence could get much worse this year.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in “National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. FEC,” a case launched by JD Vance in 2022, when he was running for the Senate. It’s seeking to overturn limits on contributors funneling donations to candidates through political parties, enabling rich contributors to coordinate with campaigns.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) is far more conservative -- the most conservative bloc in the modern era. And in recent years, it’s shown a willingness to reverse precedents. Ruling in now-Vice President Vance’s case could upend what’s left of federal campaign finance regulations.

The GOP argue that changes in campaign finance limits over recent decades have made remaining restrictions unworkable, if not irrelevant altogether – despite previous courts stating the purpose as preventing corruption or even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

A selective legal time line:

* 1974: The bipartisan Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) passes.

* 1976: The USSC in “Buckley v. Valeo” strikes down a few provisions of FECA, but upholds limits on direct contributions to candidates.

* 2001: In “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” the USSC rules that that independent expenditures by political parties made without coordination with candidates are protected by the First Amendment,

* 2002 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passes, sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold.

* 2003: The USSC in “McConnell v. FEC” rules 5-4 that most of the (BCRA) is constitutional.

* 2010: In “Citizens United v. FEC,” overruled more of “McConnell v. FEC,” removing limits on independent spending, enabling secret “dark money” contributions and essentially saying corporations are people, and money is speech.

* 2014: The USSC in “McCutcheon v. FEC” struck down restrictions on the total amounts individuals can give to all parties and candidates in one election cycle, but didn’t change limits on how much individuals can give to an individual politician's campaign, which stayed at $2,700 per election.

 

Defenders of the concept of limiting the power of money in politics say the current case is another, perhaps final, step toward complete deregulation, reducing the idea of elected officials acting in the interest of their constituents instead of accepting legalized bribes for wealthy and powerful special interests a quaint notion with no place in 21^st century politics.

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), in a brief supporting the FEC, wrote, that eliminating coordinated spending limits would be “the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.”

The current Court’s Justices – a 6-3 supermajority – hasn’t hesitates to impose its will.

“This case needs to be looked at in the context of the court’s now-two-decade run of substituting its own judgment for that of voters and Congress on campaign finance,” said Daniel Weiner, a campaign finance law expert for the Brennan Center for Justice.

Attorney Roman Martinez, the court-appointed lawyer defending campaign-finance contribution limits (since the Trump administration is not supporting the FEC), explained to the USSC how each time they change campaign finance law, they set up future cases to kill another limit – even when the Court previously viewed that limit as essential at the time.

“They’re setting up bait-and-switch 2.0,” Martinez said. “Bait-and-switch 1.0 was ‘McCutcheon.’ They came in and said in ‘McCutcheon,’ ‘Hey, we need to get rid of these aggregate limits.’ Why? ‘Because we’ve got all these other protections. Look, coordinated expenditures are limited too.’ And then you said, ‘OK, well fine, we’ll do that,’ and you put it in your opinion that coordinated expenditures were going to protect us. Now they’re coming back and saying, ‘Ha, just kidding, actually the coordinated expenditure provision is unlawful as well’.”

If the USSC ends coordinated spending limits, it will allow donors to circumvent candidate limits like “McCutcheon” did for political party limits.

The Court’s three liberals agreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court’s rulings on campaign finance typically “make matters worse. Now you want us to tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party.

“Once we take off coordinated expenditure limits, then what’s left?” she added. “What’s left is nothing,”

A USSC decision is expected later in this term, which this year is October 4.

Among President Trump’s targets are wind-energy projects, judges disagree

President Trump is trying to kill wind energy projects, but building trades unions are stepping up efforts to salvage the construction projects – some of which are nearing completion.

Thousands of jobs are at stake.

And time is of the essence.

Specific projects the Trump regime is attacking, under the guise of “national security” issues, are on the East Coast, but the attempt to destroy the work sets a dangerous precedent for any construction using federal funds. The administration action also is illogical. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that there is capacity in that region to build 264 gigawatts of offshore wind that could produce about one quarter of the country’s yearly electricity consumption by 2030.

