Sexual Trafficking and Coercion in the Entertainment Industry

Leonardo Giorgini
Rescue in the Arts
Summer 2025

Sexual Trafficking and Coercion in the Entertainment Industry
  The recently concluded trial of Sean Combs, known by the various nicknames and stage names “Diddy,” “Puff Daddy,” and “Love,” has brought to the surface a long-simmering problem in the entertainment industry: sexual trafficking and coercion. While “sex trafficking” is normally taken to mean groups of young girls transported across national borders in trucks to be sold for sex, it actually has a much broader definition under state and federal law, and has several forms which can be seen in the world of media and arts. The prevailing truth about sex trafficking, across its many forms, is that stereotypes are often ill-suited, and that no type of person is immune from being a victim. The entertainment industry creates unique conditions that facilitate sexual coercion. The highly competitive nature of the business, combined with significant power imbalances between industry gatekeepers and aspiring performers, creates environments where exploitation can occur with relative impunity. The promise of career advancement, coupled with the threat of professional destruction, forms the basis of a coercive system that has harmed countless individuals. What enables it to continue is both the desires of some to force sex on others and the power structures which leave victims vulnerable to exploitation. While society rightly focuses a large amount of attention on the former, it often chooses to overlook the latter.
  First, let us look at how sex trafficking is defined under federal law. The most relevant criminal statute criminalizes a person who, in a manner “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” or in places subject to special federal jurisdiction, knowingly “recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person,” or participates in a venture to do so, when that other person is either a child or is subject to force, fraud, or coercion, and will be caused to engage in a commercial sexual act. [1] To be guilty of this crime, designated as “sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion,” the defendant must know or recklessly disregard the victim’s age or the presence of force, fraud, or coercion, whichever is the case. The punishment is severe: a maximum of life in prison, with a minimum of 10 or 15 years, depending on the circumstances. [2]
  It is no secret that federal prosecutors, who, unlike their state equivalents, generally have fewer cases and can therefore take more time to build individual ones, and bring charges that are often orders of magnitude stronger than would otherwise be available. Consider, for example, the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell for aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of numerous girls. Had she been charged in New York state court for the crimes which took place in Epstein’s luxury apartment in Manhattan, the majority of those charges would have been for low-level sexual abuse, based on the fact that most of the victims were older teenagers. But the fact that Maxwell and Epstein caused their victims to travel across state lines for the purpose of engaging in this sexual activity turned those acts into far more serious federal charges, both for sex trafficking and for transporting and enticing minors for criminal sexual acts. [3]
  But it is a mistake to treat federal charges, especially those with the harshest mandatory sentences, as the only lens through which to view sex trafficking. Epstein and Maxwell would have been no less guilty of sex trafficking under New York state law had they committed their crimes following the enactment of a state law criminalizing any prostitution where the victim is under 18 and the defendant is over 21, even if it does not involve travel across state lines. [4] Entitled “sex trafficking of a child,” this law does not require knowledge of the victim’s age; indeed, the defendant cannot even argue that they did not know that the victim was a minor. So long as they intentionally advance or profit from prostitution by a minor and are over 21, they are guilty. [5] A related state statute, entitled “sex trafficking,” outlines a number of forms of coercion that turn the promotion of prostitution, already a crime, into a far more serious felony. [6] In both cases, the minimum and maximum sentences are lower–5 and 25 years, respectively–than the federal equivalents, but the fact remains that the state definition of sex trafficking goes much further than the federal laws that attract the most headlines. And that is just the legal definition. The question can be fairly raised as to whether coerced sex can be considered sex trafficking even when it does not arise in the context of prostitution, and even if no money is spent.
  All of this is to show that sex trafficking does not always fit a script. It can involve the private jets, the trips to the Virgin Islands or across the country, the ostentatious excess of Combs and Epstein, or it can be confined to a single neighborhood or hotel room. The victims could have been transported by force, or they may have travelled voluntarily, or they may have run or been forced away from home. And some victims may try to escape, while others may form emotional bonds with their trafficker and consider themselves in love or in debt. Understanding all of these complicated forms of trafficking is essential to providing positive support for survivors, and to having a clear picture of the situation in the entertainment industry.
  Hollywood occupies a space that can be described as local, national, and global. As a physical area, it is part of the broader Los Angeles community, not just geographically, but as a space where people make their homes and work. The problems that affect any urban environment - income inequality, homelessness, drug abuse, crime, and the like - are never that far removed from the glamorous world projected on screens around the globe. It is subject to federal and state laws, some of which are generally applicable, and some of which (such as the increased protections for child actors) were designed for the unique circumstances of Hollywood specifically. And we cannot forget just how global it all is. People do not just watch Hollywood movies and shows from every possible place; they come to Hollywood to make a career out of it. The fact that a large portion of the relevant population is living in an unfamiliar country, separated from friends and family by perhaps thousands of miles, and with an immigration status that often depends on their continued employment, renders those people particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Power dynamics within the industry as a whole are particularly stark. Producers, directors, agents, and studio executives hold the keys to career opportunities, while actors, models, and musicians often depend entirely on their approval for work. For those who work behind the scenes and whose names likely will never reach the public eye, these imbalances are even more extreme.
