A nationwide investigation found that at least 70 senators, 185 House members and 44 governors received violent threats over the past two years, while rising security expenses and relatively few federal prosecutions highlight the difficulties of protecting elected officials.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Violent threats against elected officials have reached hundreds of federal and state lawmakers across the United States, according to a nationwide investigation published Sunday that documents growing security concerns as the country approaches the Nov. 3 midterm elections. At least 70 U.S. senators, 185 members of the House of Representatives and 44 governors were targeted between 2024 and August 2026, with threats affecting Republicans and Democrats and extending to their families, staff members and private residences.
The findings, detailed in a New York Times investigation into political violence and harassment, were compiled from more than 100 public records requests, court documents and law enforcement records. The review found that the incidents extended beyond Congress and governors’ offices, reaching more than half of the nation’s secretaries of state, many of whom oversee election administration.
The investigation identified a widening gap between the number of threatening incidents reported to authorities and the relatively small number resulting in federal criminal charges. It also documented increasing security expenses among political candidates and officials who have changed their daily routines, restricted public access and sought additional protection for family members.
Official figures from the U.S. Capitol Police support the broader finding that threats and concerning communications involving members of Congress have increased substantially.
According to statistics released by the Capitol Police in January, the agency investigated 14,938 threat assessment cases in 2025, compared with 9,474 in 2024. That represents an increase of approximately 58% in one year.
The agency’s investigations include direct threats, concerning statements, suspicious behavior and communications involving lawmakers, congressional employees, family members and the Capitol complex. The total does not mean that every case involved a criminally prosecutable threat or that 14,938 separate individuals threatened to commit violence.
Nevertheless, the increase reflects a substantial expansion in the number of incidents requiring attention from federal law enforcement.
The Capitol Police reported 8,008 cases in 2023, 7,501 in 2022 and 9,625 in 2021. After declining from the elevated levels recorded following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the annual total rose for three consecutive years and reached its highest reported level in 2025.
Capitol Police Chief Michael Sullivan has warned that the threat environment continues to place pressure on the agency’s investigative and protective resources.
“While security on Capitol Grounds has already improved, we have been strengthening our partnerships with law enforcement agencies across the country to keep the Members of Congress safe when they are away from Capitol Hill,” Sullivan said when the agency released its 2025 statistics.
“We want to make sure agencies have the resources they need to be able to enhance protection, which is critical to the democratic process.”
The agency has emphasized that threats affect officials from both major political parties and occur through multiple channels, including telephone calls, letters, emails, social media posts and direct contact.
Some communications contain explicit statements describing intended violence, while others involve ambiguous language or conduct that investigators must evaluate to determine whether a credible threat exists.
The growing volume of incidents has prompted the Capitol Police to expand cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies, which frequently bear responsibility for responding to threats involving lawmakers outside Washington.
Despite the increase in reported incidents, relatively few cases have resulted in federal criminal prosecutions.
The Times identified 53 federal cases over the two-year period in which individuals were charged with threatening public officials other than the president. The finding illustrates the difficulty of converting reported threats into cases that meet the legal standards required for prosecution.
Former Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger told the newspaper that fewer than 10% of the threat cases his investigators handled in 2021 resulted in criminal charges.
The discrepancy does not necessarily mean authorities failed to investigate the remaining incidents. Some investigations involve statements that are disturbing but constitutionally protected, while others lack sufficient evidence to identify a suspect or establish criminal intent.
Federal law distinguishes between expressions of political hostility and threats of unlawful violence. The First Amendment protects a broad range of speech, including harsh criticism of government officials, but does not protect legally defined true threats.
Under Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors must establish the required mental state concerning the threatening nature of a communication. That standard can complicate cases involving ambiguous language, political rhetoric or online statements whose authors claim they were joking or exaggerating.
Investigators must also determine whether a statement constitutes a threat directed at an identifiable person, rather than general anger or opposition expressed in political debate.
Anonymous accounts, encrypted communications and users operating across multiple jurisdictions can create additional investigative challenges.
A message may originate in one state, target a lawmaker in another and be distributed through an online platform whose records require legal procedures to obtain.
Even when investigators identify the sender, prosecutors must determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support charges under federal or state law.
The Capitol Police have responded by expanding specialized investigative resources and working more closely with prosecutors.
During 2025, attorneys assigned to support the agency’s threat investigations consulted with investigators on 875 cases and worked on 1,705 subpoenas, according to the agency’s annual figures.
The Capitol Police have also strengthened agreements with local law enforcement departments to coordinate protection for members of Congress in their home districts.
The number of formal partnerships increased from approximately 115 departments to more than 350 during 2025, extending the agency’s protective network across the country.
Those arrangements are especially important because lawmakers spend considerable time outside Washington, attending public meetings, traveling through their districts and maintaining residences that do not receive the same permanent security presence as the Capitol complex.
The financial consequences of the threat environment have also become more apparent in campaign spending records.
According to the Times’ analysis of Federal Election Commission filings, federal candidates spent approximately $6 million on security during the 2017-2018 election cycle. By Aug. 1 of the current election cycle, reported spending had reached at least $25 million, more than four times the earlier total.
