Surveillance footage from a CTA Blue Line train highlights a disturbing November 2025 incident where Lawrence Reed set another passenger ablaze. Reed, who had a significant history of mental illness and numerous prior arrests, was subsequently charged with federal terrorism. This incident underscores a more extensive issue surrounding mental health care and public safety, brought sharply into focus by President Trump’s recent executive order aimed at addressing crime and disorder in America’s streets.
The executive order reopens a conversation about involuntary civil commitment, especially for adults struggling with severe mental health issues. It characterizes homelessness as a primary public safety crisis linked closely to drug addiction and mental illness. The order cites alarming trends in street homelessness linked to previous administrations, claiming that current programs have failed to address the core problems.
In its assertion, the order refers to increasing instances of public disorder, claiming that these issues create unsafe environments in urban areas. It advocates for moving homeless individuals into long-term care facilities through involuntary civil commitment, positioning this as a humane step necessary for restoring order.
Supporters of this approach point to notable incidents involving perpetrators with substantial mental health issues and criminal backgrounds who were repeatedly released into the community. Take, for instance, the 2025 stabbing in Fair Oaks committed by Jordan Murray, who had a documented mental disorder and a history of robbery. Murray was released through California’s Mental Health Diversion program, lacking any supervisory measures. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper labeled jail as the safer option.
Similarly, in Charlotte, North Carolina, Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr. fatally stabbed Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old refugee. Brown, also diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a history of violence but was released despite family pleas for extended involuntary commitment. Critics and lawmakers responded swiftly, leading to the passage of Iryna’s Law, aimed at preventing such tragedies in the future.
The case of Lawrence Reed in Chicago echoes these prior examples. Reed had over 70 arrests to his name and a record of mental illness. After violating conditions of probation, he was nonetheless allowed back onto the streets. Following the attack on Bethany MaGee—a random act of violence—Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson stated that Reed showed he was a danger to society and that the failures of the system had contributed to his release.
Collectively, these cases reveal a troubling pattern: offenders with severe mental health issues and criminal histories are repeatedly cycled through the justice system. Often, they are released without adequate oversight, only to commit further acts of violence. The resulting victims are often innocent, targeted during random public attacks.
Data from Oregon illustrates the ramifications of current policies. A change in 2022 aimed at reducing waitlists resulted in an alarming 46% increase in new felony cases among those discharged early from state hospitals. For misdemeanors, the rise was even starker—90%. This wave of new charges includes serious offenses such as murder, burglary, and assault.
While the executive order seeks to tighten civil commitment protocols, critics argue it could lead to a dangerous return to forced institutionalization. This concern is amplified by provisions that direct the attorney general and the Department of Health and Human Services to pursue broader civil commitment measures, potentially undermining protections established to prevent abuses seen in past psychiatric institutions.
Concerns exist regarding the order’s vagueness around who will make decisions about involuntary commitments and the criteria they will use. This lack of clarity raises fears of bias and non-medical decision-making. Additionally, the ongoing shortage of mental health beds raises further questions about the practicality of such commitments.
Though the federal government cannot directly compel states to enact commitments, it can influence their decisions through funding and program requirements. The order links federal funding to states’ commitment to crack down on drug use, urban camping, and loitering and encourages moving homeless individuals into treatment or institutional settings.
The balance between civil rights and public safety continues to be a contentious issue. It has become evident that commitment must not just be based on the presence of mental illness but on demonstrable danger to self or others or an inability to meet essential needs. State laws generally require evidence that a person poses a threat due to their mental health condition, thus upholding due process.
In light of these developments, the challenges of addressing homelessness and mental illness need scrutiny. As officials reveal the dark outcomes of lapses in the system, it is essential to confront these issues head-on and seek solutions that preserve both public safety and the dignity of those suffering from mental health challenges.
"*" indicates required fields
