Democrat Party is an epithet and pejorative for the Democratic Party of the United States, often used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While use of the term started out as non-hostile, it has grown in its
negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and third party politicians.
Modern usage
United Press International reported in August 1984 that the term Democrat Party had been employed "in recent years by some right-wing Republicans" because the party's Democratic name implied that the Democrats were "the only true adherents of democracy".
Language expert Roy Copperud said it was used by Republicans who disliked the implication that Democratic Party implied to listeners that Democrats "are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy". According to Oxford Dictionaries, the use of Democrat rather than the adjective Democratic "is in keeping with a longstanding tradition among Republicans of dropping the –ic in order to maintain a distinction from the broader, positive associations of the adjective democratic with democracy and egalitarianism".
Political commentator William Safire wrote in 1993 that the Democrat of Democrat Party "does conveniently rhyme with autocrat, plutocrat, and worst of all, bureaucrat". In 2006, Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker:
There's no great mystery about the
motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or
intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are
subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly.
It fairly screams "rat".
Republican pollster Frank Luntz
tested the phrase with a focus group in 2001, and concluded that the
only people who really disliked the epithet were highly partisan
Democrats. Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans. Journalist Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it, and Hertzberg calls use of the term "a minor irritation" and also "the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign".
Nicole Holliday
has described it as demonstrating affiliation, and said "“Language is
contagious, especially emotionally charged political language," ...
“Most of the time, we don’t have the cognitive bandwidth to think very
hard about every single word that we’re using. We just use it because
it’s what other people do." Larry Glickma commented that lack of awareness "shows how normalized it’s become" comparing it to a "schoolyard taunt".
Grammar
Among authors of dictionaries and usage guides who state that the use of Democrat as an adjective is ungrammatical are Roy H. Copperud, Bergen Evans, and William and Mary Morris. In particular, the latter have written:
"It is the idiotic creation of some of the least responsible members of
the Republican Party."
In 2005, Ruth Walker, who has been the long-time language columnist for The Christian Science Monitor, while stating that Democratic is the correct term in most instances, placed the adjectival use of Democrat within a broader trend:
We're
losing our inflections—the special endings we use to distinguish
between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There's a tendency to modify
a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of
'the Ukraine election' rather than 'the Ukrainian election' or 'the
election in Ukraine', for instance. It's 'the Iraq war' rather than 'the
Iraqi war', to give another example.
The
real reason 'Democrat Party' is wrong is not because it's
ungrammatical, but because it's incorrect in another way—the party is
simply not named the Democrat Party, but the Democratic Party. Calling
it anything else is discourteous.
History
19th century
In American history, many parties were named by their opponents (Federalists, Loco-Focos, Know Nothings, Populists, Dixiecrats), including the Democrats themselves, as the Federalists in the 1790s used Democratic Party as a term of ridicule.
The great Democrat party, laying
down the sceptre of power in 1860, after ruling this country under free
trade for a quarter of a century, left our treasury bankrupt, and gave
as a legacy to the Republican party, a gigantic rebellion and a treasury
without a single dollar of money in it.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was used by the press in London, England, as a synonym for the more common Democratic Party in 1890:
Whether a little farmer from South Carolina named Tillman is going to rule the Democrat Party in America—yet it is this, and not output, on which the proximate value of silver depends.
Early 20th century
The 1919 New Teachers' and Pupils' Cyclopaedia entry for Woodrow Wilson states that "In 1912, Wilson was the Democrat Party nominee for President ..." On July 14, 1922, a newspaper in Keytesville, Missouri, posted an
advertisement for its primary elections with the Democratic candidates
identified as "Representing: Democrat Party".
Late 20th century
The
noun-as-adjective has been used by Republican leaders since the 1940s,
and in most GOP national platforms since 1948 and began being
popularized by Brazilla Carroll Reece in 1946. By the early 1950s, the term was in widespread use among Republicans of all factions. When Senator Thruston Ballard Morton became chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1959, he indicated that he had always said Democratic Party and would continue to do so, which contrasted with his predecessor, Meade Alcorn, and with National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Barry Goldwater, both of whom used Democrat Party. According to Congressional Quarterly, at the 1968 Republican National Convention "the GOP did revert to the epithet of 'Democrat' party. The phrase had been used in 1952 and 1956 but not in 1960 and 1964".
The origin of this illiterate phrase, goes back, I believe to the era of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy
... The chief trouble with "the Democrat party" is that it makes the
Republicans saying it sound both illiterate and coy, and, so, is like a
shotgun that is all kick and no fire ... A party whose membership is
down to 22 percent of the electorate, as the Republican party is, hardly
needs ways to irritate voters from the opposing party whom it must
seduce if it is to succeed.
During a vice-presidential debate in October 1976, candidate Bob Dole referred to what he called "Democrat wars." Later in the month, Dole denied his having said it.
During the 1984 Republican National Convention, use of the term was a point of contention among the delegates. When a member of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous
consent to change the phrasing of a platform amendment to read Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, New York Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be "an insult to our Democratic friends;" the committee dropped the proposal.
Newt Gingrich, in his efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to produce a Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives, relied heavily on words and phrases that cast Democrats in a negative light. The phrase Democrat Party gained new currency when the Republican Party, led by Gingrich, gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994.
In 1996, the wording throughout the Republican Party platform was changed from Democratic Party to Democrat Party: Republican leaders "explained they wanted to make the subtle point that the Democratic Party had become elitist". A proposal to use the term in the August 2008 Republican platform for similar reasons was voted down, with leaders choosing to use Democratic Party. "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing."
