Since early 2024, violent threats against American public officials have surged to unprecedented levels, affecting officeholders at every tier of government and altering not only their work but also their personal lives. An examination of records from law enforcement agencies, court filings, and Freedom of Information Act disclosures reveals that thousands of elected officials nationwide have been targeted with menacing communications, ranging from vague warnings to explicit promises of torture, rape, and murder. These threats encompass a broad political spectrum, targeting Republicans and Democrats alike, and extend beyond officials themselves to include their families and staff.
The scope of the intimidation is extensive: over the past two years, at least 44 governors, 70 senators, nearly half of the House of Representatives, and more than half of state secretaries of state—who often serve as chief election officers—have received violent threats. Actual violence has increased in this period, with notable incidents including assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump, the killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, the murder of Minnesota legislative leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the firebombing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence.
These developments have profoundly reshaped how officials conduct their daily lives. Many have invested in enhanced home security measures, such as cameras and private guards, sometimes at their own expense. Daily routines have been altered to reduce exposure, including changing shopping times, relocating children to new schools, and removing personal information from online platforms. Some officials acknowledge that the threat environment has even influenced their public statements and, in rare cases, decisions on policy and governance. The escalating climate of intimidation has contributed to a decline in candidate recruitment for public office, particularly among women, and prompted some incumbents to leave politics altogether.
The challenge of effectively policing these threats remains significant. Analysis of federal court data shows only 53 cases over two years in which individuals were charged with threatening public officials, excluding the president. Legal complexities—including free speech protections and the anonymity afforded by digital platforms—make identification and prosecution difficult, while the sheer volume of threats overwhelms investigative resources.
Former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene cited the toll of threats, especially those directed at her children, as a decisive factor in her decision to retire. Following a public break with former President Trump over disagreements including the handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related records and policy issues, she faced threats from across the political spectrum. Despite reaching out to Trump for support, the response she received was dismissive, contributing to her decision to step away from public office.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz also nearly resigned amid a spike in violent threats after his selection as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in 2024, compounded by the assassination of close associates. The heightened security risks have made protecting part-time state legislators challenging, with many returning to communities where they face ongoing vulnerability.
Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and former intelligence official from Michigan, experienced direct threats to her elderly, cancer-stricken parents following her participation in a video urging soldiers not to follow unlawful orders—a move labeled "seditious" by Trump and his supporters. Her parents’ home was “swatted” by false police reports during the night, illustrating the collateral damage political threats can inflict on families.
Election officials, too, face targeted harassment, with Republican county official Carly Koppes in Colorado receiving violent messages related to her pregnancy, and Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows forced to relocate after repeated threats linked to her role in enforcing election law. Bellows has been targeted since 2020, when false claims of election fraud proliferated, and her personal information was recently posted online, triggering an onslaught of threatening communications.
The security landscape for elected officials has evolved markedly since the January 6 Capitol riot. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who served until May 2025, expanded the force’s investigative capacity, implemented new security technologies, and conducted nationwide assessments to guard legislators. Despite these measures, the volume of threats continued to rise, while prosecutions remained limited, reducing the deterrent effect.
Campaigning has grown more constrained, with outdoor public events less common and extensive security screenings routine. Candidates frequently operate under constant threat, leading to increased isolation even as public concern mounts.
For some officials, the cumulative pressure has proven overwhelming. Greene described the period following Kirk’s assassination—and her fallout with Trump—as personal and frightening enough to outweigh any perceived benefits of holding office. “This is just not worth it,” she said, noting a preference for personal safety and well-being over political service.
The torrent of threats and attacks reflects a deepening polarization and erosion of civility in American political life, posing ongoing challenges to governance, democracy, and the safety of those who serve.