Are public officials facing greater danger today than before?
Getting a handle on whether the latest wave of threats against public officials is historically anomalous is challenging, experts say.
Being the president of the United States may come with inherent risks to life and limb. But what if you’re the district court judge in a county judge in New Mexico or a school board member in suburban Virginia?
Political violence may have historically been reserved for the most prominent public officials, but in recent years, threats have been documented across all facets of government. There have been three assassination attempts on President Donald Trump’s life since 2024. This month, Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan requested more funding for the court’s security, with Kagan noting during congressional testimony that the court’s police anticipate a 38% increase in violent threats this year. That follows a 28% increase in 2025, she said.
Those data points are certainly indicative of a trend. But getting a handle on whether this latest wave of threats against public officials is historically anomalous is challenging, not least because perceptions of what constitutes threatening behavior has evolved, said Kevin Drakulich, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern, who studies the politics of crime.
“I think political violence is up, but it’s not always clear,” Drakulich told Northeastern Global News.
Editor’s Picks
As talk of political violence fills the airwaves and reports of incidents fuel perceptions of a nation growing more dangerous, experts say the reality is increasingly difficult to ascertain.
Some measures show the dangers are increasing. This year’s annual threat assessment by the U.S. Capitol Police, the force charged with protecting members of Congress and the Capitol complex, noted that cases of what it classifies as “concerning statements, behaviors and communications” against U.S. lawmakers, their families and staff have risen for the third straight year.
Congressional police also say they’ve investigated a staggering 14,938 threats directed at lawmakers and their inner circles, which is up 58% from 9,474 in 2024 and 87% from 8,008 in 2023. Drakulich acknowledged the sharp increase in threat assessment cases as reported by the U.S. Capitol Police, but noted that those figures may misrepresent the reality.
For instance, the agency recently expanded its reporting and enforcement, tripling its formal agreements with local law enforcement agencies and beefing up its protective intelligence operations. On the surface, the data paint a portrait of rising violence when in fact they may only reflect recent improvements in identifying threats, Drakulich said.
“The problem is that we don’t have really good numbers on crime, and the best numbers we have are from those who are charged with preventing and doing something about it,” Drakulich said.
That fact has dogged criminologists, who otherwise agree that — at least anecdotally and perceptually — public officials today appear to face a more hostile environment than in years past. Social media has contributed to that, amplifying both the visibility of threats and the public’s perception of them; but also opening up new channels through which threats can be communicated, Drakulich said.
The Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan public policy and legal think tank, offers another look at the threat environment. Unlike the congressional police data, the think tank has conducted periodic surveys of local, state and federal officials to track their own experiences and perceptions of the dangers they face on the job.
Since the annual surveys began in 2021, the Brennan Center has found that threats, harassment and abuse of local election officials have remained persistently widespread — but not necessarily on the rise. They noted in 2024 that fears, combined with threats or actual violence, “is fueling an exodus from the field.”
According to a 2026 survey of local politicians conducted by the think tank, roughly one in three local officeholders had experienced “threats, harassment or abuse” because of their jobs, and 52% said they were concerned about the safety of their colleagues.
Their concern is not without merit. Following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning the landmark abortion rights ruling of Roe v. Wade, an armed man traveled from California to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home in an attempt to assassinate him. The court then took steps to expand its residential security and threat assessment activities amid a rise in personal threats against the justices, Kagan said.
Northeastern Global News, in your inbox.
Sign up for NGN’s daily newsletter for news, discovery and analysis from around the world.
From violence directed at a Sandoval County Judge to death threats leveled at a school board in Loudoun County, Virginia, even local officials are finding themselves in the crosshairs.
What might be motivating violent actors?
Jack McDevitt, a criminologist and former director of Northeastern’s Institute on Race and Justice, sees the issue from a hate crimes framework. The psychology that underlies political violence is similar to the dynamics that fuel hate, he said.
McDevitt, whose research has long focused on hate crimes and bias-motivated violence, said political leaders or movements scapegoat vulnerable communities or perceived enemies, which in turn fuels violence against racial, religious and ethnic minorities.
McDevitt’s thinking is broadly consistent with the way federal authorities approach targeted violence. Guidance and prevention efforts from the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Department of Homeland Security emphasize that many attacks grow out of personal or ideological grievances that become focused on a perceived enemy.
“One of the things that has happened recently is that we’re seeing politicians and policymakers start to get included in that grievance-based, hate-based worldview,” McDevitt said.
