The latest comment from Mr. Trump, minimizing domestic violence to “a little fight with the Wife,” completely dismisses that America is suffering from a public health crisis. According to the Council on Criminal Justice, “domestic violence was the only offense that rose by 3% during the first half of 2025” compared to the same months in 2024, amongst other violent offenses such as homicide and aggravated assault. Domestic violence is not a personal matter; it is a community issue.
America continues to see an increase in domestic violence because we do not focus on protective factors such as economic security.
Financial abuse is experienced by 99% of domestic violence victims, often making these victims financially dependent on their abusers, making it all the more difficult to flee. The prevalence of financial abuse is rooted in coercive control. It is a pattern of domination and entrapment that goes beyond physical harm. It strips victims of their autonomy and creates dependency. These abuses have long-term consequences that often lead to housing insecurity or homelessness.
In my state, California, the legislature made some progress when they passed SB 975 (effective July 1st) to allow survivors to contest coerced debt in court and hold abusers accountable.
Employers can economically empower victims before it is too late.
Many workplaces' federal laws indirectly apply to victims of domestic violence, such as FMLA or OSHA, for time off or safety concerns. Some states, such as California, New York, or Illinois, have more extensive and specific protections for victims.
Beyond these legal protections imposed on employers, what’s in it for them?
Nowadays, people are seeking a workplace whose values align with their own. Companies’ cultures are changing and leaning towards becoming a more supportive environment because they understand that it boosts productivity.
As a domestic violence advocate, my previous employers asked me to assist another coworker who was fleeing. Needless to say, the immense support from the agency and other team members made this person feel safer and supported. Mutual respect and reciprocity start to be the norm.
During the January 2025 wildfire that took Los Angeles by surprise, we saw how the “unsung heroes”-mainly community members - came together to support those in need.
If that is not enough to appeal to people’s hearts, here is a more logical benefit for employers.
The Society for Human Resource Management reported in 2017 that the cost to hire and train a replacement for an employee earning $60,000 is between $30,000 and $45,000. When an employee is supported during a time of crisis, they are more likely to remain loyal and dedicated to their employer. A culture of trust will improve morale and increase employee retention.
As domestic violence expert Dr. Kader Gumus explains, “These supportive environments help survivors manage their trauma and stress, contributing to their overall well-being and ability to function effectively at work.”
In the long term, this symbiotic partnership can result in a mutually beneficial situation. It widens the safety net when people are in crisis, and it enables a more robust workforce.
Employers have the power to change lives. They are not bystanders; they are key players on the front line of prevention. When they choose to stand with survivors, they help rewrite futures, not just for individuals, but for families and communities. It’s time we recognize that the fight to end domestic violence doesn’t stop at the shelter door or the courthouse steps. It extends to every boardroom, breakroom, and workplace across the country. When employers act, survivors thrive.
Stephanie Whack is a survivor of domestic violence, an advocate at the intersection of victimization and homelessness, and a member of The OpEd Project Public Voices Fellowship on Domestic Violence and Economic Security. In 2024, she was awarded the LA City Dr. Marjorie Braude Award for innovative collaboration in serving victims of domestic violence.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.