Labor’s response has been powerful:

* The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) has called the order “a direct attack on American workers. Offshore wind projects represent thousands of good, union jobs for IBEW members who have spent years training to build and maintain this infrastructure.” https://ibew.org/press-release/ibew-statement-opposing-trump-administrations-attack-on-offshore-wind-energy-affordability-and-jobs/

* North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU) in Washington, D.C., said the move “kills thousands of good-paying jobs on projects that were legally permitted, fully vetted, fully funded, and already underway. These aren’t hypothetical jobs. They are real paychecks and billions in investment.” https://nabtu.org/press_releases/nabtu-condemns-trump-shutting-down-u-s-offshore-wind/

* And the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) highlighted the disruptive nature of these stop-work orders, saying, “LIUNA members plan their life around this work. Pulling the plug now — during the holidays and after years of negotiations and extensive reviews — is reckless and unfair to the men and women who build this country.” They demanded that the administration “let us work — and stop playing politics with our jobs.” https://www.liuna.org/news/story/liuna-general-president-brent-booker-responds-to-christmas-project--shutdown

 

The rank and file knows the stakes.

Chad Ward, an Ironworkers Local 7 member who commutes from his home in Maine to work on offshore wind turbines in coastal Virginia, told the Maine AFL-CIO, “A job in the offshore wind industry in Maine would mean I could see my kids grow up, and my kids could have the option of going into an industry that keeps them employed in Maine while also helping to do something good for the environment.”

Organized labor’s unified response is contributing to already-high friction between the building trades and the Trump administration.

It’s about time.

 

UPDATE:

The Building Trades praise court ruling

restarting offshore wind projects

Last week, three federal judges ruled that offshore wind projects off the coasts of New England, New York and Virginia can continue construction, and the North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU) applauded the decisions, which will allow union members to return to work.

Trump’s Interior Department sought to disrupt these critical East Coast energy infrastructure projects in December, issuing stop-work orders based on undisclosed national security concerns. This ruling clears the way for progress to continue on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project, Ørsted’s Revolution Wind, and Equinor’s Empire Wind projects.

“With energy demand surging and prices spiking, the last thing our government should do is take any form of power generation offline,” said NABTU President Sean McGarvey. “The men and women of NABTU are proud to be constructing every offshore wind project in the United States, all under strong project labor agreements. These rulings mean our members can get back to work and keep affordable, clean, reliable power moving to our communities.”

In changing media landscape, is bigger always better?

As the latest media dust-up plays out (King Kong vs. Godzilla, Beowulf vs. the Kraken: pick your metaphor) some people realize we’re not just bystanders. Today’s media giants have changed from one-time players like General Electric and Verizon, but the information and entertainment Americans need or want are affected. So the Community Word asked two long-time area media professionals and scholars to weigh in on the industry’s health, owners and models.

Netflix and Paramount both are trying to buy Warner Bros./Discovery. Netflix’ $82.7 billion offer was accepted, but long-time suitor Paramount/Skydance then launched a hostile effort to buy WB with apparent support from the White House and financing from three Persian Gulf nations. Both offers have opponents, from unions (the NewsGuild, SAG/AFTRA and the Writers Guild) to politicians.
“A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market, threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen Elizabeth Warren, who also opposes Paramount’s purchase. “A Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. merger would be a five-alarm antitrust fire and exactly what our anti-monopoly laws are written to prevent.”

 * Do you think chain/corporate ownership makes a difference compared to regional or local ownership? Are there ways to balance business interests and public service?

 John Malone - The Communications Act of 1934 established that, in exchange for the use of the [broadcast] spectrum, licensees were required to operate in the public interest, convenience  and necessity. The Federal Communications Commission has licensing and regulatory jurisdiction only over the licensees who use government-owned airwaves. Since all other “non-broadcast” media companies (movie studios, Internet companies, and “Big Tech” operate outside of the purview of the FCC, the only regulatory recourse left is through anti-competitive regulation.

The notion of broadcasters serving as public trustees began to change in the late 1970s with the Carter administration’s deregulatory efforts. The Reagan administration accelerated deregulation by shifting regulatory policy away from a trusteeship model and toward a marketplace approach. Government would no longer mandate minimal hours of news programming, community-outreach efforts, maximum commercial units per hour, etc.

FCC Commissioner Mark Fowler said a television was no different than any other home appliance: “a toaster with pictures.” The National Association of Broadcasters rationale [was] “We have to provide these services because listeners expect them. If we do not serve the public, the marketplace will not be well served and we will suffer.” This philosophy failed to predict that the entire industry would scale back their “issue responsive” programming, among other news offerings. Hence, the industry as a whole would begin an incremental erosion of local content.

