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

Mutual Surveillance?: The History and Consequences of the Treaty on Open Skies

American flag on a military uniform

adamkaz/Getty Images

Mutual Surveillance?: The History and Consequences of the Treaty on Open Skies

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

This week's congressional agenda includes anti-fraud legislation, ICE funding, FISA Section 702 renewal debates, and major committee hearings.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Fraud, Funding, and FISA

Fraud

This week in the House is Fraud Week based on the large number of bills likely to receive a vote that in some way are intended to decrease or eliminate many different kinds of fraud. Example bills up for a vote include:

Funding

One bill will likely become law this week if it passes the House:

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Florida's new congressional map, the Supreme Court's Callais decision, and challenges to voting rights protections raise urgent questions about redistricting, representation, and democratic accountability.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Florida’s New Map and the Shrinking Window for Accountability

When the Lines Began Moving Faster Than the Law

On May 4, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s new congressional map into law. The Legislature had passed it five days earlier, 83 to 28 in the House and 21 to 17 in the Senate. The map redraws four districts in ways that election analysts project would shift them from competitive or Democratic-leaning to safe Republican, potentially expanding a delegation Republicans already control 20 to 8.

The same day the Legislature voted, the Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais. The Court ruled 6 to 3 that Louisiana’s majority-minority district could not survive Equal Protection scrutiny under the standards applied by the majority. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter” in redistricting.

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

A look at this week's congressional agenda, including House votes on Iran, Ukraine, FISA, appropriations, and key legislative priorities.

Getty Images, aire images

Legislative Preview for June 1, 2026

There will be plenty of coverage around the likely drama involved in picking up where House and Senate Republicans left off before this most recent week off. (For a recap, see our last post.) So we’re not going to go into any detail about what might happen with the reconciliation bill (originally only for two departments in the Department of Homeland Security; now enlarged with funding for the President’s ballroom project and overshadowed by the announcement of the President’s plan to pay off political allies with funds from the Department of Justice) or the FISA extension or the housing bill that’s been pingponging between chambers because you can read in sources like Politico about these marquee issue.

We will note that the Iran War resolution postponed in the House before the recess may be up for a vote this week, along with a resolution to remove US troops from Lebanon and a discharge petition (number 8) to put forward a bill authorizing support for Ukraine. Three privileged resolutions, of which one is a discharge petition (meaning it has 218 co-sponsors meaning at least a few House Republican co-sponsors), is a lot for one week. Especially when all three are expressing opposition to various administration stances and might get some House Republican votes.

Keep ReadingShow less