21st century
Following his inauguration in 2001, PresidentGeorge W. Bush often used the noun-as-adjective when referring to the Democratic Party. Ruth Marcus, an opinion writer and columnist for The Washington Post, wrote in 2006, "The derisive use of 'Democrat' in this way was a Bush staple during the recent campaign".
Bush spoke of the "Democrat majority" in his 2007 State of the Union Address, although the advance copy that was given to members of Congress read "Democratic majority". Democrats complained about the use of Democrat as an adjective in the address; John Podesta, White House Chief of Staff under Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton,
said it was "like nails on a chalkboard", although congressional
historian Julian E. Zelizer has opined that "It's hard to disentangle
whether that's an intentional slight". Political analyst Charlie Cook doubted it was a deliberate attempt to
offend Democrats, saying Republicans "have been [using the term] so long
that they probably don't even realize they're doing it".
Bush joked about the issue in a February 4, 2007 speech to House
Democrats, stating "Now look, my diction isn't all that good. I have
been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I
appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party."
Donald Trump has used the phrase repeatedly, both during his presidential campaign and as president. In a July 2018 campaign rally, he said that "The Democratic Party
sounds too good so I don't want to use that, OK?" He added, "I call it
the Democrat Party. It sounds better rhetorically." At a September 2018 rally he suggested that "When you see 'Democratic Party,' it's wrong. There's no name, 'Democratic Party.'" At the Conservative Political Action Conference
in 2019, he stated he liked to say, "the 'Democrat Party,' because it
doesn't sound good. But that's all the more reason I use it, because it
doesn't." During the first White House Coronavirus Task Force press conference, he advanced this usage with, "... governors including Democratic—or Democrat, as I call them—governors—which is actually the correct term."
During the 2020 United States presidential election, a conservative advocacy group created the website "Democrat Voters Against Joe Biden", in an apparent attempt to respond to Republican Voters Against Trump. According to The Daily Beast, the former found only one registered Democrat for its testimonies by September 2020; The Daily Beast
opined that the name of the organization is a clue that its founders
were unfamiliar with how registered Democrats refer to themselves. Deliberate usage of the term as an epithet accelerated in the late 2010s and 2020s.
NPR directed its staff in 2010 to use the adjective Democratic rather than Democrat. According to Ron Elving,
NPR's senior Washington editor, it was the organization's policy to
call parties by the name that they use to refer to themselves, saying:
"We should not refer to Democrat ideas or Democrat votes. Any deviation
from that by NPR reporters on air or online should be corrected".
Responses
In the mid-1950s, members of the Democratic National Committee proposed using "Publican
Party" instead of "Republican Party". The committee failed to accept
the proposal, "explaining that Republican is the name by which our
opponents' product is known and mistrusted". Sherman Yellen suggested "The Republicants" as suitably comparable in terms of negative connotation in an April 29, 2007, Huffington Post column.
Well, I think the Democratic Party
calls itself the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Do we have to
do this every night? Why do people talk like this? Is this just
fighting words to get the name on?
Issa denied that he intended to use "fighting words", to which
Matthews replied, "They call themselves the Democratic Party. Let's just
call people what they call themselves and stop the Mickey Mouse
here—save that for the stump."
I'd like to begin by saying to my
colleague from Texas that there isn't a single member on this side of
the aisle that belongs to the "Democrat Party". We belong to the
Democratic Party. So the party you were referring to doesn't even exist.
And I would just appreciate the courtesy when you're referring to our
party ... to refer to it as such.
ATF also regulates via licensing the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce.
Many of ATF's activities are carried out in conjunction with task
forces made up of state and local law enforcement officers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods.
ATF operates a unique fire research laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland,
where full-scale mock-ups of criminal arson can be reconstructed. ATF
had 5,285 employees and an annual budget of almost $1.5 billion in 2021. ATF has received criticism over its handling of the investigation leading up to the Ruby Ridge standoff and the Waco siege.
ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors" and the Bureau of Prohibition,
which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920.
It was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in
1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became,
briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933.
When the Volstead Act, which established Prohibition in the United States, was repealed
in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of
Justice back to the Department of the Treasury, where it became the
Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The Untouchables, who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act
was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942,
responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU.
In the early 1950s, the Bureau of Internal Revenue was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS), and the ATU was given the additional responsibility of enforcing
federal tobacco tax laws. At this time, the name of the ATU was changed
to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD).
In 1968, with the passage of the Gun Control Act,
the agency changed its name again, this time to the Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms Division of the IRS and first began to be referred to by
the initials "ATF". In Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of
1970, Congress enacted the Explosives Control Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Chapter
40, which provided for close regulation of the explosives industry and
designated certain arsons and bombings as federal crimes. The Secretary
of the Treasury was made responsible for administering the regulatory
aspects of the new law, and was given jurisdiction over criminal
violations relating to the regulatory controls. These responsibilities
were delegated to the ATF division of the IRS. The Secretary and the
Attorney General were given concurrent jurisdiction over arson and
bombing offenses. Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, October 15, 1970.
In 1972, ATF was officially established as an independent bureau
within the Treasury Department on July 1, 1972, this transferred the
responsibilities of the ATF division of the IRS to the new Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Rex D. Davis
oversaw the transition, becoming the bureau's first director, having
headed the division since 1970. During his tenure, Davis shepherded the
organization into a new era where federal firearms and explosives laws
addressing violent crime became the primary mission of the agency. However, taxation and other alcohol issues remained priorities as ATF
collected billions of dollars in alcohol and tobacco taxes, and
undertook major revisions of the federal wine labeling regulations
relating to use of appellations of origin and varietal designations on
wine labels.
