News
Tracking a Single Day at the National Domestic Violence Hotline
They call from work, to avoid being overheard, or from home before someone returns.
They reach out because they have decided to leave or need to ask a stranger if they should.
To listen to the National Domestic Violence Hotline is to witness how a confluence of stressors — high prices, a lack of affordable housing, easy access to firearms and drugs, the ubiquity of technology — can leave a person vulnerable to another’s cruelty and manipulation.
Spikes in calls often align with highly publicized events: natural disasters, recession, quarantine during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, a celebrity’s acknowledgment of being a survivor of domestic abuse.
But in recent years, staff at the hotline said more of the spikes could be traced in part to crucial court rulings, as people press for answers about the impact of the decisions or how they have factored into the violence they have experienced at home.
Already, the number of calls that mention forced unprotected sex or a partner sabotaging birth control — as by puncturing condoms or hiding pills — have nearly doubled in the first year since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, according to an analysis of calls and surveys done by the hotline. And calls mentioning firearms rose 40 percent after an appeals court in New Orleans last February struck down a federal law blocking people subject to a domestic violence protection order from owning a gun.
Staff members had been focused on the outcomes of two cases resting with the nation’s highest court, involving gun access and the availability of a commonly used abortion pill. On Friday, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling, saying that the government may prohibit people subject to restraining orders from having guns.
But even before the courts took up the gun case, the hotline, understaffed and underfunded, struggled to keep pace with an escalating number of calls over the years. The legal battles have underscored the pervasiveness of domestic violence and the strains on existing support for survivors.
Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times
“That makes me sad that we need lives to be in jeopardy for this to become a national conversation around domestic violence, because it shouldn’t take a Supreme Court case,” said Katie Ray-Jones, the chief executive of the hotline.
To capture a snapshot of the experiences of domestic violence survivors, The New York Times observed some of the calls and messages the hotline received in one day. The Times agreed to only disclose certain nonidentifying details and limited excerpts from the conversations to protect the safety of those who consented to speaking with a reporter present.
Over 24 hours, the hotline received 2,002 incoming calls and messages and answered 1,348. Transcripts of calls to 1-800-799-7233 and website chats, observed with the consent of the caller, have been condensed to ensure anonymity.
Congress approved creation of a national hotline dedicated to domestic violence in 1994, including it in the landmark Violence Against Women Act. Founded two years later in Texas, the hotline now receives as many as 3,000 calls and messages a day. Everyone is kept anonymous, with the only formal record describing basic demographic and circumstantial categories, often leaving other details unclear.
They are typically women, but their ages, ethnicities and locations vary, as do the circumstances of their relationships. In a single day, those contacting the hotline included a 51-year-old Latina in California; an Asian mother, 38; and a white woman asking how to quietly document her partner’s physical abuse.
Sometimes it is a question of finding housing during a nationwide shortage or seeking protection after leaving. Other times, it is about wrestling with the emotional contradictions of still having love for someone who makes you feel alone.
Working under pseudonyms remotely or at its headquarters in Austin, Texas, staff respondents spend as much as an hour at a time on calls and messages sent through a digital chat that arrive from across the country, at any time of day.
They pose sensitive but probing questions to uncover how a relationship has spiraled into deceit or danger, before connecting the survivor to support nearby. Many of the 158 staff respondents are women and survivors themselves.
Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times
They cannot directly offer legal or medical advice, but give encouragement or recommendations.
On a recent morning, a young Black woman from the South called in, describing the relationship she had recently escaped: “I still sometimes have dreams of that night — hearing the glass shatter and seeing stars.”
Around the same time, another woman wrote from New England, expressing uncertainty. “Is this gaslighting? Is this why I feel like I have no idea what is real and what isn’t?”
The rise in calls reflects an increased willingness to confront domestic violence, as survivors have publicly shared their experiences and lawmakers have moved to improve support.
It also reflects a deeper understanding of what abuse can be: monitoring someone through their devices, keeping a person financially dependent, twisting emotions to isolate someone from their loved ones.
“Domestic violence is very complex, and I felt like at different stages in my life, the people around me kept trying to simplify it,” said Jose Tobias, 29, who has worked at the hotline for nearly two years. A soft-spoken Mexican immigrant who once enrolled in Catholic seminary, he turned to the hotline in part to more directly counter what he sees as the weaponization of faith and other, more nebulous, forms of abuse.
