logo
The Trump administration is making the country less safe for domestic violence victims

The Trump administration is making the country less safe for domestic violence victims

Yahooa day ago

Over the last four decades, the United States has built a web of federal policies and funding to address domestic and intimate partner violence, a pervasive health and safety crisis.
In just 130 days, the Trump administration has put that safety net in jeopardy.
Funding pauses, cuts, firings and information purges have destabilized the infrastructure that helps victims of abuse. At the same time, federal teams dedicated to preventing sexual violence are being decimated. Departments in charge of administering grants that fund shelters for those fleeing assault have been deemed 'duplicative, DEI or simply unnecessary.'
The first budget recommendation proposed by the administration of a man found liable for sexual abuse suggests eliminating the team tackling rape prevention and education. It takes a limited view of who is worthy of help to flee abuse. These changes limit how federal funds can be used to support survivors and emphasize criminal consequences for perpetrators over a more holistic view of justice.
The federal government has long recognized domestic violence and violence between romantic partners as a critical public health and safety issue. Four out of every 10 women say they've experienced violence at the hands of an intimate partner, according to a survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Among men, a quarter reported being victims. Intimate partner violence can be deadly, particularly for women: More than half of all women homicide victims are killed by a current or former partner, according to a CDC study.
In 1994, Congress recognized violence against women as a national crisis and passed a law that supercharged the government's funding and attention to the issue. They haven't solved the problem — but lawmakers and advocates say the Violence Against Women Act and its predecessor, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, have been essential to the protection of victims and the decline in violent crime.
Federal grant programs are the lifeblood of domestic violence services programs — and they have been threatened since the day Trump returned to office.
His executive orders on gender and 'illegal' diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility led to lists of banned words. Federal departments raced to sanitize their communications, eradicating decades of research and data.
Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget issued a short-lived freeze on funding distributions pending evaluation of programs for compliance with executive orders. Nonprofits that relied on federal funds to provide services to victims of domestic violence scrambled for legal advice: Was their budget at risk because they had a pride flag on their website? Did they also have to erase all mentions of banned words?
The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which is largely funded by appropriations from the Department of Health and Human Services, removed resources for LGBTQ+ survivors from its website. The majority of state domestic violence coalitions, the umbrella organizations that support direct service providers, took their websites offline — though when asked if it was related to Trump's actions, most declined to answer on the record.
So far, there has only been one reported case of a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women being revoked, but hundreds of grants already issued by the Office of Justice Programs were abruptly canceled because they no longer aligned with the administration's priorities. Even while some of the cuts were reversed, the moves created uncertainty that makes it impossible for victims services organizations to plan, increasing the stresses of work that is already difficult and traumatic.
Then it was not just current funding, but future provisions that came under fire. The Office on Violence Against Women removed all open notices of funding opportunities from its website on February 6. New versions weren't released for three months, disrupting the grant cycle that must conclude by September 30, the end of the government's financial year. Revised notices included major changes to department priorities and a longer list of activities ineligible for funding.
The U.S. attorney general has the authority to prioritize areas for grantmaking. Notices posted before Trump took office didn't have any; now applications are given bonus points in the review round if they 'combat human trafficking and transnational crime, particularly crimes linked to illegal immigration and cartel operations' or seek to improve services in small towns, rural areas or tribal nations.
The section defining what is ineligible for funding has ballooned. In addition to complying with executive orders on gender and DEI, the new restrictions put forth a more limited view of interventions around domestic violence. Activities that 'frame domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social justice issues rather than criminal offenses (e.g., prioritizing criminal justice reform or social justice theories over victim safety and offender accountability)' are banned, as well as activities that 'discourage collaboration with law enforcement.' Initiatives that 'prioritize illegal aliens over U.S. citizens' are also not allowed.
Rita Smith, an international expert on violence against women, is publicly raising the alarm about these changes. As the Office on Violence Against Women announces new grants on LinkedIn, Smith reshares them to her large network with a warning.