  Sexual trafficking and coercion, especially of the kind for which Hollywood has become known in recent years, are far more linked than one might expect. Since the #MeToo movement in late 2017, it has been common knowledge that leading figures in the entertainment industry use their power to coerce people (usually, but not always, women) into engaging in unwanted and unconsented sexual activity, by dangling a leading role or by threatening to destroy someone’s career or reputation. But what most people do not know is that this is of a kind with sex trafficking, in that these same figures also coerce people to have sex with third parties. In the case of Sean Combs, the charges he faced in federal court arose not from forcing himself onto anyone, but from forcing his girlfriend and other women to submit to sex with male escorts for his own sexual gratification. Even in cases where no money changes hands, the sense of power that motivates rape and sexual abuse also motivates those who coerce sex with third parties.
  Consider the case of NXIVM, commonly referred to as a sex cult, but which was in reality a well-connected criminal enterprise. The founder, a self-proclaimed wellness guru named Keith Raniere, himself was not an industry man, but he had a connection who was: Allison Mack, a successful actress, whom he relied on to act as his deputy. He also recruited Emiliano Salinas, a venture capitalist from Mexico and a son of its former president, to provide funds. Through these connections, Raniere and Mack were able to draw in women through the promise of personal and professional mentorship, before Raniere forced them into involuntary sexual activity. It is not a surprise that a significant number of NXIVM members were actresses, given the large disparities between figures in that industry and the clear need for women starting out an acting career to have someone more experienced guiding them. The fact that Mack used her role in Hollywood to make false promises at the time of Harvey Weinstein’s known predations against actresses is appalling and indicative of an industry completely infected by sexual coercion. With Raniere and Mack, they thought they had found allyship, but instead they found themselves stripped of their autonomy in the most violative of ways.
  The trauma experienced by victims of sexual coercion in the entertainment industry extends beyond the immediate harm of sexual assault. Many victims describe lasting psychological impacts, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety. The public nature of many entertainment careers can compound this trauma, as victims may face public scrutiny and victim-blaming. Career impacts can be equally devastating. Many victims report being blacklisted or facing professional retaliation after reporting abuse or refusing to participate in exploitative situations. With particular focus on actors, the industry's emphasis on reputation and public image can make it difficult for victims to continue their careers after speaking out.
  The exposure of widespread sexual coercion in the entertainment industry has led to various legal and regulatory responses. Many states have enacted laws extending statutes of limitations for sexual assault cases, recognizing that industry pressures and related threats often prevent victims from coming forward immediately. Professional organizations have implemented new codes of conduct and reporting mechanisms, though the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen, and especially depends on those responsible themselves not being involved in any misconduct. The industry has also faced increased scrutiny from law enforcement, with federal prosecutors pursuing trafficking charges in cases that might previously have been treated as isolated incidents of assault. But that only brings us back to the Combs case: despite being caught on camera committing acts of domestic violence, he was only charged years later in federal court, and was acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking. Sometimes, federal trafficking charges are a strong tool needed to break a powerful figure’s hold, but other times, they fail to measure up to basic state-level assault charges. Even in cases where legal definitions of human trafficking apply, it is not always sex trafficking that is the most appropriate charge. In the recent case of Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, the two executives of OneTaste were convicted of federal labor trafficking conspiracy for what many would consider more analogous to sex trafficking or sexual coercion: manipulating women into performing sexual massages on men as part of a commercial wellness enterprise.
  One conclusion that can be drawn from these cases is that, while sex trafficking laws, especially at the federal level, may appear all-encompassing, in reality, they fail to cover a large amount of misconduct that is addressed by other laws. What is commonly considered sex trafficking does not neatly align with the legal precedents at issue, and victims may not always understand how to define what they have suffered. The law should respond to these issues through the following steps. First, a greater emphasis should be placed on state-level laws, which often prove to be more far-reaching than their federal counterparts. While federal prosecutors and law enforcement have more resources available to them, this is not a reason for them to monopolize this space, but instead a reason to liaise with local prosecutors and build strong cases. Second, legal aid organizations should provide services to victims filing civil lawsuits, which often prove to be more effective at obtaining justice than criminal prosecutions, as shown by the successful lawsuits by Casandra Ventura against Sean Combs and by Virginia Giuffre against Prince Andrew. [7] And third, humanitarian organizations such as Rescue in the Arts should release public awareness campaigns informing new arrivals to Hollywood about some risks they may encounter, their legal rights, and confidential resources that can help them.
  The eyes of the world are on Hollywood, in more ways than one. Sadly, one very real part of this environment is the mistreatment of vulnerable people, including by coercing them into unwanted sex with others. The law has adopted many ways to deter wrongdoing, hold offenders accountable, and protect victims, but there is much more to be done. And the law on its own is not the only actor who can help; instead, civil society has a responsibility to use its resources and knowledge to help those without.