It feels like the War on Poverty, which was launched in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act has turned into a War on the Poor.
In early January, the Trump Administration announced the cut of $2 billion in grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Due to a national public outcry, the administration reversed the grant cuts within hours.
At local levels the damage was already done. Chaos was created among providers, and I have even heard of some agencies in Middle Tennessee that had already announced that grant-funded staff would be let go. As of this writing, I am unclear whether all the grants have actually been fully reinstated yet.
In a public statement, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, which is headquartered in Nashville, condemned the cuts and said, “This approach to funding decisions is inconsistent with the stability and care required to safeguard public health.”
Some of the grants that were placed on the chopping block were used “to provide drug treatment, support employment and recovery services, street outreach, re-entry services, mobile treatment, specialty court programs, and more,” the statement from the National Health Care for the Homeless Council read. “Canceling these programs would sever access to care for many vulnerable people struggling with mental health and substance use disorders, increasing overdoses and other negative outcomes in communities nationwide.”
As we have seen, cutting and changing federal grants on a whim has become common. The Trump Administration has already shown that it intends to significantly change the priorities in $3.8 billion in federal homeless funding, moving away from permanent housing toward forced treatment.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has abruptly changed a two-year homelessness funding model that was put in place under the prior administration in order to completely reverse HUD’s longstanding funding priorities. In essence, the changes would have threatened the housing of 170,000 Americans — at least 120 of Nashvillians — within the first few months of 2026.
Luckily, states, national organizations and cities — including Nashville — stepped up and challenged the federal government in court. That lawsuit is still ongoing, but a federal judge imposed a temporary injunction on the grant changes. As of now, the old funding model has been reinstated, and local organizations are working to renew their grants as originally planned.
But depending on the outcome of that lawsuit, HUD may change course again very rapidly. At the very least, the federal government will make the shift under the FY26 funding cycle. In essence, it is just a matter of time until changes are coming, shifting funding away from evidence-based permanent supportive housing practices that the federal government has promoted for more than a decade. The good news was that thanks to the legal challenges, local agencies will now have more time to adjust.
It seems ironic that the federal government wanted to cut $2 billion in SAMHSA grants for preventative measures in mental health and substance use care, while simultaneously trying to shift its HUD funding toward forcing people experiencing homelessness into treatment for mental health and substance use.
Shouldn’t we be able to expect the government to have a more coordinated approach?
One thing Nashville’s local government has done is try to look ahead. Just last month, the Metro Council unanimously passed a resolution to encourage the Office of Homeless Services (OHS) to work in coordination with the Homelessness Planning Council, a community board, to outline in a report how OHS intends to spend $4.4 million in Metro funds. The $4.4 million was part of a $5.5-million budget increase to OHS for the current fiscal year. OHS dedicated that funding for permanent supportive housing ($2 million) and Rapid Rehousing ($2.5 million). In essence, Metro Council gave OHS permission to evaluate those dollars to ensure no Nashvillian will lose their housing due to coming federal changes in homelessness funding.
OHS initially fought the non-binding resolution claiming that it would reduce funding for Strobel House. However, Metro Council members clarified that they are interested in seeing how OHS considers spending $4.4 million to keep people housed, which would include Strobel House. When I did a quick calculation, it was very clear that OHS had enough funding within that $4.4 million, even after spending $2 million on Strobel House, to keep the 120 people who could face housing loss under the federal HUD funding changes in their homes and retain those permanent supportive housing units for Nashville moving forward.
OHS currently has a total budget of more than $11 million, which is comparable to the federal homelessness HUD funding that Nashville-Davidson County receives that is expected to change. The $22 million in combined government funding is the biggest bucket of homelessness funding in our city. Yet, there is still a lack of transparency from OHS about how exactly Metro spends its homelessness funding.
It has been apparent that Metro has been more focused on the coordination of encampment closures, collecting data and reporting housing placement rates than on long-term strategic planning involving the entire community. The goal, as in so many other cities, is to make homelessness invisible rather than solving it in the long run.
And the big talking point that echoes across the entire United States and is also shouted from the Mayor’s Office is that “government cannot do it alone.”
My question is, “Why not?”
To be clear, I do not believe that the government should do it alone. But the government has proven time and time again that when they want to give incentives and subsidies to corporations — or dare I bring this up here — finance a new sports stadium, they will find the money.