'I think if people apply for these grants and they get them, it may open them up to the kind of scrutiny that they're not used to getting from the Department of Justice,' Smith said in an interview. She's worried that organizations will be subject to intrusive data collection or information gathering, especially around the immigration status of their clients.
Smith used to work in direct services, and now has a more administrative role in the movement against domestic violence. 'We never required anyone to show us their immigration papers,' she said. 'We didn't ask for documentation if people said they were in danger. If they processed through the intake questions that we had, and we determined that they were in danger, we gave them shelter.'
'We didn't ask them for a green card. We didn't ask them for visas. We just brought them in to make them safe.'
The administration's priorities conflict with some recent moves to better reach diverse populations. The 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act created a funding scheme for culturally specific service providers, which are tailored to the needs of Asian, Black Native American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander or Latinx survivors. But how are those organizations supposed to operate when DEI is banned? How can nonprofits supporting LGBTQ+ survivors do their work without acknowledging the trans community? Guidance remains piecemeal and oftentimes unofficial — no one knows exactly how to bulletproof their organization.
Smith sees the new restriction on funding as a way to redefine who is a victim in the eyes of the federal government. The requirements are so onerous that it can make it hard for nonprofits to serve their purpose: helping people escape violence.
Some organizations have made the decision to refuse federal funds because it comes with conditions antithetical to their mission. But the gaps left will be hard to fill.
When the Trump administration fired nearly every federal employee within the CDC's Division of Violence Prevention, it did away with the only team at the federal level working specifically on domestic and intimate partner violence prevention.
The program they oversaw — called DELTA, or Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances — was first created in 2002 to harness federally funded research and expertise on the causes of intimate partner violence, along with the connections of state and local domestic violence groups, so fewer people become victims in the first place.
Getting that work off the ground asked already strained groups trying to serve victims to shift some of their energy to prevention work, but staff at the CDC at the time, and until April, remained committed to what one laid-off worker referred to as the 'cultural norms change' that's a key part of preventing domestic and intimate partner violence.
Under DELTA, which currently funds 13 state-based domestic violence networks, the CDC helps state groups implement prevention programs and measures how successful they are at preventing violence.
'If you remember taking a class on healthy relationships, or seeing PSA about domestic violence, or anything like that in your school or communities — those are some examples of our prevention work,' said one former federal worker within the Division of Violence Prevention who was part of the administration's 'reduction in force.' They declined to be named out of fear of losing their remaining federal benefits.'People, I think, sometimes take it for granted, because it's just something that's there. But those kinds of things are going to go away, and no one is going to be there to teach our kids about healthy relationships or help communities reshape the norms around what's acceptable in how we treat one another.'
'All of that stuff will be gone.'
The administration has not clawed back funding for the current budget year from the 13 DELTA states, but staff in those states are doing without the expertise of staff at the CDC. The Trump administration has proposed slashing DELTA altogether next year, alongside the other programs under the Division of Violence Prevention, calling the spending 'duplicative, DEI, or simply unnecessary.'
The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which receives nearly half a million dollars in funding through DELTA, said the funding cut would be 'catastrophic.' DELTA 'is the only dedicated federal funding source for the primary prevention of domestic violence and a critical tool for driving real, lasting change,' said Jennifer Beittel, a spokesperson for the group.
Hema Sarang-Sieminski, the executive director of Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts sexual assault and domestic violence coalition, said their CDC grant managers were all laid off. She found their advice and expertise invaluable; the team created resources for working with LGBTQ+ survivors and culturally specific communities. Jane Doe Inc.'s grant was for five years, and Sarang-Sieminski just reapplied, as required for year two. It's unclear what support her organization will have moving forward.
Of the 61 million women nationwide who say they've experienced violence at the hands of a romantic partner, 16 million reported first experiencing it before they turned 18. The administration's staffing cuts and proposed budget cuts would also hit the CDC's team focused on teen dating violence.
That team developed a program called 'Dating Matters,' the first comprehensive teen dating violence prevention effort in the United States using funding appropriated by Congress. The funding came after several high-profile cases of dating violence, in particular the 2005 death of Rhode Island student Lindsay Ann Burke, whose boyfriend was convicted of her murder. Her parents became advocates for teen dating violence education efforts, arguing that their daughter may not have had enough information about the dynamics of abusive relationships before her death.
