The latest analysis from the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute documents a worrying trend: persistent threats and organized harassment are changing who feels able to stand for elected office. Based on responses from more than 200 candidates across over 40 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, the study finds that fear of harm is not an occasional problem but a common calculation before and during campaigns. The report frames this phenomenon as more than isolated incidents, describing it as a force that alters decisions about candidacy and participation in civic life.
The study focuses on a broad set of races, from local school boards to statewide contests, and highlights how these pressures disproportionately affect certain groups. In particular, candidates who identify as trans, genderqueer, nonbinary, gender non-conforming, and two-spirit, as well as many candidates of color, report higher levels of concern and direct targeting. These patterns suggest that the risks are not uniform, and that intersectional identities often attract greater hostility, compounding existing barriers to political participation.
Scope and core findings
The survey reveals striking statistics that underscore the depth of the problem: nearly nine out of ten respondents worried that running would raise their exposure to harassment or attacks, and almost four in five feared the possibility of physical violence. These pre-run anxieties often proved justified once campaigns began. Roughly two-thirds of candidates experienced in-person hate or harassment while campaigning, and an even larger share reported online abuse—sometimes on a weekly basis. The study highlights the rise of political violence as a predictable hazard rather than a rare occurrence.
Who faces the greatest risks
Disaggregated findings make clear which communities are most targeted: transgender and gender-diverse candidates and candidates of color face elevated rates across nearly every measure of hostility. In-person death threats were reported by 14% of respondents, while 33% received death threats online. These disturbing figures point to coordinated or repeat targeting, not just isolated harassment. The report emphasizes that such threats have a chilling effect on candidacy decisions and on how elected hopefuls engage with voters.
Forms of intimidation and digital harms
Harms are multifaceted: from hostile encounters at public events to amplified abuse through social media channels. Digital platforms have become common venues for threats, doxxing, and organized campaigns of intimidation, increasing pressure on candidates and their teams. The study notes that online harassment often escalates into real-world threats, creating a continuous security concern that candidates must reckon with while trying to run effective campaigns and maintain voter outreach.
Consequences for campaigns and democratic health
Beyond physical danger, the human cost is substantial. Nearly two-thirds of candidates said harassment negatively affected their mental health, and about one in ten described that impact as severe. Respondents recounted seeking counseling and living with long-term symptoms such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress. The emotional toll undermines campaign capacity, volunteer retention, and sustained engagement with constituents, eroding the conditions necessary for robust democratic representation.
Behavioral and financial impacts
Threats force tactical changes: 28% of candidates avoided door-to-door canvassing after experiencing threats, and 27% scaled back social media interaction. Those changes reduce voter contact and hinder grassroots momentum. Financially, safety becomes a line item many campaigns struggle to afford. Only one in ten candidates could pay for private security, shifting limited fundraising away from traditional campaign needs. As a result, candidates with fewer resources or smaller donor networks are particularly disadvantaged, reinforcing inequities in who can safely seek office.
Recommendations and next steps
The report offers both immediate and systemic remedies. It argues that mental health support and security resources are part of the essential infrastructure of democratic participation, calling for sustained investment in candidate safety, accessible mental health care, and dedicated funding for protection that does not depend on personal wealth or political connections. Leadership from organizations and public institutions is urged to make these services routine parts of campaign planning and civic support.
Looking forward, the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute plans to expand safety programming and its mental health initiative in 2026, while acknowledging that the demand for services outstrips current capacity. Advocates recommend a coordinated response involving funders, parties, civic tech platforms, and community groups to reduce risks and restore pathways into public service. When LGBTQ+ leaders can run without fear, their communities benefit from fuller and fairer representation; when violence drives candidates away, democracy itself is weakened.