“It’s never the same, so the solution is never the same,” he added.
“Getting deep into my faith — I saw a big overlap between abuse and spiritual abuse,” said Jose Tobias, a hotline employee.
Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times
Conversations at the hotline take on a new urgency once a caller confirms an instance of strangulation or the presence of a weapon. Research shows that millions of women have been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.
“If he does have access to the weapon, that can increase the lethality a lot,” Mr. Tobias told one woman, who was unsure whether her former partner had access to a gun.
To a tearful father, who recounted how his daughter’s abuser had access to a gun and already had physically assaulted her, he outlined the heightened risk: “We’ve seen this person weaponize his body. We could see him take it” further.
Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times
And while gun rights groups highlight the experiences of survivors who arm themselves as a means of self-defense and their constitutional right to own a firearm, many domestic violence groups say the presence of a gun exacerbates the psychological trauma of being threatened with one.
If the Supreme Court had upheld the ruling by the appeals court, it would have rolled back a federal law that makes it a felony to possess a gun while under a domestic violence order.
In the three states covered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the increase in calls mentioning a firearm was even more significant after the lower court ruling, the hotline said: 47 percent in Texas, 59 percent in Mississippi and 63 percent in Louisiana. And given how difficult it can be to ensure that any person subject to an order no longer has access to a gun, domestic violence groups fear losing a crucial means of ensuring the safety of survivors.
“One way or another, the survivors are going to be affected — it’s just about to what extent,” Mr. Tobias said.
Staff members have also struggled with a swiftly moving landscape on abortion laws, as reports of forced acts like unprotected sex have flooded their lines and as the prospect of further limits on abortion access and reproductive care looms.
In an analysis of nearly 3,500 responses to a survey conducted last fall, the hotline found that nearly a quarter of respondents were pressured into becoming pregnant, 20 percent were forcibly prevented from using birth control and nearly 10 percent faced threats of violence over seeking an abortion.
And even as the Supreme Court last week maintained access to a commonly used abortion pill, it did not weigh in on the merits of medication abortion or rule out the possibility of other challenges. On the day of the ruling, hotline employees said calls mentioning interference in reproductive health increased about 75 percent from what had been a daily average of about seven calls this month.
“Thank goodness that I was able to have an abortion because my life — I would not be sitting here,” said Hannah Tucker, 33, an employee with a shock of green hair and an array of colorful tattoos, adding: “I can’t fathom being attached to that person.”
The outcome of the two cases does not eliminate the financial and physical barriers that ensure a person stays in an abusive relationship. It will not change ingrained cultural and societal stigma about leaving, or the fact that certain communities are already more at risk.
And the hotline has only the resources to answer about 53 percent of its calls and messages. Ms. Jones and other staff estimated that it would take at least $20 million a year to fully staff the hotline.
Hannah Tucker, who answers digital messages at the hotline, had an abortion after an abusive relationship. “I can’t fathom being attached to that person,” she said. Josie Slawik, who began working to support domestic violence survivors after she arrived at an El Paso shelter, was there when the hotline took its first call in 1996.
Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times
“Domestic violence does not discriminate,” said Josie Slawik, 74. “Domestic violence affects everybody — no matter what race you are, how much money you have, you don’t have, it happens.”
She still remembers what it felt like in 1978, as she fled, her rib broken and two young daughters in tow, to a shelter in El Paso. With a warm personality, bright red curls and gold eye shadow shimmering around her eyes, she was there when the hotline took its first call in 1996.
Like others, she said she still had the capacity to be moved by hope and by horror.
“He was punching me in the stomach when I was pregnant,” a woman told her by phone. She soon hung up, saying she needed to return to work.
Ms. Slawik paused, removing her headset.
“I’m going to take a reset — that was hard for me,” Ms. Slawik said, her voice soft. “This movement has come a long way, but we have a ways to go.”
News
After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., takes questions at a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Speaker Mike Johnson, R.-La., is forging ahead with his latest proposal to renew a key American spy power. His bill, revealed Thursday, is largely unchanged from a previous plan which failed in a series of overnight votes earlier this month.
The program at center of the debate, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is set to expire on April 30.
