Report on Presidential Remarks and Their Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report analyzes statements made by President Donald Trump on September 8, 2025, in which he appeared to downplay the severity of domestic violence. The remarks, along with related administrative actions, are assessed for their impact on the United States’ progress toward key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The analysis indicates that the rhetoric and policies conflict with the foundational principles of these global goals by trivializing gender-based violence, undermining justice for victims, and ignoring a significant public health crisis.

Analysis of Presidential Remarks on Domestic Violence

Context and Content of the Statement

During a speech at the Religious Liberty Commission’s meeting, President Trump made comments that minimized domestic violence while discussing crime statistics in Washington, D.C. Key points from his statement include:

• Characterizing domestic incidents as “much lesser things.”
• Referring to domestic violence as “things that take place in the home they call crime.”
• Describing a potential domestic violence incident as “a man has a little fight with the wife.”

Contradiction with National and International Frameworks

The President’s characterization is in direct opposition to established legal and public health frameworks that are aligned with global development goals. These frameworks include:

• The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): Reauthorized in 2000, this legislation solidified domestic violence as a public safety and health issue, not a private matter, thereby supporting SDG 5 and SDG 16.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Data: Federal data identifies intimate partner violence as a national crisis, with 4 in 10 women and 1 in 4 men experiencing physical or sexual violence or stalking. This aligns with the aims of SDG 3 to address major public health issues.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 5: Gender Equality

The remarks directly undermine Target 5.2, which calls for the elimination of all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.

• Trivializing Gender-Based Violence: Describing domestic abuse as a “little fight” reverses decades of progress in recognizing it as a severe human rights violation.
• Emboldening Abusers: As noted by the nonprofit Her Justice, such language can embolden perpetrators and create an environment where violence is implicitly tolerated.
• Undermining Support Systems: The rhetoric risks discouraging survivors from seeking legal protection and public support, which are essential for achieving gender equality.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The statements challenge the principles of justice and institutional accountability central to SDG 16.

• Obstructing Access to Justice (Target 16.3): By questioning the criminality of domestic violence, the remarks threaten to weaken legal responses and undermine the rule of law for survivors.
• Reducing Violence (Target 16.1): The DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence noted that domestic violence is often a precursor to homicides and mass shootings. Minimizing it is counterproductive to the goal of reducing all forms of violence.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The failure to acknowledge domestic violence as a serious crime ignores its profound and documented impact on the physical and mental health of millions, contrary to the objectives of SDG 3.

• The comments disregard the status of domestic violence as a national public health crisis.
• This stance may deter victims from accessing essential health services for fear of not being taken seriously.

Administrative Actions and Policy Alignment with SDGs

Federal Funding and Service Provision

The administration’s policy actions have presented further challenges to achieving SDGs related to gender equality and institutional support.

1. Restricted Access to Grants: The administration has sought to limit nonprofit organizations’ access to federal grants for domestic violence services.
2. Personnel Reductions: Key officials and teams dedicated to combating domestic violence have been laid off.

These actions threaten to destabilize the very institutions required to protect vulnerable populations, directly impeding progress on SDG 5 and SDG 16.

White House Official Response

The White House defended the President’s record, stating he was not “downplaying domestic violence.” The defense cited:

• An Executive Order urging investigation into housing providers who do not restrict tenants engaging in criminal activity, including domestic violence.
• A policy barring transgender women from women’s domestic abuse shelters, a move advocates warn makes a vulnerable population less safe and conflicts with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Stakeholder Reactions and SDG Advocacy

Criticism from Advocacy and Justice Organizations

Multiple organizations condemned the President’s remarks as a significant setback for legal and cultural progress consistent with the SDGs.

• Dawn Dalton (DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence): Reaffirmed that domestic violence is a crime by federal and local statute and a factor in broader community violence.
• Casey Carter Swegman (Tahirih Justice Center): Stated that the seriousness of domestic abuse is “not up for debate” and that the “days of treating domestic and sexual violence as ‘private matters’ are long gone.”
• Susanna Saul (Her Justice): Warned that the comments revive a “regressive view” and risk “undoing decades of legal and cultural progress.”

Legislative Response

Members of Congress, including survivors of domestic violence, voiced strong opposition, framing the issue in terms of safety and human rights.

• Rep. Gwen Moore: As a survivor, she called the comments “deeply offensive and disturbing,” highlighting that such abuse “devastates families, endangers women and children, and takes lives.”
• Rep. Debbie Dingell: Stated that the President’s position threatens to “remove the stigma around domestic violence” and that being tough on crime means “keeping women and children safe in their own homes.”

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article’s central theme is domestic violence, which disproportionately affects women. It discusses the Violence Against Women Act, federal funding for services supporting women, and the perception of violence against women as a crime versus a “private matter.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article frames domestic violence as a crime and a public safety issue. It touches upon legal frameworks (Violence Against Women Act), the role of government in crime reduction, access to justice for survivors, and the importance of strong institutions to provide legal protections and support services.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article explicitly states that domestic violence is recognized by the federal government as a “national public health and safety crisis.” It cites CDC data on the prevalence of physical and sexual violence, which directly impacts the physical and mental well-being of individuals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
  • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The entire article is about domestic violence, a form of violence occurring in the private sphere. The president’s comments minimizing it as a “little fight with the wife” are in direct opposition to this target, while the work of advocacy groups and the Violence Against Women Act directly support it.
  • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The article mentions the administration’s move to bar transgender women from women’s domestic abuse shelters, which advocates argue is a discriminatory policy that makes a vulnerable group less safe.
• Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article discusses domestic violence as a crime and a “precursor to domestic violence homicides.” The debate over crime statistics and whether to include domestic violence in them is directly related to measuring and reducing violence.
  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article highlights the importance of legal frameworks like the Violence Against Women Act and the work of organizations like Her Justice, which “provides free legal services to women living in poverty,” to ensure survivors have legal protections and support.
• Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
  • Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being. By identifying domestic violence as a “national public health…crisis” and citing CDC data on the prevalence of physical and sexual violence, the article implicitly connects the issue to the severe negative impacts on the physical and mental health of survivors.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 5.2 (Eliminate violence against women):
  • Indicator 5.2.1 (Prevalence of intimate partner violence): The article explicitly mentions a national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which found that “4 in 10 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced physical or sexual violence or stalking by an intimate partner.” This statistic is a direct measure of the prevalence of intimate partner violence.
• For Target 16.1 (Reduce all forms of violence):
  • Indicator 16.1.1 (Number of victims of intentional homicide): The article implies this indicator by stating that domestic violence is a “precursor to domestic violence homicides.” Tracking the number of such homicides would be a key measure of progress.
  • Indicator (Implied): Crime Statistics: The president’s comments about crime being “down 87 percent” and the subsequent debate about whether to include “things that take place in the home” highlight the use of crime statistics as a primary indicator for measuring public safety and violence.
• For Target 16.3 (Ensure equal access to justice):
  • Indicator (Implied): Federal Funding and Access to Services: The article discusses the importance of the Violence Against Women Act and how the administration “sought to restrict nonprofits’ access to federal domestic violence grants.” The level of federal funding and the number of organizations receiving grants to provide legal and support services can serve as an indicator of access to justice for survivors.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: 19thnews.org