As debates over homelessness policies intensify across the United States, Tulsa, Oklahoma has become a microcosm of the national struggle, with city leaders poised to vote on a controversial ordinance that would restrict where pedestrians—particularly the homeless—can stand at intersections and medians. The move comes just as the White House unveils sweeping changes to federal homelessness programs, sparking fears among advocates that a wave of criminalization and displacement could soon sweep the country.
On August 20, 2025, Tulsa city councilors gathered to discuss an ordinance that would make it illegal for pedestrians to stop and stand on medians less than ten feet wide, especially those adjacent to turn lanes and roads with speed limits above 25 miles per hour. The proposal, authored by Councilor Phil Lakin and co-sponsored by Karen Gilbert, is set for a decisive vote on August 27. If passed, it would also require anyone engaging with traffic—such as panhandlers—to remain at least 18 inches from the curb, with violators facing fines up to $150.
Supporters of the measure, including Lakin and Gilbert, insist the changes are about public safety, not targeting the homeless. "Anytime we have a death, that's one too many," Gilbert told 2 News Oklahoma, referencing a September 2024 incident in which a homeless person, stationary in a median, was struck in an auto-pedestrian crash. "We just want to do what we can to keep people safe out there—not just keeping pedestrians safe, but also making sure that we keep travelers safe as well." Lakin echoed this sentiment during a city public works committee meeting, saying, "Having that additional width for me as a driver even to see what I'm getting ready to go in would be helpful for me."
But the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from other councilors and advocates, who warn it could have dire consequences for Tulsa's most vulnerable residents. Councilor Laura Bellis, who spoke out against the ordinance on her campaign Facebook page, questioned whether the measure would, in practice, criminalize homelessness. She pointed to data from the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG) highlighting the lack of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure in Tulsa and argued that the ordinance risks punishing people for having nowhere else to go.
Mark Haltom, CEO of the Tulsa Day Center, offered a nuanced perspective. "I don't think it's a solution, a total solution," Haltom told 2 News. "But I can see the public safety part of that. And I hope there's warnings given if this ordinance is passed, before anybody is cited." His remarks capture the tension at the heart of the debate: the need to balance safety with compassion and the recognition that, for many, the streets are not a choice but a last resort.
This local battle comes amid seismic shifts at the federal level. On the same day as Tulsa's city council discussion, the White House unveiled its fiscal year 2026 budget, proposing the elimination of the Continuum of Care program—long considered the backbone of federal homelessness assistance. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, this program has helped cities like Dallas, San Bernardino, California, and Montgomery County, Maryland, achieve significant reductions in homelessness. Dallas, in particular, declared an end to downtown homelessness in May 2025 after moving more than 270 people off the streets with the help of wraparound social services and permanent housing.
Instead of Continuum of Care, the administration proposes shifting resources to the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program, which prioritizes shelters, transitional housing, and services like mental health and substance abuse counseling over permanent housing solutions. The budget also slashes $532 million from the federal government's Homeless Assistance Grants account—funds that, according to the Alliance, could otherwise support more than 60,000 Rapid Re-Housing Units, serving 8% of the nation's homeless population.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness warns that ending Continuum of Care could increase the number of homeless people in the U.S. by 36%. "Between 2023 and 2024, homelessness increased by 18%, yet this proposal would strip funding for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s homelessness programs by 12%," said Ann Oliva, the Alliance's CEO. "That is a recipe for disaster. We know that these programs have been chronically underfunded for decades."
The White House's approach has been accompanied by a series of executive actions that have alarmed advocates nationwide. In July 2025, President Trump signed an order requiring states and cities to remove homeless people from public places, expanded the circumstances under which individuals can be involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals, and imposed sobriety requirements for housing assistance. During a federal takeover of Washington, DC, Trump ordered encampments to be moved "far from the Capital," with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating that those who refuse shelter services could face jail time. Reports from advocacy group Housing Not Handcuffs describe police evicting homeless people and destroying their property throughout DC, including tents and personal belongings.
Critics argue that these moves amount to the criminalization of homelessness and ignore the root causes of the crisis. Rob Robinson, a formerly homeless community organizer in New York City, told USA Today, "Homelessness is a market failure, a housing problem. Rent prices have exceeded income gains by 325% nationally since 1985. Rates of homelessness are tied to rental affordability." He added, "The White House's recent moves toward the criminalization of homelessness and forced institutionalization ignore decades of research and real-world outcomes." Jesse Rabinowitz from the National Homelessness Law Center was even more blunt: "If Donald Trump really wanted to help people and solve homelessness, he would use his power to lower rents and help people make ends meet. Estimates show that taxpayers are spending over $400,000 a day for Trump to use the DC National Guard for photo ops. Why can they find money for that but not for housing and help?"
Back in Tulsa, the city council's pending vote has become a flashpoint in the wider national debate, as highlighted in a recent video by KJRH-Tulsa. The video, titled 'Public safety vs. criminalized homelessness debate in upcoming council vote,' underscores the difficult questions facing local governments as they navigate federal policy changes, safety concerns, and the urgent needs of their unhoused populations.
As the country watches Tulsa and weighs the consequences of federal budget cuts, the stakes for America's homeless have rarely been higher. In a landscape where public safety and compassion often seem at odds, the coming weeks may determine not just the fate of one city ordinance, but the direction of the nation's response to homelessness for years to come.
