Historical context at [1]:

> In 1999, a case testing these protections made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Olmstead v. L.C., two women with mental disabilities sued Georgia, arguing that the state had failed its obligation to provide services that would allow them to return to their communities and that it had continued to institutionalize the women instead, thus violating their civil rights.

> The court agreed that states have a legal responsibility to provide support that integrates disabled Americans into their communities, and for nearly three decades, courts across the country have embraced that interpretation.

[...]

> For decades, Barkoff adds, both Republican and Democratic administrations, including the first Trump administration, proactively enforced federal disability law and repeatedly brought actions against states that relied too heavily on care in large, segregated settings that the law says should be a last resort.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2026/06/20/nx-s1-5865100/doj-memo-trump-...

Speaking as someone who has cared for loved ones and has involuntarily committed them (most recently 6 days ago):

The core issue with the WhiteHouse's plan to pressure states to increase involuntary commitments is that

    there is a critical shortage of beds, staff and resources 
    in most/all of the US. 

This has been the case for decades. There are no trustworthy indicators that a national increase in capacity is coming. In my experience, it is because governments large and small are super comfortable with sending vulnerable people to prison.