The expenditures include security personnel, surveillance equipment, protective services and other measures intended to reduce risks during public appearances and campaign operations.
Those amounts exclude security costs paid personally by lawmakers and candidates, meaning the full financial burden is likely higher than the totals reflected in campaign disclosures.
The spending increase also reflects changes in how political campaigns operate. Public appearances that previously required relatively limited security arrangements may now involve advance planning, coordination with police and restrictions on attendance.
Candidates have also invested in protection for offices, residences and family members following incidents involving threats directed at people who do not hold public office.
During congressional budget proceedings in March, Sullivan requested increased funding for Capitol Police operations, citing the rising number of investigations.
As reported by Colorado Politics, Sullivan told House appropriators that threat cases in 2026 were on pace to exceed the previous year’s total.
The police chief sought a record budget of approximately $896 million for fiscal 2027, arguing that additional personnel and resources were needed to address threats, strengthen protective operations and maintain security throughout the Capitol complex.
The agency’s growing responsibilities have included protecting lawmakers in Washington while coordinating responses to threats in congressional districts, where local police frequently serve as the first responders.
One example of the security challenges documented in the Times investigation involved Republican state lawmakers in Indiana who opposed a congressional redistricting plan supported by President Donald Trump.
In December 2025, the Indiana Senate voted 31-19 to reject a proposed congressional map intended to improve Republican prospects in the state’s U.S. House districts. The proposal would have substantially changed district boundaries, including those represented by Democrats.
The rejection followed an extended campaign by Trump and other Republican officials to persuade Indiana lawmakers to approve a new map before the 2026 midterm elections.
The dispute generated intense political pressure on Republican legislators who declined to support the proposal, including Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray.
Following the vote, at least 12 Republican elected officials in Indiana experienced threats or incidents of swatting, according to NBC News reporting on the redistricting dispute.
Swatting involves making a false emergency report, often alleging an immediate violent threat, to prompt police to respond to another person’s home or workplace.
Such incidents can place residents and responding officers at risk because law enforcement personnel may arrive expecting an armed confrontation or other dangerous emergency.
Bray told the Times that bomb threats and death threats were directed at both his office and residence following the redistricting dispute.
The Republican lawmaker said he began varying his daily routine because of the threats, illustrating how political intimidation can affect the personal movements and professional responsibilities of elected officials.
The consequences of the redistricting dispute extended into Indiana Republican politics.
In July, Bray announced that he would not seek another term as the Senate’s president pro tempore when lawmakers select their leadership after the November election.
As reported by the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Bray said he would relinquish the leadership position but continue serving in the state Senate, where his current term runs through 2028.
His decision followed Republican primary contests in which several incumbents who opposed the redistricting proposal lost to Trump-backed challengers.
Bray cited political pressure involving threatened primary challenges against senators who might support his continued leadership.
Trump publicly criticized Bray over the redistricting vote and welcomed his decision to relinquish the leadership position.
Political criticism and election challenges are distinct from criminal threats. The Times investigation, however, documented how disputes over legislative decisions have sometimes been accompanied by threatening communications and attempts to intimidate lawmakers outside ordinary political processes.
The Indiana episode demonstrated that such incidents can occur within a political party as well as between Republicans and Democrats.
Former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia also described receiving threats against her family after publicly breaking with Trump over the release of records involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Greene, who left Congress in January 2026, said her disagreements with the president resulted in personal attacks and threatening messages targeting her relatives.
During a May appearance at the Ron Paul Institute in Texas, Greene alleged that threats had been directed at her youngest son.
According to CBS News reporting on her remarks, Greene claimed she contacted Trump about the threats and received a response holding her responsible for the situation.
She said Trump told her “that it was my fault, and I deserve it.”
Greene also alleged that the president blamed her for the threats because she had broken with him politically.
The allegations concern Greene’s account of private communications and have not been independently established through publicly released text messages.
A White House spokesperson did not confirm the alleged remarks. Davis Ingle criticized Greene in a separate response while maintaining that Trump opposes political violence.
Greene has said she retained the messages but expressed concern about releasing them publicly.
Her account illustrates how disagreements between former political allies can become entangled with threatening behavior directed at family members.
Democratic lawmakers have reported similar experiences involving their relatives and staff.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan described threats that followed a November 2025 video in which she and five other Democratic lawmakers reminded members of the armed forces that they are not obligated to obey unlawful orders.
Trump sharply criticized the video and characterized the lawmakers’ statements as seditious, prompting a public dispute over military obligations and the legality of orders issued through the chain of command.
The lawmakers argued that the video restated established principles of military law, while Trump and other critics questioned its purpose and implications.
After the video circulated, Slotkin reported receiving a wave of threats, including an incident involving her parents’ home.
According to her account, an individual made a false emergency report that resulted in police being dispatched to the residence while her father was dying of cancer.
The incident demonstrated how threats and harassment directed at politicians can affect family members who have no official role in government.
“I signed up for this, but my family and my staff did not,” Slotkin told the Times.
