In the current political moment, sex trafficking is an issues that has gained increased political and media attention. This thesis first analyzes the stories that are told about sex trafficking in policy and the media. Analyzing these stories help us make sense of whose voices, experiences, and needs we listen to, and in relief, whose we do not. Through a case study that evaluates the research, policy work, and advocacy being conducted through the Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research at ASU, I first explore how they are dominating the conversation about sex trafficking in Arizona. I offer four critiques on STIR's approach to sex trafficking. First, I critique the language that STIR uses, and the implications of explaining this social issue as sex trafficking instead of survival sex. I then critique the policy and responses around the experiences of LGBTQ youth, and how the theory of dynamic nominalism informs the way we should represent LGBTQ youth in research. Through analyzing specific responses to sex trafficking prevention that STIR offers, such as calling 911, I will explore the need for intersectionality to protect the wellbeing of youth of color. Lastly, through theoretical critiques of neoliberalism, I will explore the ways in which STIR's research, advocacy, and trainings neglect to explore the systems youth must navigate and exist in, and how those systems fail. Through each of these unique critiques, we notice different silences and important considerations that are missing from the work that is dominating the discussion of sex trafficking in the US. Ultimately, this thesis does not argue that we should not care about sex trafficking, but instead argues we need to care more. It explores the ways that acknowledging the complexity and nuance of this great social problem can provide the ability to create meaningful solutions that care for and listen to youth.