In the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the law shifted ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice. The agency's name was changed to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives. However, the agency still was referred to as "ATF" for
all purposes. Additionally, the task of collection of federal tax
revenue derived from the production of tobacco and alcohol products and
the regulatory function related to protecting the public in issues
related to the production of alcohol, previously handled by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue as well as by ATF, was transferred to the newly
established Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which remained within the Treasury Department. These changes took effect January 24, 2003.
Activities
1972–2000
Complaints
regarding the techniques used by ATF in their effort to generate
firearm cases led to hearings before Congressional committees in the
late 1970s and 1980s. At these hearings, evidence was received from
citizens who had been charged by ATF, from experts who had studied ATF,
and from officials of the bureau itself. A Senate subcommittee report
stated, "Based upon these hearings it is apparent that ATF enforcement
tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are
constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible." The Subcommittee received evidence that ATF primarily devoted its
firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum
charges, of individuals who lack all criminal intent and knowledge.
Evidence received demonstrated that ATF agents tended to concentrate
upon collector's items rather than "criminal street guns". In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, testimony was
submitted estimating that 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed
at ordinary citizens with no criminal intent. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed some of the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report.
The Ruby Ridge standoff began in June 1990. Randy Weaver
sold two unregistered short barrel shotguns to Kenneth Fadeley, an ATF
informant. This transaction was recorded and presented to the court.
Weaver's court date was changed to the day after his original day but
Weaver was not notified, and did not appear. Weaver refused to face his
accusers and became a fugitive from justice. He maintained the barrels
were a legal length, but after Fadeley took possession, the shotguns
were later found to be shorter than allowed by federal law, requiring
registration as a short-barreled shotgun
and payment of a $200 tax. ATF brought firearms charges against Weaver,
but offered to drop the charges if he would become an informant. After
Weaver refused to cooperate, ATF passed on false information about
Weaver to other agencies that became part of a misleading file that
profiled Weaver as having explosive booby traps, tunnels, and bunkers at
his home; growing marijuana; having felony convictions; and being a
bank robber.
At his later trial, the gun charges were determined to be entrapment
and Weaver was acquitted. However, Weaver missed a February 20, 1991,
court date because U.S. Probation Officer Richins mistakenly told Weaver
that the trial date was March 20, and the US Marshals Service
(USMS) was charged with bringing Weaver in. Weaver remained with his
family in their mountain top cabin. On August 21, 1992, a USMS
surveillance team encountered Weaver, a friend and family members on a
trail near the cabin, resulting in a shootout that killed US Marshal
Bill Degan, Weaver's son Samuel, and Weaver's pet dog. FBI Hostage Rescue Team
(HRT) members surrounded the cabin. The next day, HRT sniper Lon
Horiuchi fired at Weaver, missing and killing Weaver's wife. A
subsequent Department of Justice review and a Congressional hearing
raised several questions about the actions of ATF, USMS, USAO, and FBI
HRT and the mishandling of intelligence at the USMS and FBI
headquarters. The Ruby Ridge incident has become a lightning rod for legal activists within the gun rights community.
Rodney King riots
On May 1, 1992, 50 ATF agents were summoned upon to provide extra support for local police departments in Los Angeles County in response to the ongoing Rodney King riots. The next day, ATF activated its Special Response Team tactical unit to escort firefighters in high-risk areas, pair up with local police in protecting certain establishments, and execute search warrants
for looted firearms. During the riots, a total of 4,690 firearms were
looted and stolen; over the next 10 days, ATF recovered fewer than 200
firearms.
ATF was involved in the Waco Siege against the Branch Davidian religious sect near Waco, Texas,
on February 28, 1993. ATF agents, accompanied by the press, conducted a
raid to execute a federal search warrant on the sect's compound, known
as Mt. Carmel.
The Branch Davidians were alerted to the upcoming warrant execution,
but ATF raid leaders pressed on, despite knowing the advantage of
surprise was lost. (ATF Director Steve Higgins had promised Treasury
Under Secretary for Enforcement Ron Noble
that the Waco raid would be canceled if the ATF undercover agent Robert
Rodriguez reported that the element of surprise had been lost.) The
resulting exchange of gunfire killed six Davidians and four ATF agents.
FBI HRT later took over the scene and a 51-day stand-off ensued, ending
on April 19, 1993, after the complex caught fire.
The follow-up investigation revealed the bodies of seventy-six
people including twenty children inside the compound. A grand jury found
that the deaths were suicides or otherwise caused by people inside the
building. Shortly after the raid, the bureau's director, Stephen E.
Higgins, retired early from his position. In December 1994, two ATF
supervisory agents, Phillip J. Chojnacki and Charles D. Sarabyn, who
were suspended for their roles in leading the Waco raid were reinstated,
with full back pay and benefits (with a demotion) despite a Treasury
Department report of gross negligence. The incident was removed from
their personnel files.
Timothy McVeigh cited Ruby Ridge and Waco Siege as his motivation for the Oklahoma City Bombing, which took place on April 19, 1995, exactly two years after the end of the Waco Siege. McVeigh's criterion for attack sites was that the target should house at least two of three federal law enforcement agencies: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He regarded the presence of additional law enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service or the U.S. Marshals Service, as a bonus. Until the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing was the
deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United States, and
remains the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in the country's
history. McVeigh was executed for this mass murder by lethal injection
on June 11, 2001, at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute,
Indiana.
2000–present
Initial
flag of ATF as part of the U.S. Department of Justice; the Latin scroll
was later replaced with one bearing the agency's name.
ATF was criticized for poor planning leading up to a shootout at Stevenson Ranch, California,
in 2001, which resulted in the immediate deaths of a deputy sheriff as
well as the suspect, and the later suicide of ATF agent Jeff Ryan.
Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, ATF expanded regulations covering fuels used in amateur rocketry, including ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP). Two rocketry clubs, the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the Tripoli Rocketry Association
(TRA), argued that APCP is not explosive and that the ATF's regulations
were unreasonable. The NAR and TRA won their lawsuit against ATF in
2009, lifting the government restrictions. The associations maintain
their own restrictions, and rocketry is also regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Between May 2004 and August 2005, ATF agents, in conjunction with
Virginia state, county, and city police, conducted an operation at
eight gun shows in the Richmond area to reduce straw purchases for
criminals.
In a February 2006 House subcommittee hearing, the show's owner said:
"People were approached and discouraged from purchasing guns. Before
attempting to purchase, they were interrogated and accused of being in
the business without a license, detained in police vehicles, and gun
buyer's homes were visited by police, and much more." A gun salesman testified that he was singled out for harassment by two ATF agents.
The owner of a gun shop testified that he thought agents questioned
female customers too often. He said that times had changed and more
women were shopping for guns, adding: "It seems, however, to be the
prevailing opinion for law enforcement at the gun show that any woman
who brings a male friend for advice or support must be making a straw
purchase." A private investigator said the National Rifle Association
(NRA) contracted her to go to Richmond to investigate dozens of
complaints by NRA members of "massive law enforcement presence,
residence checks, and minority buyers being followed, pulled over and
their legally purchased guns seized."
The purchasers were compelled by an ATF letter to appear at ATF offices
to explain and justify their purchases. ATF stated this was a pilot
program that ATF was planning to apply throughout the country. In
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, ATF agents visited a gun show's customers'
homes a week after the show, demanding to see the buyers' guns or sale
paperwork and arresting those who could not—or would not—comply.
A September 2008 report by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General
determined that 76 firearms and 418 laptop computers were lost, stolen,
or missing from ATF, after a 59-month audit period between 2002 and
2007.
In May 2008, William Newell, Special Agent in charge of the
Phoenix ATF Office, said: "When 90 percent-plus of the firearms
recovered from these violent drug cartels are from a U.S. source, we
have a responsibility to do everything we can to stem the illegal flow
of these firearms to these thugs." According to the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General,
"ATF told the OIG that the 90-percent figure ... could be misleading
because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that
are traced." Under operations "Fast and Furious",
"Too Hot to Handle", and "Wide Receiver", indictments show that the
Phoenix ATF Office, over protests from the gun dealers and some ATF
agents involved and without notifying Mexican authorities, facilitated
the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) to traffickers destined for Mexico. Many of these same guns are being recovered from crime scenes in Arizona and throughout Mexico, which is artificially inflating ATF's eTrace statistics of U.S. origin
guns seized in Mexico. One gun is alleged to be the weapon used by a
Mexican national to murder Customs and Border Protection
Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010. ATF and DOJ denied all
allegations. After appearing at a Congressional Hearing, three
supervisors of Fast and Furious (William G. McMahon, Newell, and David
Voth) were reported as being transferred and promoted by ATF. ATF denied the transfers were promotions.
In June 2011, Vince Cefalu, an ATF special agent for 24 years who in December 2010 exposed ATF's Project Gunrunner scandal, was notified of his termination. Two days before the termination, Rep. Darrell Issa
(R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, sent a letter to ATF warning officials not to retaliate against
whistleblowers. Cefalu's dismissal followed allegations that ATF
retaliates against whistleblowers. ATF spokesman Drew Wade denied that
the bureau is retaliating but declined to comment about Cefalu's case.
In 2015, a proposal by ATF to prohibit sales of certain 5.56 x
45mm ammunition was dropped following a negative response from the
public and the legislature.
In 2022, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted
an audit which found that "thousands of firearms, firearm parts, and
ammunition had been stolen from National Firearms and Ammunition
Destruction (NFAD) from 2016 to 2019." The NFAD is the branch of ATF used to dispose of firearms forfeited to
ATF. The report also stated that ATF has improved its process to reduce
thefts but that it still has not implemented all of the recommendations
made by the DOJ.
In 2023, federal Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of
Texas vacated the Bureau's attempt to expand the definition of a firearm
frame or receiver. Judge O'Connor ruled ATF exceeded its statutory
authority in attempting to redefine these terms and implement
regulations of so-called "readily convertible" or "80% receiver" kits.
Director confirmation controversy
In 2006, the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbied U.S. RepresentativeF. James Sensenbrenner to add a provision to the Patriot Act reauthorization that requires Senate confirmation of ATF director nominees. (Prior to that, ATF directors were simply appointed by the administration.) After that, the NRA lobbied against and effectively blocked all but one presidential nominee until 2022.
In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Mike Sullivan for the position, a U.S. Attorney from Boston with a good reputation, but Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Michael D. Crapo,
both from Idaho, blocked his confirmation after complaints from an
Idaho firearms dealer. In 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Andrew L. Traver, head of ATF's Denver Field Division, to fill the top spot, but the Senate never held his confirmation hearings. The NRA strongly opposed Traver's nomination.
B. Todd Jones
was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate as
permanent ATF director on July 31, 2013, serving until March 31, 2015. Jones was the only successful Senate-approved appointment until the Senate confirmed Steve Dettelbach
in July 2022. Dettelbach's confirmation required a procedural maneuver
to advance his nomination out of Senate Judiciary committee. It passed
the evenly-divided Senate due to two Republicans voting with the
Democrats to confirm.
