Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less