On November 5, 2024—the night of the most anticipated election cycle for residents of the United States—thousands gathered around the country, sitting with friends in front of large-screen TVs, optimistic and ready to witness the election of the next president of the United States.
As the hours of election night stretched on and digital state maps turned red or blue with each counted ballot, every 68 seconds a woman was sexually assaulted in the U.S., an estimate calculated by the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).
Despite this, the result was clear, the majority of U.S. residents chose to elect a leader who has not just boasted about violating women but has actively promoted a system that thrives on silencing, exploiting, and devaluing them.
Deep-rooted rape culture isn’t just thriving—it’s being institutionalized. Survivors are neglected at every turn: untested rape kits gather dust, men accused of sexually violating women rise to power, and even a person found liable in court for sexual assault can be re-elected to the highest office in the land.
Harassing slogans like “ Your Body, My Choice ” continue to mock survivors' pain, while justice remains out of reach for far too many. This isn’t just a failure of the system—it’s an indictment of a culture that prioritizes power over accountability, leaving survivors to go up against a legal system that should instead be accompanying them.
A NATION SILENT AMIDST A SEXUAL VIOLENCE CRISIS
In the weeks following the 2024 election, the President selected five men for senior government positions who have either been accused of rape or sexual misconduct or have been entangled in serious allegations over their mistreatment of women, reflecting a troubling societal acceptance of the disregard for women, their safety, and their rights.
A January 2024 study, published by JAMA Internal Medicine 1, revealed that in the years following the overturn of Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that stripped women in the U.S. of their Constitutional right to access abortion healthcare, 64,000 pregnancies in 14 U.S. states resulted from rape.
Imagine if this figure is extrapolated to include all 50 states—and what that means about how many rapes are occurring in the U.S. overall? Despite this alarming data, the conversation around sexual violence remains disturbingly muted.
MANY 1000’S OF RAPE KITS LEFT UNTESTED
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of rape kits remain untested in evidence rooms across the country, sometimes for decades, each representing a survivor’s harrowing experience. Despite repeated calls for reform, the crisis persists due to a range of issues including inadequate funding, lack of standardized testing protocols, and inaction.
In many cases, untested kits have allowed repeat offenders to remain at large, causing further distress to their victims and putting countless others at risk. This negligence reflects a deeper cultural apathy toward sexual violence, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive reform and survivor-centered justice.
Sexual violence leaves lasting physical, emotional, and psychological scars. The thousands of untested rape kits and pregnancies resulting from rape are stark examples of a deep-rooted problem. And the same administration that assumes power today is responsible for the repeal of a woman's right to bodily autonomy in the Dobbs decision, resulting in a swath of state-level efforts to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape. Yet, societal reluctance to confront and address sexual violence perpetuates a cycle of trauma and silence.
OBSTACLES TO JUSTICE FOR RAPE SURVIVORS
Survivors of sexual violence face immense legal obstacles in seeking justice 2, including loopholes in sexual violence laws. From the moment they decide to report the crime, they often encounter institutional misogyny that further compounds their trauma.
Police officers, judges, and prosecutors—key figures in ensuring justice—often display biases and prejudices based on a victim’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, class, disability, or other personal characteristics. Institutional misogyny reinforces harmful stereotypes, undermining victims’ credibility and dignity. This fosters an environment where survivors feel discouraged from seeking the justice they deserve.
In 2024 alone, numerous examples of legal frameworks and officials allowing perpetrators to go unpunished came to light. For example, Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York was overturned because judges ruled testimony about his past behavior was inadmissible, even though federal law permits the inclusion of such evidence in sexual violence cases due to the difficulty of proving these crimes.
Additionally, these frameworks often place the burden of providing evidence on the survivor, making the legal process re-traumatizing 3 and one that promotes impunity.
CHANGING HOW CONSENT IS INTERPRETED IN THE LAW
Sex without consent should always be considered rape. International human rights standards 4 define rape as based on the absence of freely given consent, taking into account coercive or exploitative circumstances. This establishes rape as a violation against the right to physical, sexual, and psychological integrity.