Violent crime
Since
2001, ATF agents have recommended over 10,000 felons every year for
federal prosecution for firearms possession through the Project Safe Neighborhoods
framework. In PSN's first year, 2001–2002, over 7,700 of these cases
resulted in convictions with an average sentence of over five years per
defendant. This number had risen to over 12,000 prosecutions in FY 2007. The annual FBI Uniform Crime Report
(UCR) demonstrated that from 2001 to 2010, the reduction of violent
crime offenses in United States districts with dedicated Project Safe
Neighborhood Agents and United States Attorneys far outperformed the
national average. An outgrowth of the Project Safe Neighborhoods framework was the creation of Violent Crime Impact Teams which worked proactively to identify, disrupt, arrest and prosecute the most violent criminals through innovative technology, analytical investigative resources and an integrated federal, state and local lawenforcement strategy.
Generally, about 90% of the cases referred by ATF for prosecution
each year are for firearms, violent crime, and narcotics offenses.
Through the first half of 2011, ATF (with fewer than 2,000 active
Special Agents) had recommended 5,203 cases for prosecution.
Personnel
ATF, as a bureau, consists of several different groups that each have their own respective role, commanded by a director. Special Agents
are empowered to conduct criminal investigations, defend the United
States against international and domestic terrorism, and work with state
and local police officers to reduce violent crime on a national level.
ATF Special Agents may carry firearms, serve warrants and subpoenas
issued under the authority of the United States and make arrests without
warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their
presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United
States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed or is committing such felony 18 U.S.C.§ 3051. Specifically, ATF Special Agents have lead investigative authority on any federal crime committed with a firearm or explosive, as well as investigative authority over regulatory referrals and cigarette smuggling.
All ATF Special Agents require a Top Secret (TS) security
clearance, and in many instances, need a higher level, TS/SCI/SAP (Top
Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information/Special Access Programs)
clearance. In order to get a security clearance, all potential ATF
Special Agents must pass a detailed series of Single Scope Background
Investigations (SSBI). ATF Special Agents consistently rank at the top
or near the top of all federal agencies in cases referred for
prosecution, arrests made, and average time per defendant on an annual
basis. Special Agents currently comprise around 2,400 of the Agency's approximately 5,000 personnel.
Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs) are the backbone of the ATF regulatory mission. Their work is primarily
investigative and routinely involves contact with, and interviews of,
individuals from all walks of life and all levels of industry and
government. Investigations and inspections pertain to the industries and
persons regulated by ATF (e.g., firearms and explosives users, dealers,
importers, exporters, manufacturers, wholesalers, etc.); and are under
the jurisdiction of the Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, Arms
Export Control Act, Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and other
Federal firearms and explosives laws and regulations.
The remainder of the bureau is personnel in various staff and
support roles from office administrative assistants to intelligence
analysts, forensic scientists, legal counsel, and technical specialists.
Additionally, ATF relies heavily on state and local task force officers
to supplement the Special Agents and who are not officially part of the
ATF roster.
Training
Basic special agent training for new hires consists of a two-part training program. The first part is the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.
The CITP provides fundamental training in the techniques, concepts, and
methodologies of conducting criminal investigations. Some of the
subjects covered in the training include training in firearms, physical
techniques, driving techniques, handcuffing, interviewing, surveillance, crime scene management,
photography, basic firearms training, and federal court procedures.
The CITP lasts approximately 12 weeks. Each class consists of 48
students, of whom approximately half are ATF trainees. The remaining
portion of the CITP class consists of students from other federal
agencies.
The second part of training is the Special Agent Basic Training
(SABT), which is conducted at FLETC and covers a wide range of
disciplines including firearms and ammunition identification; firearms
trafficking; report writing, interviewing techniques; alcohol/tobacco
diversion investigations; explosives and fire/arson investigations;
firearms and tactical training, close quarter countermeasures; field
operations, undercover techniques; and physical conditioning. The SABT
consists of approximately 15 weeks of training with a class of 24
student trainees.
Industry Operations Investigator Basic Training (IOIBT) is a
comprehensive 10-week program designed to train newly hired industry
operations investigators (IOI) in the basic knowledge, skills, and
abilities they need to effectively conduct inspections of firearms and
explosives licensees and permittees, as well as provide assistance to
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Successful
completion of IOIBT is mandatory in order for the newly hired IOI to
maintain their employment.
Special Response Teams
ATF's Special Response Teams (SRTs) are elite tactical groups
that rapidly respond to high-risk law enforcement operations and
conduct criminal investigations that lead to the arrests of the most
violent criminals in the United States. Their work includes search and
arrest warrants, high-risk criminal investigations, undercover
operations, surveillance operations, and protective service operations.
Team members are specially trained ATF special agents who may serve full
or part time. They often serve in various roles such as crisis
negotiators, team leaders, tactical operators, snipers, operator medics
and canine handlers.
Firearms
Members of ATF special agent ranks are issued the Glock 19M
as their primary duty weapon and are trained in the use of, and issued,
certain rifles and shotguns. The ATF Special Response Team (SRT) is
armed with ColtM4 carbines and other firearms.
Organization
ATF is organized as follows:
Director
Chief of Staff
Chief Counsel
Deputy Director (Chief Operating Officer)
Office of Field Operations
Office of Human Resources and Professional Development
Office of Management
Office of Enforcement Programs and Services
Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations
Office of Public and Governmental Affairs
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information
Field divisions
ATF
has 26 field divisions across the nation in major cities. Those cities
are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Columbus (OH),
Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City (MO), Los Angeles,
Louisville, Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, New York City, Newark,
Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Paul, Tampa, and
Washington, D.C. Also, there are field offices in different countries
such as Canada, Mexico, El Salvador, Colombia, Iraq, Lithuania, and in
the Caribbean.
Regulation of firearms
ATF investigators display weapons seized for violations of the Gun Control Act.
