Violent threats against elected officials in the United States have escalated over the past two years, targeting governors, members of Congress, local election officials and their families, and forcing some to change their daily routines or consider leaving political life, according to an investigation by journalist Nick Corasaniti published by The New York Times.
Investigation documents thousands of threats against officials
The investigation drew on hundreds of records, court documents and law-enforcement reports, documenting thousands of threats between 2024 and August 2026.
Their content ranged from vague messages to others containing details about killing, torture and sexual assault. The targets were not limited to officials themselves, but also included their spouses, children, parents and siblings.
The wave coincided with acts of political violence that went beyond messages and calls, including attempts to assassinate President Donald Trump, the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the killing of Minnesota legislative leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the firebombing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home.
Security measures change the lives of officials and their families
Officials who spoke to the newspaper said these incidents demonstrated the danger posed by escalating violent political rhetoric and its ability to destabilise democratic institutions. Security measures have become part of daily life for many officials. Some have installed cameras and fences around their homes, hired armed guards, changed their shopping times and usual travel routes, while others have had to move their children to different schools.
They also sought to remove their personal information from the internet, fearing it could be used to reach them or their relatives. The experience of former Republican Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene illustrates the personal consequences of these threats. After years of aligning herself with Trump, she fell out with him over the Jeffrey Epstein files, then the war in Iran and economic policies, believing that tariffs and cuts to healthcare support were harming the voters she represented.
After Trump called her a traitor, Greene said she received a barrage of threats, the most distressing of which targeted her son. She sent copies of the messages to the president in the hope that he would recognise their seriousness, but he replied, according to her account: “It’s your fault, you deserve it.”
Weeks later, she announced her intention to leave Congress, saying she did not want to put her children’s lives at risk in order to remain in politics. The investigation showed that women are often subjected to more severe targeting, making it harder to recruit them to public life.
Threats prompt officials to consider stepping down
Greta Neubauer, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly, said that when speaking to potential female candidates, she makes a point of warning them that entering politics may require them and their families to accept risks that cannot be ignored. The threats came close to driving Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz out of political life.
Walz had faced threats after being selected as Kamala Harris’s running mate in the 2024 election, but the assassination of his friend Melissa Hortman, the former speaker of the state legislature, and her husband in June 2025 led him to reconsider whether he could continue in public service.
The killings raised particular concerns for Walz about the safety of local legislators who return to their normal lives after their terms end. They face risks connected to their positions without necessarily having access to the same level of protection as senior federal officials.
The experience of Democratic Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin shows how threats can extend to people with no direct connection to politics. Slotkin took part in a video recording with five other lawmakers in which they called on US soldiers not to follow unlawful orders.
Trump described the lawmakers’ conduct as treason punishable by death, after which threats began to pour in, particularly against Slotkin. Despite round-the-clock protection for her, her parents’ home was subjected to a false report that brought police there at night, while her 81-year-old father was battling cancer.
Slotkin said her family members and staff had not chosen to face these risks, and that accepting them when she took office did not give her the right to ask her relatives to bear the consequences of her decision. The phenomenon is not confined to figures belonging to one party or espousing a particular political rhetoric: threats have targeted Republican and Democratic officials alike, whether they were known for provocative rhetoric or targeted because of their positions and policies.
Local officials leave their homes seeking safety Does the threat affect female candidates and public service?
According to the investigation’s conclusion, the risks have become a daily burden rather than exceptional cases affecting a limited number of public figures. At state level, Maine’s Democratic elections official, Sheena Bellows, was forced to leave her home with her husband after authorities warned them that it was no longer safe to remain there.
In Texas, Democratic Representative Gina Hinojosa asked her family members to move to a relative’s home because of the threats, then added barriers and fences to protect her house. Carly Koppes, the Republican elections official in a Colorado county, received threats targeting her and her unborn child after announcing her pregnancy.
In other cases, officials decided to buy weapons and train to use them after the risks went beyond receiving messages to include the publication of photographs of their homes and personal information about them and their family members. The rise in threats was accompanied by a sharp increase in spending on security.
Campaign-finance records show that candidates for federal office spent about $6 million on security-related items during the 2017–2018 election cycle. In the current midterm election cycle, the figure had exceeded $25 million by 1 August 2026, before the campaigns reached their final stage.
These figures do not include money officials pay from their own resources. Local officials, school-board members and election administrators face greater challenges in this area because they do not always receive the government resources needed to provide protection, forcing some to cover the costs themselves.
In Congress, security arrangements have expanded since the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol. The Capitol Police more than doubled the number of investigators, strengthened protection for lawmakers’ offices and reviewed security arrangements at their offices in Washington and elsewhere. The House security official spent more than $28 million in 2025, including funds allocated for installing alarm systems and gunshot-detection devices.
Even so, increased spending does not guarantee that threats will be prevented or that those responsible will be identified and prosecuted. A review of federal court data found only 53 cases in which people were charged with threatening public officials over the past two years, excluding cases involving threats against the president.
Investigations face difficulties including identifying users of anonymous accounts, dealing with the large volume of messages and distinguishing explicit threats from speech that may be protected under freedom-of-expression laws. Former security officials said the proportion of cases ending in criminal charges remains limited, weakening the deterrent effect and potentially encouraging some people making threats to continue.
The problem is more pronounced among local officeholders, who lack protection teams or security resources comparable to those available to federal officials. The effects of the phenomenon have extended to the nature of political activity and officials’ relationship with the public.
Outdoor events have declined, while advance site inspections, the installation of metal detectors and the use of security officers have become standard measures in election campaigns. Some candidates feel that these precautions, despite being necessary for their protection, isolate them from the citizens they seek to represent.
One of the main risks is that people willing to serve the public may withdraw, or that potential candidates may be deterred from running, particularly women and mothers who place their children’s safety among their priorities. When holding office involves threats against family members or being forced to leave home, the consequences extend beyond the official’s life to affect political participation and the breadth of electoral competition.
Amid political polarisation, the spread of threats online and the difficulty of holding those who make them accountable, the challenge has gone beyond providing officials with guards to ensuring they can perform their duties without fear.
Threats that drive officials into silence or resignation, or prevent others from entering the race, also narrow the public sphere and undermine the conditions for safe political participation.
