Newsom Tries to Shift Blame on Homelessness to Local Government

Gavin Newsom stood before the cameras in early March and once again blamed local governments for the state’s spiraling homelessness crisis.

“No more excuses,” he thundered, threatening to strip funding from counties he claims are underperforming while promising to redirect “every damn penny” to those “getting things done.”

Newsom is once again attempting to shift blame for California’s homelessness crisis — the very crisis he has repeatedly pledged to solve, including his 2021 vow to end family homelessness within five years.

Since 2017, homelessness in California has surged by more than 40 percent — from roughly 134,000 people to nearly 187,000 in 2024 — despite an estimated $30 billion in spending he authorized.

His latest tirade against counties ignores the glaring truth.

The problem isn’t a lack of spending. And it isn’t local governments. The problem is the one-size-fits-all policy that has dictated both the spending and the strategy.

Despite data showing that roughly 80 percent of those living on California’s streets struggle with severe mental illness or addiction, the cornerstone of Newsom’s homelessness strategy — Housing First — prioritizes lifelong housing subsidies with no expectation of treatment, sobriety, or work, ever.

The theory is deceptively simple: Give someone housing and stability will follow.

But that theory has collapsed under the weight of reality.

Not only did homelessness surge in California after the policy was mandated statewide in 2016, it also surged by nearly 35 percent once the federal government adopted the approach in 2013 — despite President Barack Obama’s promise that it would end homelessness within a decade.

Instead of ending homelessness, Housing First has produced one of the most expensive social policy failures in modern history.

Yet Newsom remains one of its most vocal champions. In 2025, he even vetoed legislation that would have allowed just 10 percent of state homelessness funds to support sober recovery housing, underscoring his unwavering commitment to Housing First orthodoxy.

Fortunately, a growing number of local leaders are charting a different course.

In San Jose, Mayor Matt Mahan has rejected the fatalism of sidewalk encampments and embraced a more pragmatic and humane approach to addressing homelessness.

His “Responsibility to Shelter” policy prioritizes rapid construction of interim housing and requires individuals to accept available shelter after repeated refusals or face enforcement actions. The goal is not punishment, but intervention to ensure that people suffering from addiction or severe mental illness are not abandoned to deteriorate on the streets.

By focusing on immediate shelter paired with treatment and stabilization — a model the state refuses to fund — San Jose is expanding interim capacity and restoring order to public spaces.

In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie is also charting a more humane course.

Through his “Breaking the Cycle” initiative, Lurie is expanding treatment-focused beds that are exempt from state funding, strengthening outreach teams, and creating a centralized RESET Center to rapidly evaluate and triage individuals struggling with addiction and mental illness.

He also cancelled a controversial $5 million city program that provided free alcohol to chronic alcoholics — a policy that symbolized a system more interested in managing addiction than treating it.

These mayors inherited cities overwhelmed by tents, open drug markets, and collapsing public confidence. Their response has been to restore a basic principle that California’s state leadership abandoned years ago.

The false choice between enforcement and compassion is finally being dismantled.

Because real compassion requires intervention.

That same philosophy shapes the proposed reforms at the federal level, under the Trump administration.

In late 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to direct significant resources toward sober transitional housing programs that include mental health treatment, addiction recovery, and employment support.

The goal is simple: promote health and self-sufficiency rather than permanent dependency.

But rather than welcome reforms that mirror the solutions emerging in his own state, Newsom joined a multistate lawsuit to block them, claiming the changes represent “cruel cuts.”

In reality, this resistance has little to do with helping the homeless and everything to do with preserving a system where funding continues regardless of results.

Meanwhile, the human toll grows. California remains home to nearly one-third of America’s unsheltered population, with rates far exceeding the national average.

No press conference can obscure that reality.

California does not need more blame-shifting; it needs a course correction.

And as Newsom increasingly positions himself on the national stage, Americans should take a hard look at the results of the policies he championed at home.

Because what happened to homelessness in California did not happen by accident.