According to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 5 —one of the most widely ratified international treaties, though notably one not ratified by the U.S.—inconsistencies in how rape is legally defined, particularly in regards to what constitutes consent, undermine efforts to effectively protect women and girls from sexual violence.
In some countries, the legal system defines rape as involving the use of physical force 6 and often excludes any other form of coercion or power imbalance between the two parties. These force-based legal definitions of rape allow for certain types of rape to go unpunished and gravely limit the extent to which crimes of rape can be successfully prosecuted.
The United States Department of Justice announced an amendment to the federal definition of rape 7 to include a lack of consent in 2012. This was a very positive step. However, as we’ve seen, even when the law is based on a consent-based definition of rape, stereotypes and rape myths can hinder many prosecutions where additional physical violence was not present. This demonstrates why it is so critical to clarify the law fully and ensure proper implementation.
Among all these obstacles, what remains particularly harmful to survivors is the taboo nature of speaking about rape within many communities. Cultural and social stigmas have prevented countless survivors from seeking the support and justice they need, RAINN estimates that only 310 out of every 1,000 sexual assaults are reported to police. This enables the cycle of violence to continue unchecked.
HOW TO END SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Survivors need comprehensive support systems, including medical care, counseling, and legal assistance. However, support must go beyond immediate aftermaths. We need to create an environment where survivors feel safe to come forward without fear of stigma or retribution. This involves a cultural shift towards unequivocally condemning sexual violence and actively preventing it.
Breaking this cycle requires a concerted effort from all sectors of society, including policymakers, law enforcement, healthcare providers, educators, and the media.
Addressing sexual violence extends beyond supporting survivors; it requires promoting prevention by creating a society of equal respect for each other and for bodily integrity and reforming the criminal justice system to recognize legal gaps and the severity of the issue to protect all women.
If RAINN estimates that 1 in 6 women in the U.S. 8 experience rape or attempted rape during their lifetime, why is sexual violence still a taboo topic and not being addressed as the epidemic that it is? Look around the room at the next large gathering you attend and try to get a sense of what that means.
Then, imagine a world where women and girls don’t have to worry about who is going to assault them and when; a world where they can focus on living their best lives instead of how to protect themselves. No front door keys ready in their hands. No turning down invitations simply because coming home after dark seems too risky. No endless vigilance for threats that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
That world is possible, and it starts with all of us agreeing that sexual violence must end, that it’s not a survivor's fault they were raped, and that our legal system must do more to bring perpetrators to justice, instead of promoting impunity and the cycle of rape as a whole.
Mel Bailey is the Communications Officer for North America and the Ending Sexual Violence global campaign for Equality Now. She is a former international journalist and videographer committed to highlighting how inclusive legislation is key to addressing gender discrimination globally. Twitter: @melb4freepress
1. JAMA Internal Medicine Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2814274
2. Equality Now, Failure to Protect:How Discrimiatory Sexual Violence Laws and Practices are Hurting Women and Girls https://equalitynow.org/resource/failure-to-protect-how-discriminatory-sexual-violence-laws-and-practices-are-hurting-women-girls-and-adolescents-in-the-americas/
3. Columbia Law Review, The Evolution of the Legal Definition of Rape https://www.culawreview.org/journal/the-evolution-of-the-legal-definition-of-rape
4. The Instanbul Convention, Details of Treaty No.210, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=210
5. Rape as a Grave and Systemic Human Rights Violation and GenderBased Violence Against Women, Expert Meeting Group Report https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/SR/Call_on_Rape/EGM_EN-SR_Report.pdf
6. Federal Bureau of Investigations - Forceable Rape, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape#:~:text=Forcible%20rape%2C%20as%20defined%20in,other%20sex%20offenses%20are%20excluded.
7. US Department of Justice, An Updated Definition of Rape, https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
8. Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), Scope of the Problem: Statistics, How Often Does Sexual Assault Occur in the United States? https://rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem#:~:text=Everyone%20Is%20Affected%20by%20Sexual%20Violence&text=1%20out%20of%20every%206,completed%2C%202.8%25%20attempted).&text=About%203%25%20of%20American%20men,completed%20rape%20in%20their%20lifetime.
Ben Droz
Ben Droz
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.