Travis Roppolo - Communications Consultant Travis Roppolo - Communications Consultant

Collateral Damage: How Shutdown Politics Abandons Survivors at the Margins

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month - but in 2025, awareness is no longer enough. Across the United States, people living with HIV (PLWH), hepatitis C (HCV), and substance-use disorders (SUD) are facing a convergence of crises where intimate partner violence (IPV) amplifies every barrier to care. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice’s grant programs - lifelines that help survivors achieve viral suppression, complete HCV treatment, and sustain recovery - are being systematically dismantled after three decades of bipartisan progress.

The numbers tell a story every HIV provider knows. One in four people living with HIV (26.3%) has experienced intimate partner violence. When abusive partners prevent medication adherence, sabotage appointments, or create chaos that interrupts treatment, survivors show 36 percent lower odds of achieving viral suppression than those without IPV histories. Women carry a disproportionate burden, but men with IPV history face nearly triple the HIV prevalence of men without, and transgender people report lifetime IPV rates between 31 and 50 percent while experiencing 66 times higher HIV prevalence than the general population.

For HCV, the overlap is even tighter. Sixty-eight percent of women who inject drugs have HCV, and 40 to 60 percent of domestic-violence cases involve substance use. These aren’t parallel epidemics - they’re feedback loops. Violence undermines treatment; HIV or HCV status becomes a weapon of control; trauma drives relapse. Each condition magnifies the others, and when federal support for survivor-centered programs collapses, the entire structure of prevention and recovery begins to unravel.

The Bidirectional Syndemic

The relationship between intimate partner violence and HIV is both brutally direct and insidiously complex. Women in abusive relationships face a 48% higher likelihood of HIV infection than those in non-abusive relationships. Abusive partners often sabotage safer-sex practices - research shows that condom negotiation attempts frequently trigger coercion or violence. Among people living with HIV, 24% of women experience abuse after disclosing their status, and those reporting recent gender-based violence are significantly less consistent in condom use. Gay men report 26% lifetime IPV prevalence, underscoring that control operates across gender and orientation.

The link to hepatitis C exposes another layer of risk. In relationships where both partners inject drugs, power imbalances determine who controls access, dosing, and the act of injection itself. Partners with more control may withhold drugs to induce withdrawal or insist on injecting the other, reinforcing dependence and exposure. Violence-related bleeding raises the odds of HCV infection 5.5-fold, what researchers call “a previously unrecognized mechanism for HCV transmission.” Among women who inject drugs, 60% report receptive syringe sharing, a behavior shaped by depression and low self-esteem resulting from abuse.

Trauma also drives substance use itself. Eighty percent of women in drug treatment report lifetime sexual or physical assault. Reductions in PTSD severity correspond to four-fold decreases in substance use, while the reverse is rarely true - reinforcing the self-medication model in which survivors use substances to cope with violence.

This syndemic runs both ways. HIV, HCV, and substance-use disorders not only result from domestic violence - they also increase vulnerability to it. Nearly one-third of people living with HIV experience violence following serodisclosure, including coercion, control, and financial or sexual exploitation. Nearly one-third of survivors report that partners deliberately withheld essential medication, from HIV antiretrovirals to HCV or opioid-use-disorder treatments, weaponizing care itself as a means of control.

When Laws Become Weapons

HIV criminalization laws in 32 states create a deadly double bind for domestic violence survivors. Enacted largely between 1986 and 2000 - before modern antiretroviral therapy and long before the U=U consensus - these statutes criminalize potential exposure regardless of actual transmission, condom use, or viral suppression.

Twenty-four states require disclosure of HIV status before any sexual activity. Penalties range from 3 to 10 years in prison, extending to 25 or more in some states. At least five mandate sex-offender registration for HIV-related convictions.

The control dynamic is devastatingly simple. Disclosure can trigger violence - studies show 18% to 80% of women living with HIV experience violence after disclosing their status - yet non-disclosure remains a felony. Abusers exploit this legal trap, threatening to report partners to police or weaponizing the risk of decades-long sentences and sex offender registration as blackmail.