Let me zoom out from the local government and take a look at the global system.
Currently the 12 richest people in the world have more wealth than the poorer half of the Earth’s population combined (which make up more than four billion people), according to the recently published 2026 Oxfam Report. Oxfam is a global organization “that fights inequality to end poverty and injustices.”
The Oxfam Report also shows that:
- Since 2020, billionaire wealth has grown by 81 percent.
- Billionaire fortunes have grown at a rate three times faster in the last year (since President Trump took office) than they did on average in the five previous years.
- Billionaires are more than 4,000 times more likely to hold public offices than ordinary people.
In short, the report outlines “how the super-rich use their extreme wealth to buy politics, media and justice to defend their own fortunes, dismantle and destroy progressive policies, and strip away our basic civil and political rights.”
With all this inequality that is out of hand and with a federal administration that furthers the war on the poor, hurting its own citizens while enriching the oligarchs, what can you do?
Besides calling your elected representatives in Congress, get involved at the local level.
The reality is that local governments, without a demand for transparency, also watch out for the rich over the poor. This isn’t something that happens nationally and disappears locally as a phenomenon. Most of our city leaders are great at responding and garnering publicity for quick fixes but truly suck when it comes to planning ahead to serve the bottom half of the population and keep the middle- and lower-income populations in Nashville.
Your tools include demanding more transparency from your local government officials — those who represent the city of Nashville and also those at the state of Tennessee. Specifically, you can ask questions to your council members. Most of them are very responsive and available. You can reach out to departments, and if they don’t respond, contact the board that oversees them. Question anything that looks too much like propaganda. Make public information requests to see how your taxpayer money is spent. Demand that local reporters hold the government more accountable and cover poverty in a consistent and transparent manner.
For example, you may want to ask Gov. Bill Lee’s office why he opted out of accepting $84 million in taxpayer funding you already paid for the federally funded summer food assistance program that would have served thousands of Tennessee children from low-income families.
Or you may ask the Mayor’s Office why they chose to keep 80 temporary motel rooms open for an entire year in anticipation of an encampment closure when they could have started a coordinated effort moving people from encampments to indoor settings in a less disruptive manner. Instead Metro regularly served 300+ people in cold weather shelters last winter (2024/25) that only opened at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Shouldn’t they have served closer to 220 if they had utilized those empty rooms? The money was there to implement a solution within three to four months. Instead of focusing on solutions that may serve more people but not garner as much attention as the highly publicized shutdown of a large encampment, city officials regularly choose to blame nonprofits when asked tough questions or being criticized.
Or you could ask why Metro Social Services (MSS) needed to organize pop-up food events in low-income areas and does not already have permanent satellite offices in those underserved neighborhoods. While I commend Metro for stepping in and responding quickly when federal food assistance was compromised, it seems having already a steady presence in those areas would have been more effective. Satellite offices could have been co-located in existing community centers, libraries, or churches years ago. If done that way, more people could have been served over the years in a more consistent and ongoing manner in the neighborhoods they live.
Rather, MSS chose to move from Downtown and rent a building for just under $1 million in Donelson. It is hard for populations that we refer to as the “working poor” to travel across town during the day while trying hold down one or two jobs. Certainly, pop-up events and resource fairs garner more positive media coverage as reporters pick up press releases. But a strategic vision like satellite offices, would have served more people in the long-term.
In my experience, when you ask these questions, you will encounter bureaucratic excuses and rehearsed talking points. Don’t give up. Instead, double down and ask your local government representatives how the Office of Homeless Services ($11.6 million budget), Metro Social Services ($10.8 million), and the Metro Public Health Department ($99.4 million) collaborate with each other and with other Metro departments to implement a poverty reduction plan — if Metro has one — and keep Nashvillians housed (a move that would reduce homelessness in the long-term).
To me, those are ethical questions that you can and should ask. You don’t need to be an expert on poverty. Pick one issue, learn about it, and ask questions. Change takes time, but only if we consistently demand accountability and offer input for solutions.
Being engaged at the local level matters, especially in an environment where the federal government has declared a War on the Poor.
Judith Tackett is a longtime homelessness expert and advocates for housing-focused, person-centered solutions. Opinions in this column are her own.