Remember when the “Big Three” networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) expected to lose money on its news content? CBS patriarch Bill Paley said, “I have Lucille Ball and Jack Benny to make my millions. News is considered a form of tithing for the privilege of using the airwaves.” In 1985-86, all three networks changed ownership and became part of larger publicly-traded corporations. The new deregulated FCC paved the way for massive cuts in network news. Bureaus closed, layoffs ballooned, and programming options that typically brought lower ratings than entertainment programs vanished.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton, eliminated the national radio ownership cap. Most policymakers belatedly admitted it was a grave error. It created a “spectrum rush” where larger players gobbled up stations from their original “mom-and-pop” owners at unheard-of prices. For example, I was working at WTAZ in Morton at the time. Under existing media-valuation formulas, that station would have appraised at about $500,000. They were sold in 1998 to Kelly Communications for $1.8 million. This assumed that Kelly would flip the station in a package with the others to a large national operator.

Nationally, companies paid outrageous sums for radio stations using borrowed money. Once the payments began, they had to cut costs to meet their debt service. The largest expense is salaries, so stations were forced to pare back to minimum staffing. That necessitated cuts in content.

Basic economics includes the study of market failures, when the market no longer can make efficient adjustments. Two examples of market failure are monopolies and failure to provide for a public good. The first speaks for itself. As for public good, what profit motive exists for the creation of non-entertainment content? News departments don’t make money. So without a regulatory apparatus in place, most public good will suffer. Think of a city park. People like visiting it, but the land would produce more value as an office complex. Only regulation and government intervention preserves the park.

The bottom line is that some station formats demand issue-responsive news programming. News/Talk radio for one. And some companies do local radio better than others. The mom-and-pop operators like Charlie Wright in Canton are long gone, but some companies realize they need to remain relevant to their communities. Those who short-circuit that approach fail. Non-commercial National Public Radio-affiliated stations were more likely to maximize public-value creation, according to FCC documents.

 Debbie Hedemann - I've always been of the opinion that large corporate ownership can be negative. I worked in the industry during deregulation (the Telecommunications Act of 1996). While it can provide resources and support on a larger scale to smaller stations, it also takes away control from smaller stations. I've seen instances where a station owned by a large corporation has been instructed what not to say or to talk about/cover on their news programs in order to appease ownership. News/journalism is meant to tell the public what is happening. There should not be any barriers to that.

To be honest, I don't know what the business model would be except for the big corporate owners to allow the journalists to do their job as they see best.

 * It seems that audiences are eroding, too. For example, the Journal Star's own circulation numbers they published in October’s USPS Form 3526 showed a 2025 print/electronic circulation of less than 10,000 for a daily that once topped 100,000. Some blame smartphones or social media plus "news avoidance." Any thoughts or theories?

 D.H. - "News avoidance" is definitely a thing. Students tell me that they don't "do" news or they try to avoid it. They do not consume news, which makes it difficult to teach them how to be journalists. The other issue is that because most of their information about the world comes from social media, their algorithms are only going to show them what they want to see. If they don't want to see the news, they won't. If they want to see cat videos, they will. If they consume biased news, they will continue seeing it without looking at other sides. False news and misinformation are real and continue to be perpetuated. If they do consume any news, often they find themselves in echo chambers where false information can be reinforced.

 J.M. – Print journalism has its own problems. The industry never figured out a way to monetize the digital side until it was too late. The 2025 “Medill State of Local News” report shows that 213 out of the 3,143 counties in the country now have no local newspaper, and in another 1,524 counties there’s only one news source. Those that exist are watered-down publications nowhere near the size and scope of their predecessors. There are no easy explanations. I can remember when the Journal Star had more revenue than all of the television stations in Peoria, combined. The print industry has been forced to react to losses in revenue by cutting to the bare bones. When content is cut because of revenue shortfalls (editorial pages, local human-interest stories and features, etc.), circulation suffers.  

The news business has itself to blame for much of this. The programming of news for revenue and ratings has led to the shaping of stories to serve a target audience. Fox News and MSNBC engage in this practice as a business model. But the problem is also more nuanced. Trust in journalism has eroded exponentially in recent decades. There are too many agendas and not enough solid reporting going on in major organizations. This absence of trust trickles down.

 * Lastly, are local reporters still "hometown" or temporary residents with less history, familiarity or contact with everyday Peorians or sources, or just a promotion in a new media climate?

 D. H. - I think that local TV reporters are still considered to be "hometown." There are many polls from groups like Pew Research, Gallup and Knight Foundation that indicate that this is true – we tend to trust our local news reporters because they're our neighbors.

 J.M. - The era of long-time market legend broadcasters (Tom McIntyre, Bob Larson, etc.) is over. The new economics of the television industry have turned jobs in markets the size of Peoria/Bloomington into stepping-stones. Reporters sign a contract, stay for two years, and move on. I’m not being critical. I’m just telling the truth. How can someone become connected to a community in such a short time? This is just another outcome of the cost efficiencies expected from companies that are highly leveraged with private equity and bank debt. 