ATF is responsible for regulating firearm commerce in the United States. The bureau issues federal firearms licenses (FFL) to sellers and conducts firearms licensee inspections. The bureau is also involved in programs aimed at reducing gun violence in the United States, by targeting and arresting violent offenders who unlawfully possess firearms. ATF was also involved with the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which expanded tracing of firearms recovered by law enforcement and the ongoing Comprehensive Crime Gun Tracing Initiative. ATF also provides support to state and local investigators through the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) program.
In 2006, Congress made the ATF head subject to Senate
confirmation and, until recently, only one nominee had not been blocked
from heading ATF in the Senate. Steven Dettelbach became the second in July 2022 after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
Firearms tracing
ATF's Comprehensive Crime Gun Tracing Initiative is the largest operation of its kind in the world. In FY07, ATF's National Tracing Center
processed over 285,000 trace requests on guns for over 6,000 law
enforcement agencies in 50 countries. ATF uses a Web-based system, known
as eTrace,
that provides law enforcement agencies with the capability to securely
and electronically send trace requests, receive trace results, and
conduct basic trace analysis in real time. Over 2,000 agencies and more
than 17,000 individuals currently use eTrace, including over 33 foreign
law enforcement agencies. Gun tracing provides information to federal,
state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies on the history of a
firearm from the manufacturer (or importer), through the distribution
chain, to the first retail purchaser. This information is used to link
suspects to firearms in criminal investigations, identify potential
traffickers, and detect in-state, interstate, and international patterns
in the sources and types of crime guns. These results are then used to
help the courts prosecute the offenders and attempt to clamp down on
firearm crime.
Firearms ballistic tracing
ATF
provides investigative support to its partners through the National
Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), which allows federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies to image and compare crime gun
evidence. NIBIN currently has 203 sites. In FY07, NIBIN's 174 partner
agencies imaged more than 183,000 bullets and casings into the database,
resulting in over 5,200 matches that provided investigative leads.
Regulation of explosives
With the passage of the Organized Crime Control Act
(OCCA) in 1970, ATF took over the regulation of explosives in the
United States, as well as prosecution of persons engaged in criminal
acts involving explosives. One of the most notable investigations
successfully conducted by ATF agents was the tracing of the vehicle used
in the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, which led to the arrest of persons involved in the conspiracy.
ATF also enforces provisions of the Safe Explosives Act, passed
after 9/11 to restrict the use/possession of explosives without a
federal license to use them. ATF is considered to be the leading federal
agency in most bombings that occur within the U.S., with exception to
bombings related to international terrorism (investigated by the FBI).
ATF currently trains the U.S. military in evidence recovery
procedures after a bombing. All ATF Agents are trained in post-blast
investigation; however ATF maintains a cadre of approximately 150 highly
trained explosive experts known as Certified Explosives Specialists
(CES). ATF/CES Agents are trained as experts regarding Improvised
Explosive Devices (IED's), as well as commercial explosives. ATF Agents
work closely with state and local Bomb Disposal Units (bomb squads)
within the United States.
Passed the Senate on November 19, 1993 (95–4, in lieu of S. 1607)
Reported by the joint conference committee on August 10 and 21, 1994; agreed to by the House on August 21, 1994 (235–195) and by the Senate on August 25, 1994 (61–38)
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994
Major amendments
VAWA was reauthorized on March 15, 2022, by President Joe Biden
The bill was introduced by Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX) in 1994 and gained support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups. The act passed through both houses of the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support in 1994; however, House Republicans attempted to cut the act's funding the following year. In the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison,
a sharply divided court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women
the right to sue the accused in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the
Court overturned the provision as exceeding the federal government's
powers under the Commerce Clause.
VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in
2000 and again in December 2005. The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas, but it was reauthorized in 2013 after a long legislative battle. As a result of the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, the Act expired on December21, 2018. It was temporarily reinstated via a short-term spending bill on January25, 2019, but expired again on February15, 2019. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill reauthorizing VAWA in April 2019 that includes new provisions protecting transgender victims and banning individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing firearms. In an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement, Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA) led months of negotiation talks that came to a halt in November
2019. Senator Ernst said she planned to introduce a new version of the
bill, and hoped it would pass in the Senate. VAWA was reauthorized on March15, 2022, by President Joe Biden.
In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in United States v. Rahimi
to uphold the law's domestic violence restraining order which restricts
firearm possession for people convicted of domestic abuse.
However, as late as 1970–1990, domestic violence was regarded as a
private matter and sometimes was ignored by the police. According to
Zorza in Criminal Law of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence, 1970–1990,
"throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, officers believed and were taught
that domestic violence was a private matter, ill suited to public
intervention." Unfortunately, the arrest did not deter and punish abusers. The results of three studies, conducted in Omaha, Charlotte, and Milwaukee, indicated that arrest alone did not deter abusers.
The Violence Against Women Act was developed and passed as a
result of extensive grassroots efforts in the late 1980s and early
1990s. Advocates for the battered women's movement included sexual
assault advocates, individuals from victim services, law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors' offices, the courts, and the private bar. They
urged Congress to adopt significant legislation to address domestic and
sexual violence.
The Violence Against Women Act established new offenses and
penalties for the violation of a protection order or stalking in which
an abuser crossed a state line to injure or harass another, or forced a
victim to cross a state line under duress and then physically harmed the
victim in the course of a violent crime.
One of the greatest successes of VAWA is its emphasis on a
coordinated community response to domestic violence, sex dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking; courts, law enforcement,
prosecutors, victim services, and the private bar currently work
together in a coordinated effort that did not exist before at the state
and local levels. VAWA also supports the work of community-based organizations which are
engaged in work to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking, particularly those groups that provide culturally
and linguistically specific services. Additionally, VAWA provides
specific support for work with tribes and tribal organizations to end
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against
Native American women. In December 2022, the Violence Against Women Act
was amended to include Native Hawaiian survivors of gender-based
violence and Native Hawaiian organizations in grant funding.