One longitudinal study on 6th through 8th graders across four cities that adopted the CDC's Dating Matters model for middle school found that by the 11th grade, the program had no only reduced dating violence, but also sexual violence, harrassment, substance use and delinquency. In 2024, the team published a guide specifically for LGBTQ+ youth, who face higher rates of dating and sexual violence.
In January, after Trump took office, those resources were deleted to comply with the executive order on 'radical gender ideology.' By April, the whole team had been laid off.
An update and rebrand of the Dating Matters program was slated to publish later this year, but it's unclear who will carry it to the finish line.
'Dating Matters consumed a lot of my life and it was destroyed for no reason whatsoever,' said Sarah DeGue, senior scientist in the Division of Violence Prevention, who led the CDC's Dating Matters program for the last decade. 'American teens are in the midst of a mental health crisis. … This is the absolute worst possible time to eliminate effective programs and resources that teach kids healthy relationship skills.'
DeGue was part of the administration's so-called 'reduction in force.' Since leaving the CDC, she has started her own consulting firm focused on violence prevention and is uploading deleted resources to her firm's website.
The former CDC employee who declined to make their name public said they hope lawmakers can intervene to protect the work. 'I believe that there are still people in Congress, in our government at that level who care… But not the Trump administration. I don't believe that at all.'
In his first term, Trump only floated cuts to the Office on Violence Against Women and didn't follow through. Now, groups are acutely aware of how many people will suffer — and die — without the funding that makes their services possible.
Two prominent lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of these specific cuts. The American Bar Association won a preliminary injunction in a case alleging its five grants from the Office on Violence Against Women were canceled as retaliation for suing the administration. The $2 million of outstanding grants were to employ seven people to provide training to legal practitioners working with survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
FORGE, the only domestic violence services nonprofit dedicated solely to assisting transgender and nonbinary survivors, relies on the federal government for 90 percent of its operating budget. In February, it joined other LGBTQ+ organizations in suing the Trump administration over the constitutionality of the executive order about gender. In April, the Office of Justice Programs canceled FORGE's grants — over $500,000 in total —to produce a toolkit for providers working with trans victims of crime and a project addressing anti-trans hate .
Arguments in FORGE's case were held on May 22 in a California district court. An order is expected soon.
The federal funding freeze in January spooked Jane Doe Inc., Sarang-Sieminski said. Worried about conflicting with executive orders, the nonprofit took its website down. But after two days, it put the site back online.
Reflecting on their core mission of racial equity is what changed the staff's minds, Sarang-Sieminski said. The site still has sections tailored to LGBTQ+ and immigrant survivors and speaks about building a more equitable world. 'It's so through and through who we are that we felt like there's nothing that we really could possibly take down that would protect us in any meaningful way,' she said. Taking down the website would 'only do further harm to communities who are counting on us to speak up and to be present and available when others refuse to.'
'What keeps me up at night is thinking about the stories we will tell about this time looking back,' Sarang-Sieminski said. 'This is liberatory work, and what we want to see is a world where we can all thrive. And to me that means not leaving folks behind and standing up for our fundamental principles around this work.' Half of the organization's funding is dependent on federal grants, but she doesn't want that to 'cloud our judgment around our values.'
On Thursday, Democratic Reps. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin and Debbie Dingell of Michigan, and Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, will join a coalition of intimate partner and sexual violence groups for a day of action on Capitol Hill to discuss the importance of federal funding. Both Moore and Dingell have led several letters to the administration pushing back on funding delays and staffing cuts.
'I am horrified,' said Moore, who has detailed her experience as a victim of domestic violence. 'Maybe it's not intentional, but it's very dangerous as a survivor of domestic violence — a survivor in the days where there was no crisis line to call, … no information to be able to stand up for yourself. There was no shelter to go to.'
'We've made so much progress in the last decade,' Dingell said. 'We're going backwards, and it really scares me.'
Domestic violence services remain operational throughout the United States. Confidential, anonymous help is available 24/7 through the National Domestic Violence Hotline at (1-800-799-7233) or online.
The post The Trump administration is making the country less safe for domestic violence victims appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand
For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand

