Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump Funding Cuts Endanger Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors

Opinion

Two people holding hands, comforting each other.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline fields up to 3,000 calls and messages a day from all over the country.

Getty Images, Tempura

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

The Trump administration’s funding cuts and new rules for grants are threatening critical programs from food and housing to medical research, parks, and much more. Among them are programs proven to prevent and reduce violence as well as initiatives that assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other acts of violence.


Although the administration claims to care about violence—citing concerns about “rapists,” for example, in justifying policies that target immigrants and transgender individuals—its actions in fact increase the risk of violence and jeopardize survivors’ safety and ability to move forward. The administration’s harsh approach aligns with Project 2025’s failure to support critical social services, which can be a lifeline for victims of sexual violence or domestic abuse.

Sexual and domestic violence occur in all regions of the country and affect all age groups and household incomes. The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which took its first calls in 1996, fields up to 3,000 calls and messages a day from all over the country. Even before this administration’s draconian cuts, the hotline has been woefully underfunded, with resources to answer only about half of its calls and messages. In addition, more than half of women and almost one in three men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact, and one in four women have experienced rape or attempted rape, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last year.

One investigation described survivor Tina Johnson, who grew up in Alabama in a community where sexual abuse was rampant, wasn’t something that was discussed, and was something women were raised to tolerate and for which they were often blamed. She first experienced sexual abuse when she was about four years old. Soon, a second uncle began abusing her as well. As a young adult, she was sexually assaulted by a prominent lawyer, who later ran for the U.S. Senate.

Survivors like Johnson clearly need help, yet the administration appears determined to undermine programs that might provide it. Many of the current cuts have come without prior notice. Newly imposed grant restrictions aim to cut funding unless programs pledge to adhere to unprecedented requirements—vowing not to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, for example. And this is despite the fact that Congress has supported programs reaching out to those most in need of help. While some proposed cuts have been reversed or paused, the resulting uncertainty makes it virtually impossible for victim service organizations to run effectively and plan for the future.

Why this matters

Cuts increase risks for survivors and their families:

Survivors fleeing abusive partners in the middle of the night could lose access to hotlines that help them find safety. People who have been sexually assaulted could lose access to forensic nurse examiners specializing in sexual assault, to rape kits that preserve evidence, to rape crisis counselors, and other essential help. Case management, counseling, housing assistance, legal help, and medical care, among other things, are also under threat.

Entire communities, including LGBTQ+ and immigrant survivors, could lose access to support programs. Survivors of domestic violence may find it harder to get a lawyer to help them navigate the legal system when, for example, they seek a protective order or help with a child custody battle.

Programs aimed at reducing violence are needed in every part of the United States:

Funding cuts threaten efforts to guide abuse survivors toward healthy relationships; public service announcements that raise awareness of domestic violence; and initiatives like Dating Matters, a program aimed at helping teenagers recognize and respond to abuse. Critical programs addressing the root causes of domestic violence and sexual assault face budget cuts simply because someone in Washington declares that they are not “aligned with the administration’s priorities.”

Slashing these programs increases the risk of poverty:

Domestic violence survivors often end up saddled with debt incurred by their abusive partners and face other economic challenges as a result of abuse. Support programs help them keep jobs and housing so they can be economically secure.

Safety and support are crucial:

A robust democracy should help people in times of need and should promote safety. Vital social service programs should not be terminated for partisan political reasons. Domestic violence and sexual assault are not Republican or Democratic issues, nor are they issues that affect only cities, a particular state or two, or one social or economic class.

We as a nation should have a shared commitment to ending violence and supporting victims of abuse. Project 2025 paints a picture of a country where individuals are left on their own to deal with crippling assaults, their mental, physical, and emotional damage be damned.

Julie Goldscheid is a Professor of Law Emeritus at CUNY School of Law and an Adjunct Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. She teaches courses on gender violence and has taught courses including civil procedure, legislation, gender equality and lawyering. She is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Read More

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

fractured foundation and US flag

AI generated

From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

This series began with a simple but urgent question: What’s gone wrong with America’s economic policies, and how can we begin to fix them? The story so far has revealed not only financial instability but also deeper structural weaknesses that leave families, small businesses, and entire communities far more vulnerable than they should be.

In the first two articles, “Running on Empty” and “Crash Course,” we examined how middle-class families, small businesses, and retirees are increasingly caught in a web of debt and financial uncertainty. We also examined how Wall Street’s speculative excesses, deregulation, and shadow banking have pushed the financial system to the brink. Finally, we warned that Donald Trump’s economic agenda doesn’t address these problems—it magnifies them. Together, these earlier articles painted a picture of a system skating on thin ice, where even small shocks could trigger widespread crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less