Recruiting for Congress in the age of threats

By Michael Jones

House Democrats huddled in Northern Virginia with a collective bullishness about retaking the majority this November due to what leaders describe as the strength of their candidate class—veterans, local officials, small-business owners and others they argue are tailor-made for competitive districts in a tough GOP climate. 

But even as Democrats see a path back to power, the risks of running for office feel higher than they have in decades due to the rise in political violence. It’s an undercurrent that’s shaping recruitment in quieter ways: security concerns, family conversations, the emotional cost of public service in an era of threats and harassment.

In fact, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Recruitment Co-Chair Lauren Underwood (Ill.) told me that not only has member safety come up in conversations with potential candidates, but it has also been a factor some have cited in deciding not to run this cycle.

“This is a really dynamic threat environment that is highly visible to everyone because the threats are in the comments,” Underwood said during a Q&A with DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene (Wash.) and Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), the other DCCC Recruitment co-chair. “People will stand up at an event with weapons. It’s not hidden, and so everybody sees it. But it’s not normalized. And so I think that folks are outraged, and they want to be part of a positive solution.”

The number of threats and concerning communications aimed at lawmakers continues to rise. In 2025, the U.S. Capitol Police’s Threat Assessment Section reviewed 14,938 cases involving alarming statements or behavior directed at members of Congress, their families, staff and the Capitol complex—the third straight annual increase and a sharp jump from 9,474 cases in 2024. This compares with 8,008 cases in 2023, 7,501 in 2022, 9,625 in 2021 and 8,613 in 2020.

Lawmakers in both parties are dealing with a steady stream of threats and disturbing messages — delivered by mail, email, phone calls and, increasingly, on social media. The perceived anonymity of the internet has only fueled the problem, contributing to a rise in investigations in recent years as more people feel emboldened to say things online they might never say face to face.

The modern era of political violence against elected officials is often traced back to Jan. 6, 2021, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the 2020 election. Lawmakers were rushed into secure locations as rioters breached the building and assaulted police officers, disrupting the peaceful transfer of power and permanently altering the security posture around members of Congress.

In October 2022, the threat environment became painfully personal for congressional leaders when an intruder broke into then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home and attacked her husband, Paul Pelosi, with a hammer. The assault, which federal prosecutors described as politically motivated, underscored that threats were no longer confined to Washington—they were reaching lawmakers’ families at home.

The 2024 presidential campaign brought the danger into even sharper focus. In July 2024, a gunman opened fire at a campaign rally for Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, grazing his ear and killing an attendee before being shot by the Secret Service. Two months later, in September, authorities foiled a second alleged attempt on Trump’s life near his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida, after agents confronted an armed suspect. Both incidents prompted renewed scrutiny of campaign security and the risks facing candidates on the trail.

The violence has extended well beyond federal officials. Last June, Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, were killed in what authorities described as a targeted political attack. A state senator and his wife were also wounded in the same series of shootings. The killings rattled lawmakers across the country, many of whom already travel with heightened security concerns.

That fall, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University, another stark reminder that political figures outside elected office are also vulnerable. The attack reignited debate about security at public events and on college campuses.

Members of Congress themselves have remained direct targets. Last October, a man was arrested after allegedly making death threats against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) ahead of a public appearance in New York. The episode illustrated how online rhetoric and prior political extremism can spill over into real-world threats requiring law enforcement intervention.

And as recently as last month, Secret Service agents shot and killed an armed individual who breached the secure perimeter at Mar-a-Lago, where Trump maintains his residence. Though Trump was not on site at the time, the incident reinforced the persistent and evolving risks surrounding high-profile political figures.

Capitol Police leaders say they are responding by expanding coordination with local authorities nationwide, particularly to protect lawmakers outside Washington. Chief Michael Sullivan said the department has strengthened partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the country to help ensure members are secure in their home districts.

That effort has accelerated: the number of formal agreements between Capitol Police and local departments has more than tripled in 2025, growing from roughly 115 agencies to more than 350. Those agreements create a framework for cooperation and allow Capitol Police to reimburse local departments that provide security support.

The department has also expanded its 24/7 Protective Intelligence Operations Center, launched in 2024, to process safety reports and work directly with the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms. Officials say increased outreach has led to more reporting from the congressional community, reflecting both heightened vigilance and a sustained threat environment.

House leaders have extended—and significantly expanded—a Member Security Program designed to help members protect themselves and their families. Under the current framework, members can access up to $20,000 per month for personal security services—double the original $10,000 pilot cap—to hire licensed, insured private security personnel.

House Administration Committee Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) helped develop the initial pilot program and later worked across the aisle with Committee Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and party leadership to double the monthly allowance as the threat environment intensified.

In addition to the monthly stipend, members are eligible for up to $150,000 in security upgrades for their primary residences, covering equipment, installation, monitoring, and maintenance. The program also allows for reimbursement of local law enforcement agencies that provide protective services while members are in their home districts. The initiative is administered by the House Sergeant at Arms, who can coordinate direct payments or reimbursements. Members can also request travel-related security coordination, including airport escorts through the U.S. Capitol Police and partner agencies.

Capitol Police leadership suggests reducing violent political rhetoric is one of the best ways to reduce threats nationwide. And while it’s on all Americans to do their part, most would agree that elected officials play  an outsized role in lowering the temperature in our politics.

But President Trump, the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, has shown little interest in unifying the nation, as proven by last week’s State of the Union address and a message he posted to his Truth Social app on Monday.

In the post, Trump lashed out at Democrats for criticizing the U.S. and Israeli strike on Iran, arguing they opposed the action only because he ordered it. He claimed that had he chosen not to carry out the attack, those same critics would have demanded he act immediately.

He went on to accuse Democrats of reflexively opposing him no matter what he does, referencing their refusal to stand during moments at his recent State of the Union address honoring victims and veterans. Trump described his political opponents as “sick” and “crazy,” and framed their criticism as further proof that they are disconnected from the country. He closed by asserting that America is stronger than ever under his leadership.

Still, DelBene told me that it’s precisely because of the threat Democratic candidates view Trump to be that they’re willing to take the risk that comes with running for office.

“We’ve had great people sign up because they know what’s at stake. And kind of like 2018, we saw a lot of great candidates step up too because they felt a patriotic calling to make a difference for their country,” she told me. “And I think we’re seeing that in folks who are running today being aware of all these things.”

Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.