Many grant programs authorized in VAWA have been funded by the
U.S. Congress. The following grant programs, which are administered
primarily through the Office on Violence Against Women in the U.S. Department of Justice, have received appropriations from Congress:
STOP Grants (State Formula Grants)
Transitional Housing Grants
Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders
Court Training and Improvement Grants
Research on Violence Against Native American Women
The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the
increased penalties were rash, that the increased pretrial detention
was "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, that the mandatory HIV testing
of those only charged but not convicted was an infringement of a
citizen's right to privacy,
and that the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was
non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties
Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and
the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). In 2005, the ACLU had, however,
enthusiastically supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that
the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed. That provision would
have allowed law enforcement to take DNA samples from arrestees or from
those who had simply been stopped by police without the permission of a
court.
The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197'
stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation
enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".
Some activists opposed the bill. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, called the Act a "boondoggle" which "ends up creating a climate of
suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and all women
are viewed as victims". She described the Act in 2012 as creating a
"climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas" and
criticized it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violent, abusive behavior. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men".
In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional on federalism grounds in United States v. Morrison. That decision invalidated only the civil remedy provision of VAWA. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.
In 2005, the reauthorization of VAWA (as HR3402) defined what
population benefited under the term of "Underserved Populations"
described as "Populations underserved because of geographic location,
underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved
because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities,
alienage status, or age) and any other population determined to be
underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate". The reauthorization also "Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968" to "prohibit officials from requiring sex offense
victims to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition for
proceeding with an investigation or prosecution of a sex offense."
In 2011, the law expired. In 2012 the law was up for reauthorization in Congress. Different versions of the legislation were passed along party lines in
the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version
favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT
individuals. Another area of contention was the provision of the law
giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes
involving non-Native Americans on tribal lands. By repealing a portion
of the 1978 Oliphant v. Suquamish
ruling, such a provision could alter the constitutional balance between
federal, state, and tribal power. Historically Congress has not
allowed tribal governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over
non-tribal members. The two bills were pending reconciliation,
and a final bill did not reach the President's desk before the end of
the year, temporarily ending the coverage of the Act after 18 years, as
the 112th Congress adjourned.
2012–13 legislative battle and reauthorization
Senate vote on Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Both yes
One yes, one no
Both no
When a bill reauthorizing the act was introduced in 2012, it was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered foreigners residing in the country illegally to claim temporary visas, also known as U visas. The U visa is restricted to 10,000 applicants annually whereas the
number of applicants far exceeds these 10,000 for each fiscal year. In order to be considered for the U visa, one of the requirements for
immigrant women is that they need to cooperate in the detention of the
abuser. Studies show that 30 to 50% of immigrant women are suffering from
physical violence and 62% experience physical or psychological abuse in
contrast to only 21% of citizens in the United States.
In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence
Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure
(omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gays, Native
Americans living in reservations, and immigrants who are victims of
domestic violence). Reconciliation of the two bills was stymied by
procedural measures, leaving the re-authorization in question. The Senate's 2012 re-authorization of VAWA was not brought up for a vote in the House.
In 2013, the question of jurisdiction over offenses in Native
American country continued to be at issue over the question of whether
defendants who are not tribal members would be treated fairly by tribal courts or afforded constitutional guarantees.
On February 12, 2013, the Senate passed an extension of the
Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 78–22. The measure went to the
House of Representatives where jurisdiction of tribal courts and
inclusion of same-sex couples were expected to be at issue. Possible solutions advanced were permitting either removal or appeal to federal courts by non-tribal defendants. The Senate had tacked on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which is another bone of contention due to a clause which requires provision of reproductive health services to victims of sex trafficking.
House vote on Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Democratic aye
Republican aye
Abstention or no representative seated
Republican no
On February 28, 2013, in a 286–138 vote, the House passed the
Senate's all-inclusive version of the bill. House Republicans had
previously hoped to pass their own version of the measure—one that
substantially weakened the bill's protections for certain categories.
The stripped-down version, which allowed only limited protection for
LGBT and Native Americans, was rejected 257 to 166. The renewed act expanded federal protections to gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.
New provisions in the Reauthorization of VAWA 2013
Protection for Native Americans:
Prior to the 2013 passing of VAWA, Native American women who were
the victims of non-Native American assault were not covered by the law.
The Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe case from 1978 was overturned by provisions added to the new VAWA 2013,
which also makes it possible for non-Native Americans to be prosecuted
in tribal courts for domestic or dating violence perpetrated against
Native Americans.
Protection of same sex couples:
LGBTQ people experience domestic abuse at the same 25%–33% rate as other members of the community. VAWA 2013 develops programs and laws to protect the rights of LGBTQ people who have been the victims of IPV (intimate partner violence).
LGBTQ victims are expressly included in two important VAWA grant
programs by the act. It is now against the law for LGBTQ people to be
dismissed from shelters or other VAWA-funded services because of their
sexual orientation or gender identity, according to a non-discrimination
clause in VAWA.
Each year, 50,000 individuals are reportedly trafficked into the US, according to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Occasionally, victims of trafficking experience the same forms of abuse
as those who have experienced violence from an intimate partner: physical and sexual violence, financial control, threats, intimidation, and restriction on freedom of movement.
Protection for Immigrant Victims of IPV (intimate partner violence):
Neither the number of U Visas
nor the government's interest in studying crime in immigrant
communities increased as a result of VAWA 2013. Based on data provided
by Migration Policy Institute, 18.9 million (12%) of all women in the United States are immigrants.