Dr. John Malone is Associate Professor of Communication at Eureka College who previously was a communication professor at Lincoln College for 18 years. He started in radio in 1987 and was Operations Manager at WTAZ in the 1990s, after which he became Program Director and a host at WMBD radio. His dissertation toward earning a Doctorate of Public Administration from the University of Illinois at Springfield in 2020 addressed much of this topic.

 Debbie Hedemann is chair of Illinois Central College’s communication program and manager of ICC’s Harbinger Student Media. After earning a Master of Arts in Radio, TV, Film Programming and Management from Indiana State University, her career started as a production assistant and worked many behind-the-scenes positions in programming, production, engineering, promotions and operations manager. She’s worked for an NBC affiliate in Terre Haute, Ind., a Fox affiliate in Bloomington, and Peoria affiliates of ABC, the WB, and UPN, and has taught at ICC for 22 years.

 

Big players: Four major corporations own key media in Peoria market

Cumulus Media radio group

Market capitalization: $1.71 million

President & CEO : Mary Berner

Cumulus holdings in metro Peoria are WFYR-FM 97.3, WGLO-FM 95.5, WIXO-FM 105.7, WVEL-AM 1140 and WZPW-FM 92.3, the market’s second-largest cluster (behind Midwest Communications). However, its 428 radio stations make the corporation the country’s second largest radio chain (behind iHeartMedia’s 860 stations).

Local Cumulus stations use some news stories from WMBD-TV 31 and the Cumulus subsidiary Westwood One, but after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US. Capitol, company executives warned on-air staff to refrain from broadcasting misinformation about election fraud.

 

Journal Star

USA Today Co. (corporate name changed from Gannett in September)

Market cap: $524.2 million

Chairman & CEO Mike Reed

The largest U.S. newspaper publisher, with about 100 daily newspapers and almost 1,000 weeklies, USA Today/Gannett’s CEO comes from a private-equity background with a reputation for buying newspapers and cutting them to the bone, mostly through newsroom layoffs, then leaving them a shadow of their former selves.

The Boston Globe in 2023 described how Reed’s management has resulted in “brutal and probably irreversible damage on already struggling news organizations all across this country.”

Although USA Today endorsed Biden in 2020 and opposed Trump in 2016, Reed oversaw USA Today’s decision in October 2024 not to endorse a presidential candidate. Nevertheless, President Trump that December sued the company’s daily Des Moines Register for publishing a pre-election poll that found Kamala Harris leading among Iowa voters.

 

WEEK-TV 25

Gray Media

Market cap: $516.9 million

Chairman & CEO Hilton Howell Jr.

Owner of the market’s NBC affiliate and operator of the ABC station (WHOI), Gray is among several companies (including Nexstar) interested in buying TV television stations owned by Cox Media Group – a deal that would require an OK by the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission. Given FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s recent pledge to change broadcasting to favor mergers and acquisitions, and his complaints about content critical of the President, any approval might have conditions.

Also, federal rules for years have prohibited television-station owners from owning licensed outlets that reach more than 39% of the U.S. population. Since Gray owns or operates about 180 TV stations in more than 110 U.S. markets, “its size could prove problematic under existing regulations,” according to Matthew Keys of TheDesk.net, a media news and analysis web site.

However, Howell has made substantial contributions to Republican candidates and Super PACs, according to FEC data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, so Gray may have an edge.

 

WMDB-TV 31

Nexstar Media Group

Market Cap: $5.21 billion

Chairman & CEO Perry Sook

After FCC Chairman Brendan Carr in September threatened media companies that produced or aired late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s ABC program – warning companies such as Disney and Nexstar, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Nexstar announced it would preempt Kimmel’s program that aired any of its stations (it’s broadcast on WHOI in Peoria) and Disney (which owns ABC) suspended Kimmel’s show. After a public outcry, Kimmel returned to the air (and recently signed a contract extension).

The owner of Peoria’s CBS affiliate and operator of the Fox station (WYZZ), Nexstar also is looking to expand, and Sook has expressed optimism that the FCC will relax the 39% cap on TV-station ownership and other limits blocking the conglomerate from increasing its already extensive control over local-broadcast news.

Days after the 2024 election, The Hollywood Reporter said Sook implied he thought some broadcast journalism was slanted, and he hoped "fact-based journalism will come back into vogue, as well as eliminating the level of activist journalism out there."

 Edited from a report by the nonpartisan, nonprofit FreePress.net, a media research and advocacy group.

