WASHINGTON — A growing wave of state legislation targeting unhoused people is being driven in part by a coordinated policy effort tied to the Cicero Institute, a well-funded think tank that has rapidly gained influence in shaping homelessness policy nationwide, according to a new analysis and legislative map released by Housing Not Handcuffs.
The report finds that 22 states are currently considering or have recently considered laws that increase penalties on people experiencing homelessness, often criminalizing activities such as sleeping outside or limiting access to services.
At the center of this trend is the Cicero Institute, a policy organization that has emerged in recent years as a key architect of model legislation focused on homelessness, public safety and urban policy.
Founded in 2021, the institute has positioned itself as a conservative alternative to traditional housing-first approaches, advocating instead for policies that emphasize enforcement, behavioral requirements and restrictions tied to public space.
The institute is backed by significant financial resources, including funding linked to billionaire tech interests. According to the Housing Not Handcuffs analysis, the Cicero Institute is funded by a billionaire co-founder of Palantir, placing it within a broader network of well-capitalized policy organizations capable of shaping state-level legislation at scale.
This financial backing has translated into outsized influence. Unlike smaller advocacy groups that operate primarily at the local level, the Cicero Institute has pursued a national strategy, developing template bills and working with lawmakers across multiple states to introduce similar legislation simultaneously. This approach allows policies to spread rapidly, creating a coordinated legislative push rather than isolated state initiatives.
The impact of that strategy is visible across the country.
In Georgia and Oklahoma, lawmakers are advancing proposals that would allow residents to sue cities if they believe local governments have failed to aggressively enforce anti-homeless laws, particularly where property values are perceived to be affected. These measures reflect a broader Cicero-aligned framework that shifts accountability toward municipalities and incentivizes stricter enforcement.
In Hawaii, Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin, legislators have introduced bills establishing “drug-free homeless services zones,” which impose heightened penalties on individuals experiencing homelessness while also creating legal risks for service providers. These provisions represent a significant departure from traditional policy approaches by effectively linking access to services with increased surveillance and enforcement.
Indiana has already enacted a version of this model legislation after multiple attempts in prior sessions. While some provisions were softened through advocacy efforts, the law’s passage demonstrates the durability of these proposals and the ability of Cicero-backed policies to overcome opposition over time.
Other proposals illustrate the breadth of the policy framework. In Louisiana, legislation has been introduced that would allow courts to require unhoused individuals to perform unpaid labor as a condition of receiving treatment or housing. In Tennessee, lawmakers have considered expanding the use of deadly force in cases of trespassing, a measure that advocates warn could disproportionately affect unhoused populations.
Taken together, these policies reflect a coherent ideological approach: one that frames homelessness as a problem of public order and individual behavior rather than structural housing shortages or economic inequality.
Advocates argue that this shift has significant consequences.
By prioritizing enforcement mechanisms, these laws can increase contact between unhoused individuals and the criminal legal system, potentially creating additional barriers to securing housing, employment and services. The report also raises concerns about the creation of what it describes as a two-tiered justice system, in which penalties differ based on housing status rather than conduct alone.
At the same time, the influence of the Cicero Institute extends beyond individual bills. By providing ready-made legislative language and policy frameworks, the organization reduces the barrier for lawmakers to introduce complex legislation, accelerating the pace at which these ideas move through statehouses.
This model has proven particularly effective in an era where state legislatures are increasingly central to policy experimentation. Rather than relying on federal action, organizations like the Cicero Institute can achieve national impact through coordinated state-level efforts, effectively reshaping policy from the ground up.
However, the report makes clear that this influence is being contested.
In several states, advocacy coalitions have successfully blocked or defeated Cicero-aligned proposals. Iowa rejected a “drug-free zone” bill for the second consecutive year, while Wisconsin halted multiple anti-homeless measures during the current legislative session. Oregon lawmakers also moved to preserve restrictions on local anti-homeless ordinances, preventing a rollback of existing protections.
These outcomes suggest that, while the Cicero Institute has been effective in advancing its policy agenda, it has not gone unchallenged.
In parallel, a growing number of states are pursuing alternative approaches.
According to the report, at least 17 states have introduced legislation aimed at protecting the rights of unhoused individuals and those who provide services, with bills advancing in Maryland, Connecticut, Washington and Illinois.
California is among the most prominent examples of this countervailing trend.
At the end of the last legislative session, the state enacted a law prohibiting local governments from criminalizing the provision of food, water and supportive services to unhoused people. The measure directly addresses one of the enforcement mechanisms seen in Cicero-style proposals, reinforcing a policy framework that prioritizes access to services rather than restricting it.
This divergence highlights a fundamental policy divide.
On one side are states adopting enforcement-heavy models that seek to regulate behavior in public spaces and impose conditions on access to services. On the other are states emphasizing housing access, legal protections and support systems as the primary tools for addressing homelessness.
The stakes of this divide extend beyond individual policies.
As the report suggests, the spread of Cicero-backed legislation represents not just a set of discrete policy changes but a broader effort to redefine how homelessness is understood and governed in the United States. By framing the issue in terms of public order and enforcement, these policies shift the focus away from structural factors such as housing supply, affordability and economic inequality.
California’s approach, by contrast, reflects a different set of assumptions — that homelessness is fundamentally a housing and social services issue requiring systemic solutions rather than punitive measures.
As 2026 legislative sessions continue, the interaction between these competing frameworks is likely to shape the national policy landscape.
With well-funded organizations like the Cicero Institute continuing to expand their reach, and advocacy coalitions mobilizing in response, states are increasingly becoming arenas for a broader ideological contest over how to address one of the country’s most visible and persistent crises.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
