INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

The Hidden Threats Facing State and Local Public Officials

New research finds harassment and threats are common for mayors and legislative staff across party lines

Headline-grabbing events like the derailment of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in April by an alleged gunman typically prompt national debates and concerns about the escalation of political violence.

While incidents like this often bring the issue into renewed focus, recently released research shows that at the local and state levels, threats of political violence are pervasive among officials and staff from both political parties and often take place out of public view.

“This is a major problem,” said IPR political scientist and associate director Laurel Harbridge-Yong, who co-authored two reports examining the prevalence of harassment, threats, and violence targeting mayors and state legislative staff. “It is much more widespread than the high-profile incidents people might think about.”

The rapid research reports, co-authored by Alexandra Filindra of the University of Illinois Chicago and John Cluverius of the University of Massachusetts Lowell, also asked mayors and state legislative staffers about what they believe is driving the hostility and ways to enhance their safety and wellbeing.

The findings draw on nationwide surveys from more than 2,000 mayors and other top municipal leaders and over 700 civil servants working for state legislatures from across the political spectrum.

A majority of those working for state legislators reported receiving either verbal, written, or digital threats over the course of their careers, and about 60% were aware of communications threatening their boss. Likewise, over 60% of mayors have been threatened, and one-quarter of municipal leaders say their families have been targeted. 

While physical violence is not as common, many threats are alarming enough to involve law enforcement. About two-thirds of legislative staff, regardless of whether they worked for Republican or Democratic lawmakers, and nearly 60% of mayors said they had notified the police about a troubling incident.

“That’s a lot of people dealing with serious kinds of problems in their interactions with the public,” Harbridge-Yong said.

Although survey participants identified partisan disagreements as a factor fueling threats and violence, they indicate a more surprising cause is also at the root of the animosity—a gap between citizens’ expectations and what an elected official is able to provide.

A majority of mayors pointed to “people seeking constituency services who do not understand how government works” as the most common driver of threats and violence.

“I think what a lot of our officials are facing,” Harbridge-Yong said, “is people who are not mad at them for something they're doing as a Democrat or a Republican, but who are mad at them because government is not working the way that they want government to work. It is not responding to their needs and their concerns.” 

She says some people may be confused about which level of government is responsible for a particular policy, law, or service, and this could contribute to misdirected anger.

Survey respondents additionally reported that instances of threats and violence can involve constituents with behavioral health issues in need of government assistance. However, Harbridge-Yong emphasizes that people with behavioral health concerns are not inherently violent. Rather, when someone is in crisis, it can lead to volatile situations.

There is broad bipartisan agreement in the surveys that social media and partisan rhetoric are also feeding political threats and violence. This finding aligns with the spread of misinformation on social media and a wider sense of weakening standards of civility.

“Social media has made it easier to communicate between elected officials and the public, but it also means people feel this level of anonymity,” Harbridge-Yong said. “They might do or say things that they would not do to someone’s face.”

Many legislative and mayoral offices have taken steps to protect themselves, such as installing silent alarms, but there is bipartisan consensus that more should be done. For example, large majorities of those surveyed support precautions like de-escalation training, receiving a comprehensive threat assessment plan, and keeping a candidate’s home address private. Most also approve of public funding for alarms and cameras at an official’s home.

Harbridge-Yong says opposing political parties could work together on bipartisan safety solutions. But, she adds, some leaders might hesitate to draw attention to measures like added security details because critics could accuse them of self-dealing.

“I think most people in the public would agree that this extent of threats and violence against elected officials is not okay,” Harbridge-Yong said. “So if the public better understands the scope of the problem, they may be more understanding of politicians enacting policies to protect themselves and their staff.”

Solutions should also address the underlying causes of threats and violence, Harbridge-Yong says, like reducing demonizing partisan rhetoric. To help mitigate hostility related to constituents’ unmet expectations of elected officials, more structural changes may be needed.

“Is it that we need more capacity in our elected offices so that they can actually address the concerns that people have?” Harbridge-Yong said. “Or is part of the solution about helping people better understand what government actually can and can’t do, and what level of government can and can’t do what?”

Laurel Harbridge-Yong is professor of political science, IPR associate director, and an IPR fellow.

Photo credit: iStock / Onfokus

Published: September 28, 2026.