First things first: shelter the homeless

Most people seeing a stranger collapsed in a field or injured in a car wreck would help, and we’d stop the bleeding before we tried to treat a cardiac issue. But detached from a sense of some emergencies, a lot of us shrug, avert our eyes and move on.

Homelessness is an unpleasant but real emergency, and it could worsen in proposed federal cuts.

There were more than 600 homeless people in metro Peoria last year, according to the count from the Home for All Continuum of Care for Peoria, Tazewell and Woodford counties, and it’s estimated the number is now about 800.

Despite the problem, the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wants to shift from its “Housing First” model.

“A shift to ‘Treatment First’ policies could result in a major reprioritization of who gets funding and for what purpose,” explained Robbie Sequeura for Stateline.

Announced on Nov. 13, HUD’s overhaul would rescind existing plans just as previous fundings is exhausted and future funding is in the balance. Treatment First requires attention to issues like mental or substance-abuse disorders, before someone becomes eligible for independent housing. This approach was common among homeless service providers and federal policymakers decades ago.

The scheme would cut billions from homeless assistance.

“More than half of the 2026 funding for HUD’s Continuum of Care program, which partners with local organizations to connect people experiencing homelessness to housing and resources, will be cut for permanent housing assistance and moved to temporary transitional housing assistance with some work or service requirements,” reported Politico’s Katherine Hapgood.

The shift seems ideological or a new opinion of homelessness from the Trump administration, expressed by HUD Secretary Scott Turner. He told Fox Business Network, "What is the root cause of homelessness? Mental illness, drug addiction, drug abuse.”

In reality, developmental disabilities and drug use are less frequent causes than joblessness, poverty and a lack of affordable housing, plus effects from domestic violence, bankruptcy, and divorce, so veterans and seniors can become unhoused, too.

The good news, if just temporary: On Dec. 19 the proposal was blocked by federal Judge Mary McElroy, who granted a preliminary injunction to a coalition of states objecting to the change for ignoring congressional mandates and other reasons.

“Continuity of housing and stability for vulnerable populations is clearly in the public interest," said McElroy, based in Rhode Island.

Originally used in New York City in 1992, Housing First more than 20 years ago became preferred by advocacy groups such as the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), and HUD endorsed it in Republican George W. Bush’s administration. By 2023, a HUD report said Housing First worked best to lower the risk of chronic homelessness among participants, compared with Treatment First and other models. It contrasted that with Treatment First, which requires individuals to access treatment in “highly regulated, congregate facilities,” and show improvement before being eligible for independent housing.

According to a 2020 review of dozens of studies (“Permanent Supportive Housing with Housing First to Reduce Homelessness and Promote Health Among Homeless Populations With Disability”), “Housing First programs offer permanent housing with accompanying health and social services, and their clients are able to maintain a home without first being substance-free or in treatment. Clients in stable housing experienced better quality of life and generally showed reduced hospitalization and emergency-department use.”

Housing First is more sustainable, said HUD’s 2023 report, which stated, “Overwhelming evidence from several rigorous studies indicates that Housing First programs increase housing stability and decrease rates of homelessness.”

There’s no one approach to effectively address homelessness. Responses to the crisis have varied widely, from “bus therapy” (sending people away) and death (Brian Kilmeader from TV’s “Fox & Friends” in September said mentally ill unhoused people who decline treatment should get "involuntary lethal injection," adding, "just kill them") to converting vacant office buildings to apartments (like Chicago and other cities are starting) and constructing “tiny homes” of 400 square feet.

“While building more housing alone will not end homelessness, it is an essential component of effective local homelessness policy, both for preventing homelessness and to successfully, permanently house people actively experiencing homelessness,” said Katherine Einstein, a Boston University political science professor who co-authored the 2024 study “Planning for Homelessness: Land Use Policy, Housing Markets, and Cities’ Homelessness Responses.”

Einstein, who surveyed the 100 largest U.S. cities, added. “Cities really aren’t thinking about their broader housing supply when they’re constructing their homelessness policies.”

Locally, the City of Peoria and maybe Peoria County are trying to help shelter about 80 homeless people at  New Hope Apartments on Fayette Street and Jefferson Avenue. The City’s short-term funding of $200,000 comes from its remaining American Rescue Funds. The City/County Board of Health is considering assistance, too.

Again, HUD’s dramatic cuts are temporarily blocked by the lawsuit bought by Illinois and 16 states (plus governors from Kentucky and Pennsylvania, cities such as Boston and San Francisco, and advocacy groups including NAEH and the National Low Income Housing Coalition). However, even paused for the moment, the proposal still lurks, threatening stable housing for some 170,000 people, including many in central Illinois.