Boston Globe

time25 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand

Advertisement And they reserved their purest aversion for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the solidly conservative former longtime party leader, whom they described alternately as an 'obstructionist' to Trump's agenda, a 'snake in the grass,' and a 'bowl of Jell-O' with no spine. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Their perspectives offered a striking contrast to the reception that many Republican lawmakers have confronted at raucous town halls throughout the country in recent months. The lawmakers have been grilled and booed by constituents at these events for supporting Trump's policies on tariffs, immigration and, most recently, the domestic policy bill that the GOP pushed through the House in May. And they help explain why most Republican lawmakers have put aside any reservations they may have on key issues and backed the president -- because a critical portion of their party's base is still demanding that they do so. Advertisement 'For loyal Trump voters, they're loving what they see as him 'doing something' and don't want congressional Republicans getting in the way of his agenda,' said Sarah Longwell, the anti-Trump Republican strategist who conducted the focus groups. 'And members of Congress have gotten that message loud and clear.' These voters represent only a piece of the electorate that Republicans must court in the run-up to midterm congressional elections in which their governing trifecta is on the line. Since Trump took office, GOP lawmakers have struggled to defend his executive actions and his efforts to dismantle the federal bureaucracy and unilaterally defund government programs, and to explain to their constituents why they are not doing more to challenge him. In Nebraska this past week, Representative Mike Flood faced an angry crowd grilling him on the Medicaid and food assistance cuts included in the domestic policy bill. And he admitted he had been unaware that the measure included a provision to limit the power of federal judges to hold people, including Trump administration officials, in contempt for disobeying court orders. But Longwell's sessions, videos of which were shared with The New York Times, were a reminder that there is still a powerful pull for Republicans to swallow whatever disagreements they may have with Trump and bow to what he wants. Since the beginning of this Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson, whose too-slim majority in the House leaves him little latitude to maneuver, has positioned himself less as the leader of the legislative branch and more as a junior partner to Trump. That stance is exactly what these voters, whom Longwell identified only by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy, said they liked about him. Advertisement Arthur M., a voter from Arizona, described Johnson as 'loyal,' adding, 'I'm not saying they should never have any other ideas of their own, but they certainly shouldn't have someone dissenting if you're trying to put an agenda through -- and that's what the Congress is.' Jeff B., a voter from Georgia, said Johnson always appeared to be 'in over his head.' But he did not see that as a negative. 'He's not the kind of guy like Mitch McConnell, who was pulling all the strings,' he said. 'He's struggling, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be. He looks like he's in over his head, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be.' The voters who participated in the focus groups, which were conducted May 16 and 19, had uniformly negative views of those House Republicans they viewed as 'rabble-rousers,' which they defined as anyone expressing an opinion that was not in sync with the White House. Jane H., a voter from Indiana, criticized her Congress member, Representative Victoria Spartz, an unpredictable lawmaker who often sides with the hard right, for being 'out of line' when she makes noises about opposing Trump's agenda. Gilbert W. from North Carolina held a similar view of Murkowski, who has routinely broken with her party to criticize Trump. 'Murkowski -- this woman's never found anything on the Republican side she really goes for,' he said, calling her a 'troublemaker.' In contrast, Allen K. from Arizona praised his Congress member, Representative Juan Ciscomani, for never making any waves. Advertisement 'Whatever Trump does, he'll say,' he said of Ciscomani, describing that as a positive. As for Senator John Thune, the new majority leader from South Dakota, he earned kudos mostly for not being McConnell. 'He's pressing Trump's agenda, it seems like,' Gilbert W. said. 'What else can you ask for?' Jane H., a three-time Trump voter, said, 'What I want to see is someone who will work hard and effectively to advance a conservative agenda, and to work closely with the White House to advance at this time Donald Trump's agenda. It's what the American people want, so that's what John Thune should be doing.' Many of the participants in the focus groups had only vague impressions of their own representatives, a reminder that to many voters, Congress remains a faceless institution of 535 mostly anonymous lawmakers about whom they don't have particularly strong feelings. That could help explain why most appeared to judge their elected officials almost exclusively according to how deferential they were to Trump, about whom they expressed potent -- and extremely positive -- sentiments. Asked for his opinions on Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Steve C., a voter from Michigan, said, 'I don't have an opinion on anyone specifically.' This article originally appeared in

Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week
Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week

The Hill

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week

President Trump is set to meet with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz next week in Washington, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders. Merz, the leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who was elected as Germany's leader in early March, is expected to visit Trump at the White House on Thursday, June 5, Germany government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said Saturday in a press release. The discussions between the two countries' leaders will focus on bilateral relations between the two, along with discussions around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, developments in the Middle East and trade policy, according to Kornelius. A White House official confirmed the meeting details to The Hill on Saturday. Merz, similar to Trump, has been pushing for a ceasefire deal in the more than three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a meeting with Merz on Wednesday in Berlin. There, Merz said that Germany will bolster its backing of Ukraine as part of a more than $5.5 billion agreement, including sending over more military equipment and increasing weapons manufacturing in Kyiv. Germany's chancellor has clashed with members of Trump's administration over the country's government marking the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party as an 'extremist' political entity. 'Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That's not democracy—it's tyranny in disguise,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote earlier this month on social media platform X. 'What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election — but rather the establishment's deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.' Vice President Vance piled on, accusing the government of trying to 'destroy' AfD, which also considers tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk a strong supporter. Merz has pushed back on Trump administration's officials meddling in Germany's domestic politics. 'We have largely stayed out of the American election campaign in recent years, and that includes me personally,' Merz said in an interview with Axel Springer Global Reporters Network that was published on May 7. He added that he told U.S. officials that 'we have not taken sides with either candidate. And I ask you to accept that in return.'

Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden

(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store