Research from Canada illustrates the toll: one-fifth of women living with HIV said criminalization laws increased violence in their relationships. The perverse outcomes are clear. In one documented case, a woman reported her partner for abuse, only to be charged herself after he alleged non-disclosure during a single encounter, despite a four-year relationship in which she had disclosed her status.

The 2025 Federal Funding Crisis

Hours after the government shut down on October 1, 2025, the Trump Administration furloughed staff in the Department of Justice’s grant-making offices, halting support for organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes. Officials cited the shutdown as the cause, but former staffers told Politico it didn’t have to be this way - these programs had operated during past shutdowns with existing funds.

“Their own contingency plan says that they have funds. So it’s a choice to say, ‘We want this to hurt,’” said Marnie Shiels, who worked 24 years in the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). “I can’t know for sure what they’re thinking, but I very much fear that it is about a political motivation of wanting to get rid of this issue, get rid of this office, get rid of the staff.”

The furloughs followed a year of escalating disruptions. In February, OVW abruptly removed all eight fiscal-year 2025 funding notices, including a $40 million transitional-housing program that had served hundreds of survivors for nearly two decades. In April, the Department of Justice terminated more than 360 grants, cutting roughly $500 million in remaining funds and affecting hundreds of sub-awards for violence prevention, victim services, mental-health treatment, and reentry programs.

When new opportunities appeared in May, they came with expanded “out-of-scope” rules that barred activities “framing domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social-justice issues.” The language aligned with a January 2025 executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” and a subsequent directive ordering agencies to remove “gender ideology” from contracts, websites, and correspondence. PEN America later documented more than 350 banned words, including genderwomentransLGBTQ+diversity, and disability - effectively erasing the terminology needed to describe many of the populations these programs serve.

The effects reach beyond domestic-violence services. NIH canceled dozens of HIV-related research grants in Marchfive CDC HIV-prevention branches were dissolved; and hepatitis funding was cut by $77 million. Proposed reductions to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program total $239 million.

For organizations serving survivors living with HIV, hepatitis C, or substance-use disorders, these converging cuts are existential - removing both their funding streams and, in some cases, their ability to even describe who they serve. Shiels noted that leadership had “said that they want federal employees to feel ‘trauma,’” and recalled the president’s remark that “a little fight with the wife shouldn’t be a crime.” The contrast, she said, “shows they don’t understand or care about these issues.”

The Office on Violence Against Women - created in 1995 and made independent in 2004 - has awarded more than $4.7 billion in grants since its inception, including $684 million across 880 awards in FY 2024. That bipartisan infrastructure recognized what decades of data confirm: 55 percent of women living with HIV have experienced intimate-partner violence, a link directly associated with lower care engagement, higher viral loads, and worse health outcomes.

Now, the systems built to protect those lives hang by a thread.

What We Must Do Now

The convergence of domestic violence, HIV, hepatitis C, and substance use disorders is not theoretical - it’s the reality providers see every day. Survivors’ viral loads rebound when housing instability forces them back to abusive partners. Hepatitis C treatment stalls when the only culturally competent program loses its grant. Trauma-informed care disappears, and relapse follows. The nation’s Ending the HIV Epidemic and hepatitis C elimination goals cannot succeed while survivors are forced to choose between safety and survival.

Rebuilding that safety net demands more than temporary fixes. The Department of Justice must reopen its grant-making offices - shutdown or not - and restore continuity for organizations on the front lines. Congress must fully fund these programs and eliminate restrictions that prevent them from even naming the people they serve. States must modernize or repeal HIV criminalization laws that trap survivors in violent relationships under the guise of public health.

A syndemic is not fate; it is a policy choice repeated, ignored, and justified until it becomes another fading bruise on a battered cheek. The systems we built to keep people alive are being dismantled in plain sight - not through neglect, but intent. And when government decides that survival itself is partisan, silence becomes complicity.