FISA 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals located outside of the United States. Some of the nearly 350,000 foreign targets whose communications are collected under the provision are in touch with Americans, whose calls, texts and emails could end up in the trove of information available to the federal government for review.

For almost two decades, privacy-minded lawmakers from both parties have sought to require specific court approval before federal law enforcement can conduct a targeted review of an American’s information gathered through the program. The lack of any such warrant requirement helped sink an effort last week to extend the program for 18 months, as well as a separate vote on a five-year renewal.
Trump officials, like those in past administrations, have argued that such a warrant requirement would overburden law enforcement and endanger national security. Johnson’s latest proposal would reauthorize the program for three years, but does not include a warrant requirement. Instead, the bill calls for the FBI to submit monthly explanations for reviews of Americans’ information to an oversight official as well as criminal penalties for willful abuse, among other tweaks.
“I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country,” the president wrote on Truth Social last week, advocating for the program to be extended without changes. “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks. It has already prevented MANY such Attacks, and it is very important that it remain in full force and effect.”

Glenn Gerstell, who served as general counsel at the National Security Agency during the Obama and first Trump administration, says Johnson’s reforms look like an attempt to find a middle ground.
“There’s not a lot of really substantive changes to the statute, but some gestures are made to people who are worried about privacy and civil liberties,” Gerstell said. “It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise that is going to be satisfactory to the national security agencies and yet at the same time represents some gesture to the privacy advocates.”
“This is not a reform bill and it’s not a compromise,” Elizabeth Goitein, a privacy advocate and senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, wrote on X. “It’s a straight reauthorization with eight pages of words that serve no serious purpose other than to try to convince members that it’s NOT a straight reauthorization.”
A bipartisan reform deal is still out of reach
Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, told NPR on Wednesday, before the release of Johnson’s new proposal, that lawmakers were working on a bipartisan solution. He said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was in touch with Johnson on the issue.
“There’s a lot of work being done here,” Himes said. “We’re sort of working out a process that will be inclusive rather than exclusive.” Himes said he was negotiating with Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional law scholar, on a reform proposal they hoped could preserve and reform the program — reauthorizing it with bipartisan support.
But Johnson’s new bill appears to fall short of the inclusive approach Himes hoped for.
NPR obtained a memo written by Raskin to his colleagues urging them to oppose the bill, which he said “continues the disastrous policy of trusting the FBI to self-police and self-report its abuses of Section 702 and backdoor searches of Americans’ data.”
“FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin wrote.
FBI agents must receive annual training on FISA and are generally barred from searching for information about people in the U.S. if the goal of the search is to investigate general criminal activity, rather than find foreign intelligence information, and those searches need approval from a supervisor or an attorney.
Republican hardliners — who sunk Johnson’s last reauthorization attempt — also don’t all appear to be on board for Johnson’s latest revision. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a past chair of the Freedom Caucus, said “we’re not there yet” in a video he shared to X on Thursday.
“I didn’t take an oath to defend FISA, I didn’t take an oath to defend the intelligence community,” Perry said. “We can’t have them spying on American citizens and, when they do, there has to be accountability and I haven’t seen any that I’m satisfied with yet.”
The House Rules committee meets Monday morning, the first step toward advancing the renewal bill toward a vote.
News
Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks
President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.
Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.
A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.
The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.
The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”
Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”
But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.
In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.
Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.
Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.
Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.
News
U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid
Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.
The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.
The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.
According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.
Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.
“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”
Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.
The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.
Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.
-
Health27 seconds agoCarrie Ann Inaba shares her struggle to manage hidden, invisible illness: ‘It’s real’
-
Sports6 minutes agoOlympic legend Kaillie Humphries signs with activist sportswear brand XX-XY Athletics amid political rise
-
Technology12 minutes agoFCC router rule raises questions about future updates
-
Business18 minutes agoCalifornia’s jet fuel stockpile hits two-year low as war strangles oil supplies
-
Entertainment24 minutes agoStagecoach 2026: How to watch Friday’s livestream with Cody Johnson, Ella Langley, Bailey Zimmerman
-
Lifestyle30 minutes agoL.A. Affairs: I loved someone who felt he couldn’t be fully seen with me
-
Politics36 minutes agoContributor: Carlson’s cautious apology does little to repair Trumpism’s damage
-
Sports48 minutes agoCancer left him blind. When his son was diagnosed, ex-USC long snapper found Trojans had his back again