Tech Safety for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Act
SB 2159, the Tech Safety for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Act, would create two federal grant programs administered by the Office on Violence Against Women. The first would fund a pilot program for eligible consortia that combine technology-focused partners with domestic violence or sexual violence service providers to combat technological abuse. Eligible consortia could include universities, community technical partners, and victim service organizations, and they would need support from relevant state, local, tribal, or territorial governments. Grants under the pilot could be used for devices, victim services, and other measures that reduce technological abuse or help survivors respond to it.
The second program would provide grants to nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education to develop training, educational materials, curricula, and technical assistance for people and organizations supporting victims of technological abuse. The bill sets grant caps of up to $2 million per pilot grant, limits the pilot to 15 awards, and authorizes up to $20 million total for the education-and-training grant program over five years. It also requires reporting to Congress on the pilot’s effectiveness, implementation challenges, best practices, and whether the pilot should become permanent.
The bill would not directly amend criminal penalties or create a new standalone offense; instead, it would expand federal support infrastructure for addressing technology-facilitated abuse within the existing Violence Against Women Act framework. It relies on the existing statutory definition of “technological abuse” and ties implementation to the Office on Violence Against Women, with consultation from HHS, the Department of Education, and the FCC. Its practical effect would be to channel federal funding toward survivor services, technical assistance, and partnerships between advocates and technologists.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of intervention, prevention, and survivor assistance. The findings emphasize the prevalence of intimate partner violence and the growing role of digital tools in stalking, harassment, surveillance, and control, suggesting a policy response aimed at modernizing victim support. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or bipartisan debate in the available record.
Notable points of contention, based on the bill’s structure rather than recorded debate, could include the scope of federal involvement, the use of grant funding for technology purchases, and whether a pilot program is the right mechanism versus a permanent program. The bill anticipates those concerns by requiring a formal review and recommendation on permanency after the pilot begins and a second report after the pilot ends. The main stakeholders are domestic violence and sexual violence service providers, survivor advocacy groups, technology experts, higher education institutions, and federal agencies involved in victim services and communications policy.
The bill would add two new federally funded grant programs under the Office on Violence Against Women, one for a technology-focused pilot to combat technological abuse and one for education and technical assistance. It would not create new criminal offenses, but it would expand federal grant authority and survivor-support infrastructure within the Violence Against Women Act ecosystem, affecting domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking service providers, universities, nonprofit organizations, and government partners.
The bill’s tone and findings indicate strong support for addressing technology-facilitated abuse and for equipping survivor services with technical expertise. The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented legislative opposition or floor debate to indicate divided sentiment. On the face of the bill, the policy approach appears broadly protective of survivors and aligned with victim-services stakeholders.
No formal contention is documented in the provided record because there are no committee transcripts or votes. Potential areas of debate include whether the federal government should fund technology purchases for survivors, whether the pilot should be limited to 15 grants and five years, and whether the program should be made permanent if successful. The bill’s requirement for consultation with HHS, Education, and the FCC, plus reports to Congress on efficacy and implementation challenges, suggests lawmakers may want to evaluate cost, scope, and effectiveness before expanding the program.