Introduction
Today’s post will be a little different. President Trump’s executive orders on DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) coupled with the White House’s public statements and instructions to federal agencies have had a trickledown effect in the non-profit space. These movements by the administration have led to a group of forbidden words and phrases that we understand may have an adverse impact on federal funding. Many non-federal funders are following suit, removing reports and resources with these terms from their websites and changing requirements for funding.

No collection of these terms is compiled in one place, but an implicit understanding is emerging. To use these in grant-funded work is to risk being defunded. And because of the lack of a list, it can be difficult to know exactly which words may get you in trouble. But it seems that any terms considered “woke” are a risk. We have received a list of particular words and phrases identified by advocates and researchers working under federal grants.

We will be redacting these words in today’s post to give a sense of the censoring impact their absence creates.

Since the 2024 presidential election there has been a lot of talk around changing economic policies and the threat of recession. This is notable for those of us in violence prevention spaces because income inequality, high rates of unemployment, high rates of poverty, and other socioeconomic elements are known risk factors for the perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV). These socioeconomic risks will also intersect with other barriers like trauma, implicit biases or discrimination.

Risk and protective factors are one tool we use in the domestic/sexual violence prevention space to understand how violence works. Risk factors, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “can increase or decrease the likelihood of someone experiencing or perpetrating violence.” They don’t necessarily cause violence, but they tend to correlate or be around when violence occurs. For example, readers probably won’t be surprised to learn that heavy alcohol and drug use are known risk factors for domestic violence.

We would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge the impacts of abuse on women and other historically marginalized diverse groups. One in four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime while BIPOC victims experience IPV at a rate of 35% higher than white women and about 2.5 times the rate of women and other races or ethnicities. It’s common to hear domestic violence described in heterosexual, cis-gender terms, but statistics show that abuse occurs in the same frequency and severity among the LGBTQ+ community. Unfortunately, LGBTQ+ domestic violence is immensely underreported, unacknowledged or underrepresented as domestic abuse because of fear of homophobia, transphobia or sexism.

As we pointed out in our previous post about the challenges of IPV in rural areas, underserved areas and systemic inequities matter. According to the American Psychological Association, “IPV has long-term negative effects on women’s job stability. For example, IPV has immediate consequences on women’s ability to remain employed but also inhibits their ability to maintain a job for some time after the abuse ends.” And evidence both in the US and abroad indicates economic downturns come with increases in domestic violence. This can become a cycle where violence exacerbated by financial stress increases economic hardship which, in turn, increases violence.

Researchers from Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley investigated the impact of economic distress on romantic relationships, demonstrating unexpected side effects of economic downturns. The study, published in the journal Demography, carefully examined whether personal economic distress and high unemployment rates would increase a mother’s chances of being in a violent or controlling relationship. While mothers across the board experienced a rise in intimate partner violence during the Great Recession of 2007 through 2009, those who experienced personal financial loss were even more likely to be subjected to intimate partner violence.

Financial security and personal safety are intrinsically linked. Abusers often use family finances as a tool of coercion and control. And many would-be survivors have children, who can also be threatened by withholding resources. There is a very common question we hear around domestic violence; “Why didn’t she/he/they just leave?” If you’ve ever found yourself wondering about this, the answer is often socioeconomic. In a single-income family or a relationship where one partner is the primary breadwinner, leaving without preparation or a plan can lead to greater violence and risks such as impoverishment and homelessness.

Coupled with the threat of economic turmoil is a reduction in resources for victims and survivors of domestic/sexual violence. The federal government, perhaps ironically, chose Sexual Assault Awareness Month as the time to dramatically cut the Division of Violence Prevention of the CDC. This division serves to organize and deliver funds appropriated by Congress for the purposes of preventing or reducing violence, including intimate partner violence.

And it’s not just the staff at these agencies. Funds themselves are directly at risk. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice canceled more than 300 grants related to support for victims of crime, human trafficking, crime victim hotlines and a host of other assistance services. Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding has been on the decline for years in addition to the recent freezes in VOCA grants. And with Congress looking to pass a budget before federal funding runs out in September, the legislature may cut or reduce fundings streams for violence prevention even further.

All of this adds up to less money for victim services, less federal staff to implement what funding remains, and less batterers intervention services at the local level. So, what does that mean for victims who are facing direct impact? And what should advocates do?

1. Wherever you are or however you relate to these issues, connect with safe, inclusive communities or other groups of survivors that support your decisions.
2. Seek mutual aid groups in your area. Not all communities have mutual aid, but some do and can help organize crowdsourced funding campaigns and offer financial and emotional support for people in their community going through tough times.
3. Consider how your skills, talents, or hobbies could be used to generate income through the gig economy to help you gain financial independence.
4. Collaborate with safe family and friends to create a safety plan and establish for how they will check in with your safety.

For those advocates who show up day after day, despite these challenges and uncertainty of their positions, we applaud these efforts and support those in the thick of these incredibly stressful and difficult times, showing up with their efforts and advocacy. Despite what those in charge may believe, understanding and confronting domestic violence is not “woke” and is a real threat to the stability and safety of families and in particular, women, across the nation.