Read More
Jen Laws, President & CEO Jen Laws, President & CEO

All Together Now: West Virginia’s HIV Outbreak

On April 5th, 2021, Washington’s “Most Important Man”, Senator Joe Manchin, submitted a Congressional Inquiry to the Centers for Disease Control regarding the well-publicized HIV outbreak in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The CDC has called the West Virginia HIV outbreak “the most concerning” in the United States, with an unprecedented growth in new diagnoses related to intravenous drug use (IDU). For context, in 2018, the county reported just two new HIV diagnoses related to IDU compared to at least thirty-five new diagnoses related to IDU reported in 2020 – New York City, with a population almost forty-five times that of Kanawha County, reported thirty-six new HIV diagnoses related to IDU in 2019.

A. Toni Young, founder and executive director of Community Education Group and Rural Health Services Provider Network, said, “We kinda saw this coming, unfortunately. The state has been facing a Hepatitis C outbreak for years now [related to substance use] and the lack of coordinated response between stakeholders, specifically providers, with different areas of expertise has kept us siloed and limited in our response – we’re approaching this as multiple epidemics rather than a syndemic.”

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the CDC’s Director of HIV Prevention, told a news outlet, “It is possible the current case count represents the tip of the iceberg.” Young echoes this sentiment, “I think we have a state-wide outbreak.” They’re not wrong to believe this outbreak extends across the state, given a 2020 presentation on the Cabell County outbreak, also citing the state’s long fight against opioid use. Though, improvement in the outbreak in Cabell County has already begun, thanks, in large part, to a syringe exchange program – a situation near the mirror opposite of Kanawha County, where a similar county-run program closed its doors in 2018 after city officials and first responders complained about used syringes being improperly disposed of.

Local officials, however, seem steeped in their “moral panic” and rebuffed the CDC’s assessment of the outbreak and requested a federal inquiry into the data provided by the CDC.

While local, volunteer-lead program, Solutions Oriented Addiction Response (SOAR) has stepped in to fill the syringe exchange need, problems have plagued the organization. In January, while under police investigation – which found no wrong-doing on the part of the organization – the program paused operations. During that time, co-founder Sarah Stone, said clients requested bleach in order to clean syringes, even while volunteers advised those same clients such a practice would not guarantee safety.

All while this is transpiring, the state legislature is considering a bill that will significantly impact how syringe services programs operate. SB 334 would give county health departments more freedom to shut down SSPs, require clients provide identification in order to receive services, and require SSPs to obtain a special permit to operate. Opponents of the bill call it a move that may drastically harm community trust and willingness to engage the programs, give leeway to local political pressure as opposed to proven public health interventions, and potentially prevent these community-based programs from operating all together.

Young has a different perspective. “Ok. If this is the way we have to go, show me the data. Let’s use this chance to see exactly how much this move will cost or save the state in terms of all resources – I’m talking money and lives. We cannot forget people’s lives are stake here.” Young goes further and credits the state’s health department operations in their response to COVID-19 as successful – proof the state is able to response appropriately to a public health emergency, when provided enough resources. Young specifically cites resources to include financial of rural hospitals, community-based programming and services, and, rightly, the people-power to enact these services.

In order to meaningfully address the syndemic nature of the state’s situation, Young calls on public health officials and both federal and state legislators to prioritize a holistic, coordinated response to addressing HIV, HCV, SUD, and COVID-19. “Listen, we can do this. It’s just a matter on if we want to do this. We need MAT [medication assisted treatment] providers, addiction services providers, HCV screeners, Ryan White providers, county health departments – all of us need to be at the same table and seeing our clients, our community, as the same people. We cannot split a single person into multiple ‘problems’, we shouldn’t be treating our residents’ needs as if they can be split apart.” Indeed, the National HIV Strategy calls for this type of coordination. “We need an integrated plan – an integrated workgroup,” Young added.

Mirroring a sentiment other advocates have voiced, Young also thinks public health metrics should shift to be more reflective of the client experience, rather than the service provider’s experience, “A referral is not care and it shouldn’t count as care.”

“I’m not gonna sugar-coat this,” Young concluded, “we need money and people and the investment into meaningful, collaborative infrastructure to meet the needs of this community.”

Read More