The number of immigrants who have been victims of IPV is unknown because
national studies haven't been conducted to look at this issue in
immigrant communities.
After passage
A total of 138 House Republicans voted against the version of the act that became law. However, several, including Steve King (R-Iowa), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), Tim Walberg (R-Michigan), Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), Keith Rothfus (R-Pennsylvania), and Tim Murphy
(R-Pennsylvania), claimed to have voted in favor of the act. Some have
called this claim disingenuous because the group only voted in favor of a
GOP proposed alternative version of the bill that did not contain
provisions intended to protect gays, lesbians and transgender
individuals, Native Americans and undocumented immigrants.
Reauthorizations
VAWA
was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 as part
of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244), and again in December 2005, and signed by President George W. Bush. The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas. Ultimately, VAWA was again reauthorized in 2013, after a long legislative battle throughout 2012–2013.
On September 12, 2013, at an event marking the 19th anniversary of the bill, Vice President Joe Biden criticized the Republicans who slowed the passage of the reauthorization of the act as being "this sort of Neanderthal crowd".
As a result of the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, the Violence Against Women Act expired on December 21, 2018. It was temporarily reauthorized by a short-term spending bill on January 25, 2019, but expired again on February 15, 2019.
On April 4, 2019, the reauthorization act passed in the House by a vote of 263–158, this time including "closing the boyfriend loophole". All Democrats voting were joined by 33 Republicans voted for passage. New York Representative Elise Stefanik
said Democrats "...have refused to work with Republicans in a
meaningful way," adding, "the House bill will do nothing but 'collect
dust' in the GOP-controlled Senate. The bill has indeed been ignored by
the Senate."
On December 9, 2019, following the firearm murder of a Houston police officer on duty by a boyfriend who had been abusive towards his girlfriend, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo criticized Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Cornyn (R-TX) for preventing a vote on the VAWA reauthorization. Acevedo said "I don't want to hear about how much they care about
lives and the sanctity of lives yet, we all know in law enforcement that
one of the biggest reasons that the Senate and Mitch McConnell and John
Cornyn and Ted Cruz and others are not getting into a room and having a
conference committee with the House and getting the Violence Against
Women's Act (passed) is because the NRA
doesn't like the fact that we want to take firearms out of the hands of
boyfriends that abuse their girlfriends. And who killed our sergeant? A
boyfriend abusing his girlfriend. So you're either here for women and
children and our daughters and our sisters and our aunts, or you're here
for the NRA."
In a follow-up interview with CNN, Acevedo said his criticism of
Senators Cruz, Cornyn and McConnell was not political, because "death is
not political—you see, death is final." He challenged Senator Cruz to directly answer whether he supports
closing the boyfriend loophole, and said that failing to address it
would put the Senators "on the wrong side of history". Senator Cornyn said that Acevedo was "mistaken" in invoking the VAWA.
On March 15, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the reauthorization of VAWA into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (H.R. 2471);
it is called the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of
2022. The reauthorization act does not include provisions to "close the
boyfriend loophole". However, it did include funding the Ensuring Forensic Health Care for
all Act (EFCA) to fund support for generalist forensic nurse training.
Programs and services
The Violence Against Women laws provided programs and services, including:
Protections for victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking.
Funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines.
Programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities.
Programs and services for victims with disabilities.
Legal aid for survivors of domestic violence.
Restraining orders
Restraining order granted to a Wisconsin woman against her abuser, noting the nationwide applicability of the order under Full Faith and Credit
When a victim is the beneficiary of an order of protection, per VAWA it was generally enforceable nationwide under the terms of full faith and credit.
Although the order may be granted only in a specific state, full faith
and credit requires that it be enforced in other states as though the
order was granted in their states.18 U.S.C.§ 2265 Part of the law's restraining orders included the ability to enforce
domestic violence protection orders which barred people subject to
family violence protection orders from having firearms.
Persons who are covered under VAWA immigration provisions
VAWA
allows for the possibility that certain individuals who might not
otherwise be eligible for immigration benefits may petition for US
permanent residency on the grounds of a close relationship with a US
citizen or permanent resident who has been abusing them. The following
persons are eligible to benefit from the immigration provisions of VAWA:
A wife or husband who has been abused by a U.S. citizen or
permanent resident (Green Card holder) spouse. The petition will also
cover the petitioner's children under age 21.
A child abused by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent. The
petition can be filed by an abused child or by her parent on the child's
behalf.
A parent who has been abused by a U.S. citizen child who is at least 21 years old.
Coverage of male victims
Although
the title of the Act and the titles of its sections refer to victims of
domestic violence as women, the operative text is gender-neutral,
providing coverage for male victims as well. Individual organizations have not been successful in using VAWA to provide equal coverage for men. The law has twice been amended in attempts to address this situation.
The 2005 reauthorization added a non-exclusivity provision clarifying
that the title should not be construed to prohibit male victims from
receiving services under the Act. The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that
prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from
discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception
for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to
be "necessary to the essential operations of a program." Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse
Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act may not be sufficient
to ensure equal access to services.
College VAWA Reporting
According
to the Clery Act, colleges are required to federally report certain
categories of crimes, including those covered under the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA). Among these crimes, the most frequently reported on campuses are stalking, followed by domestic violence, and dating violence.
Criticism
The prison abolition movement
has been critical of VAWA for its focus on policing, surveillance, and
incarceration, particularly mandatory incarceration requirements, and
the disproportionate number of people of color who have been arrested
and incarcerated using VAWA provisions. Notable people who have criticized aspects of the VAWA include Victoria Law, Beth Richie, Gina Dent, Olúfẹ́mi O. TáÃwò, and Angela Davis.
.svg)
.svg)