The senator’s comments reflected a recurring concern among officials interviewed for the investigation: Public service involves exposure to criticism and disagreement, but threats against spouses, children, parents and employees impose additional burdens.
Family members may not have the security resources available to elected officials, leaving them dependent on local police and their own protective measures.
Congressional staff also face exposure because they answer phones, monitor communications, organize public events and serve as points of contact between lawmakers and constituents.
In some cases, threatening communications arrive at district offices or are directed at employees rather than the elected officials themselves.
The Capitol Police include threats involving staff and family members in their assessments because those communications can indicate risks to the broader congressional community.
The nationwide investigation also documented threats against state officials responsible for administering elections.
More than half of the nation’s secretaries of state were affected during the two-year period examined by the Times, demonstrating that the issue extends beyond high-profile congressional and gubernatorial offices.
Secretaries of state frequently oversee voter registration systems, election certification procedures and other administrative functions that can become the subject of political disputes.
Threats against election officials have drawn particular concern because they may discourage qualified individuals from remaining in public service or create pressure around decisions governed by election law.
Election administrators often operate with smaller protective budgets than federal officials, requiring them to coordinate with state police, county sheriffs and local law enforcement agencies when threats arise.
The increasing number of incidents has led some states to expand confidentiality protections for election workers and establish procedures for reporting harassment.
Federal authorities have also pursued cases involving threats against election personnel, although the Times’ findings suggest that prosecutions represent only a fraction of reported incidents across public offices.
Investigators and legal specialists emphasize that not all threatening communications are alike.
Some cases involve explicit plans, weapons or attempts to locate a public official. Others involve statements posted online without evidence of preparation to carry out violence.
Risk assessments must account for the credibility of the person making the statement, access to weapons, the specificity of the threat and any behavior indicating movement toward an attack.
Authorities may respond to concerning conduct through interviews, warnings, referrals for mental health evaluation or other interventions even when criminal charges are not legally justified.
Those preventive measures are not fully reflected in prosecution statistics.
The relatively small number of federal cases therefore does not necessarily establish that threatening conduct is routinely ignored. It does, however, demonstrate the limits of criminal prosecution as the primary method of addressing the broader problem.
The Capitol Police have stressed that reducing threatening rhetoric is an important component of public safety.
In their annual threat assessment announcement, officials warned that some individuals appear to believe online anonymity protects them from identification or legal consequences.
Investigators continue working with digital platforms and other law enforcement agencies to identify individuals responsible for communications that may constitute criminal threats.
The agency has also expanded its ability to respond rapidly when credible information indicates a potential danger near the Capitol.
In November 2025, officers arrested a Pennsylvania man accused of threatening a member of Congress after identifying him near a Senate office building.
The Capitol Police described the arrest as an example of coordinated protective operations involving threat investigators and uniformed officers.
“We will not tolerate any threats to the Members of Congress, their families, or staff,” Sullivan said following the arrest.
“Our officers, agents, and professional staff work relentlessly to bring offenders to justice. We have a zero-tolerance stance when it comes to threats.”
The arrest illustrated how investigators can act when threatening conduct is linked to an identifiable individual whose movements suggest an immediate security concern.
However, the broader challenge remains the volume of communications requiring evaluation and the difficulty of distinguishing credible threats from protected speech.
The Times investigation also raises questions about how rising security expenses may affect political participation.
Candidates with substantial fundraising resources may be better positioned to hire professional security personnel, while challengers and candidates for lower-profile offices may face similar threats without comparable financial support.
Public events can become more expensive to organize when campaigns must arrange protective personnel, inspect venues or coordinate with law enforcement agencies.
The need for security may also change how elected officials interact with constituents, particularly at town halls, community meetings and other gatherings intended to provide direct public access.
Some lawmakers have modified event locations, reduced advance publicity or imposed additional screening procedures after receiving threats.
Those measures may improve safety but can also complicate the public’s ability to meet elected representatives and participate in political discussions.
With the midterm elections approaching, security officials face the additional challenge of protecting candidates and officeholders during an especially active period of travel, public appearances and campaign events.
The November election will determine control of Congress and numerous state offices, while political disputes over redistricting, economic policy, immigration and foreign affairs continue to generate intense debate.
The Times investigation found that threatening behavior crosses party lines and affects officials with widely differing political positions.
Its findings are supported by the Capitol Police’s official statistics, which document a sustained increase in cases involving members of Congress and their families.
The precise number of threatening incidents nationwide remains uncertain because law enforcement agencies use different reporting standards and not all threats are reported or publicly documented.
The Times’ totals therefore represent a documented minimum rather than a comprehensive accounting of every threat involving an American elected official.
What is established is that hundreds of officials have been targeted, federal threat investigations have increased substantially and candidates are spending considerably more money on protection than they did during earlier election cycles.
The combination of increasing reports, higher security costs and limited prosecution rates presents continuing challenges for Congress, state governments and law enforcement agencies.
As candidates enter the final weeks before the Nov. 3 election, the figures underscore the extent to which protecting elected officials, their families and the public has become an expanding responsibility for federal, state and local authorities.
Original article
Comments