Worldwide, over 230 million women and girls have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), and currently, an additional 30 million girls under the age of 15 are at risk worldwide. 

In the United States, a 2019 estimate stated that FGM/C has impacted 421,000 women and girls, and while most of these women and girls are survivors FGM/C, an estimated 31,000 remain at risk. California reports one of the highest estimated prevalences of FGM/C in the country, with an estimated 56,872 women and girls being affected in 2013, including over 23,000 in the Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Anaheim metro areas alone. 

Despite FGM/C’s prevalence on a global scale, FGM/C in the United States has been increasingly portrayed in political and media discourse in ways that unfairly target immigrant and refugee communities. 

Amidst the current Trump administration, growing anti-immigrant rhetoric coupled with restrictive immigration policies –such as the January 2025 executive order signed by Trump to increase deportation efforts and close the southern border – has contributed to a political climate where FGM/C is co-opted to target immigrant and refugee communities.  

Instead of uplifting support for survivors and prevention of FGM/C, this framing ties FGM/C with anti-immigrant messages. An archived White House Fact sheet cited a 2016 report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing an increase in the number of women and girls at risk of FGM/C in 2012 compared to 1990. However, the CDC concluded that this increase was “entirely a result of … the number of immigrants from FGM/C practicing countries.”

FGM/C has also been linked with anti-immigrant rhetoric in recent media coverage amid an increase in immigration-related policies advanced by the Trump Administration. For instance, a Fox News article drawing attention to FGM/C in Minnesota titled its headline “The Secret Shame of Minnesota Somalis.” Another article characterized FGM/C in Minnesota as an issue that “has only added to the dark cloud of alleged fraud that is hanging over the state’s Somali community.” Such characterizations of FGM/C in the United States further the false narrative that FGM/C is tied to certain cultures and communities. 

In reality, FGM/C has been shown to occur across many countries and communities worldwide. While religious doctrine is sometimes used to justify this harmful practice, FGM/C is not limited to any one religious faith or culture. Additionally, coverage driven by anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiments, such as the articles discussed above about FGM/C in Minnesota, distorts the reality of FGM/C and, in doing so, harms survivors. As one anonymous activist and survivor of FGM/C shared in conversation with me, this kind of political climate makes survivors feel less safe speaking openly about their experiences, seeking support, or trusting institutions that are supposed to protect them. “It sidelines the work of survivors and activists who are trying to raise awareness and push for change,” they emphasized. 

FGM/C is then overlooked as a broader human rights violation that occurs around the globe across various communities. Data shows how FGM/C is a global issue across many countries, religions, and ethnicities. According to the United Nations, FGM/C has been shown to occur in over 94 countries, of which half (51) have national laws banning FGM/C. In 2026 alone, nearly 4.5 million girls across the globe are at risk of FGM/C. Thus, media coverage and political discourse that narrows FGM/C to solely an “immigrant issue” weakens advocacy efforts to end FGM/C in the United States and denies its prevalence across various communities and countries. 

California’s current law on FGM/C, passed in 1996, addresses FGM/C in a similar light. The bill explicitly states that to take a “proactive role” in preventing FGM/C, the state of California must “make recent immigrants aware of California laws, standards, and expectations for child protection.” 

This bill’s language is another instance of FGM/C being framed as an issue that occurs solely in immigrant communities. This language is limiting, restricts public and political understanding of FGM/C as a global human rights issue, and harms survivors who do not fit within this narrative. Moreover, such language pivots focus away from implementing impactful prevention measures and support avenues for survivors.  

To end FGM/C in California and in the United States, public and political discussion around FGM/C must center survivors rather than conveying xenophobic and anti-immigrant messaging. Ending FGM/C and supporting survivors in California requires removing targeted language towards immigrant communities and addressing prevention and protection gaps.