Abuse is not always a fist. Sometimes it is a threat, a humiliation, an attempt to silence someone, or a powerful person deciding that ordinary rules do not apply to him.
On October 26, 2026, House Judiciary Committee Democrats released a report examining Donald Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the experiences of 11 women, and the Justice Department’s handling of evidence. Five women directly accuse Trump of rape or sexual assault in Epstein’s company or presence.
These are allegations, not new criminal convictions. Trump denies wrongdoing, and the White House rejects the report’s accusations. But the report raises serious questions that deserve independent investigation.
For those of us who study domestic abuse and coercive control, there is another question worth examining.
What happens when behaviors associated with abuse are no longer confined to private relationships, but appear in the public exercise of political power?
The Pattern of Entitlement
Coercive control involves more than an isolated act of violence. It can include intimidation, humiliation, financial domination, manipulation, threats, isolation, and the punishment of resistance.
Its underlying message is simple:
I have the power. You will do what I want. If you resist, there will be consequences.
In the October 26 report, former Swiss beauty queen Beatrice Keul alleges that Trump raped her at the Plaza Hotel in 1993, after offering assistance with her education and immigration status. According to her account, he subsequently pressed her to remain silent.
Stacey Williams alleges that Trump groped her while Epstein stood nearby.
Other women describe encounters involving sexual coercion, alleged assault, or introductions arranged by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
The accounts differ, and their evidentiary status differs. But they raise a common investigative question about the potential exploitation of unequal power.
An opportunity offered. Access controlled. A powerful man making demands. A woman left to consider what might happen if she refuses or speaks out.
These are recognizable dynamics in the study of coercive relationships.
Humiliation as Public Entertainment
Now consider the rally stage.
In recent October appearances, Trump has repeatedly used insults, sexualized language, and degrading descriptions of political opponents. At his October 21 rally in South Carolina, he referred to congressional candidate Annie Andrews as “Tranny Annie” and discussed sex toys and alleged sexual misconduct involving children.
The remarks were made during a public political event, not an adult comedy performance.
The language is particularly striking when young people are among those attending political rallies or appearing in the audience.
Children learn from what adults publicly reward. They notice who is applauded, who is ridiculed, and whether powerful people face consequences for humiliating others.
In abusive relationships, public humiliation can serve several functions. It diminishes the target, entertains an audience, and communicates that the aggressor has permission to cross boundaries.
In politics, comparable rhetoric can normalize contempt for entire groups.
When humiliation produces applause, the audience can become part of the reinforcement system.
That does not make every supporter an abuser. It does raise a question about the social consequences of celebrating degradation as political entertainment.
From Control of a Partner to Control of Public Institutions
A person exercising coercive control may seek to restrict what another person can say, whom they can contact, what information they can access, or how they spend their money.
Governments possess fundamentally different powers and legal responsibilities. Yet some of the same underlying questions can help citizens evaluate how authority is exercised.
Can critics speak freely without fear of retaliation?
Can journalists investigate people in power without losing access as punishment for unfavorable coverage?
Can public resources be used without creating private benefits or conflicts of interest?
Can law enforcement investigate allegations against powerful officials independently?
During 2026, press freedom organizations have documented actions and statements by the Trump administration that they identify as efforts to punish or intimidate critical media outlets.
The new Epstein report adds another institutional concern. House Judiciary Democrats allege that Justice Department officials withheld information and improperly constrained discussion of a survivor’s account during an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell.
Those accusations of misconduct raise an essential democratic principle.
The people who control government records and investigative authority must not be able to use that power to protect themselves from accountability.
Economic Power Is Part of the Story
Economic abuse is one of the least understood aspects of domestic violence.
An abusive partner may control the household income, restrict access to money, create financial dependence, or treat shared resources as personal property.
At a national level, public spending, executive privileges, government contracts, and conflicts of interest raise different legal questions. Still, the principle of stewardship is relevant.
Public money belongs to the public.
Government offices are not personal possessions. Taxpayer resources are not private rewards. Presidential power does not create an entitlement to use public institutions for personal advantage.
Congressional oversight, financial disclosure, independent auditing, and enforcement of ethics laws are safeguards against the misuse of that authority.
A healthy relationship respects shared resources. A healthy democracy demands accountable stewardship of public resources.
Why the Women Matter Most
It would be easy to turn these allegations into another argument about political personalities.
But that would risk repeating a familiar injustice.
The women become secondary. Their experiences disappear behind the reputation, influence, and political future of the accused.
Survivors of sexual violence frequently face disbelief, intimidation, public attacks, and tremendous personal costs when they come forward.
Some never report their experiences. Others wait years or decades.
An allegation deserves appropriate examination. A defendant deserves due process. Neither principle requires society to dismiss a woman because the person she accuses is wealthy, famous, or powerful.
The October 26 report does not establish criminal guilt. It does present accounts and records that congressional Democrats believe warrant an independent investigation.
That request deserves serious consideration.
Abuse Thrives Where Accountability Fails
There is an important distinction between an abusive intimate relationship and the operations of a government. They are not interchangeable, and disagreement with government policy is not itself evidence of abuse.
But coercive control offers a useful framework for recognizing certain warning signs wherever concentrated power exists.
Intimidation. Humiliation. Isolation. Control of information. Economic leverage. Retaliation against dissent.
Each should prompt scrutiny, whether it appears inside a household, a workplace, an institution, or a government.
The opposite of coercive control is not another person gaining the power to dominate. It is a relationship built on autonomy, dignity, accountability, and respect.
For a country, those principles become freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, independent institutions, and the ability to challenge authority without fear.
The women named in the Epstein report deserve a fair examination of their allegations.
The public deserves access to legally disclosable records and an investigation free from improper political interference.
And children watching the nation’s leaders deserve to see that authority carries responsibility, not permission to humiliate and intimidate.
Power does not excuse abuse.
The greater the power, the greater the obligation to answer for how it is used.
Join Our Community
Domestic Assault examines abuse, coercive control, and the misuse of power in relationships, institutions, and government.
Subscribe and join the conversation about how we recognize abusive patterns, protect those harmed by them, and build relationships and institutions grounded in dignity and accountability.
Sources and further reading
House Judiciary Democrats, October 26, 2026 — Report announcement and findings
Read the congressional staff report
Watch Jamie Raskin discuss the findings with Brian Tyler Cohen
U.S. Press Freedom Tracker — Actions directed at the news media