This month alone, authorities arrested a North Carolina man with a rifle and pistol after he allegedly threatened to harm FEMA workers responding to Hurricane Helene, the Arizona Democratic Party closed a campaign office that was repeatedly struck by gunfire, and an Alaska man was arrested after vowing to “put a bullet” into the head of multiple Supreme Court justices.
These are just some of the politically charged threats or acts of violence involving guns to arise so far this election season. They follow two attempts on Donald Trump’s life in which both would-be assassins wielded semiautomatic assault-style rifles. Research shows that threats against public officials, many of which involve guns, have risen in recent years and are now routine.
“Firearms have long been a political issue in this country,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of UC Davis’s Violence Prevention Research Program. “Sadly, they too often become political actors.”
Although the political climate is volatile, in part because of the availability and lethality of firearms, it does not necessarily follow that America is actually experiencing greater political violence. By some measures, in fact, the opposite appears to be true. Violence by extremist groups and instances of them mobilizing on the streets in 2024 are on track to be at their lowest level since 2020, according to a report released last month by ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data), a nonprofit that began collecting information on extremist activity in January 2020.
Caveats are warranted. Results of such research vary based on methods of data collection and how terms like political violence are defined. As the ACLED report notes, its findings don’t mean that risks are not high. “Some of the deadliest acts of political violence in the United States were carried out by people who acted alone and were not affiliated with extremist groups,” it states. “Multiple scenarios surrounding the election could rapidly distort the current situation.”
Since the 2020 election, when Trump not only refused to honor the result but actively tried to derail the transition of power, election workers have been frequent targets. The intensity and prevalence of threats is not always tied to the election calendar or national events, but can be driven by community disputes or the latest conspiracy theory to gain traction. The problem is most acute at the local level, where the likelihood of threats coming from neighbors is highest, said Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors. “When threats and harassment are coming from within your community,” Cohen said, “those are the people that you see at church, or at the grocery store. It changes the way you view your safety.”
After the 2016 election, federal prosecutions of threats against public officials surged, said Peter Simi, a professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, who led a study of such cases, and preliminary figures suggest that 2024 could see a record number of these prosecutions.
Simi said that 76 percent of prosecuted threats mentioned a weapon. By far the most mentioned was a firearm (42 percent), followed by a bomb (31 percent), then, perhaps surprisingly, poison (8 percent). The remainder mentioned a variety of other weapons and physical combat.
For those looking to frighten public officials, the mention of a gun, and the sheer availability of firearms in America, acts as a “force multiplier,” Simi said. An official may rightly find the threat of a bullet to the head more disturbing than the threat of being punched, he said. And for law enforcement who must evaluate threats and identify the most serious ones, Simi said those involving a gun will typically demand a greater investment of investigative resources.
While more threat prosecutions does not necessarily mean there are more threats being leveled, Simi said that the country has entered a phase in which such acts occur with greater frequency. There is a heightened perception because of more attention in recent years from prosecutors, the press, and academics, Simi said, but nonetheless the phenomenon is real and growing. “Multiple sources of data indicate threats against political officials have increased in recent years,” he said. “We are in a different period than we were 10 or 15 years ago.”
The U.S. Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, for instance, has seen the number of cases it investigates rise since January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters attacked the Capitol Building. In 2019, there were 6,955 such cases; in 2023 the number grew to 8,008. Figures for this year will be available in January. In a June opinion piece, Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote that, for Justice Department officials, “heinous threats of violence have become routine.”
Since 2022, researchers at CivicPulse and Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative have regularly surveyed local leaders. They’ve found that the number who report having been threatened in the previous three months has averaged 18 percent. Initiative researchers have tracked instances of threats and harassment involving local officials for over two years. They’ve identified nearly 1,200 cases, with 9 percent involving the threat of gun violence.
Initiative researchers have interviewed more than 170 public officials as part of this effort, and found that threats involving firearms generate higher levels of concern and fear than those that don’t involve a gun. These threats can be destabilizing to local governments, researchers report, particularly when guns are displayed at public meetings and campaign events, or when they are known to be in the hands of community members suffering from mental health issues. Some officials have gotten concealed carry permits following incidents. Some have declined to take recommended firearms training as a safety measure, while others have opted for such training despite describing themselves as not being “gun people.”
In some communities, threats have led to the “securitization” of public buildings and meeting places via metal detectors, bulletproof glass, greater law enforcement presence, and active shooter training. This securitization trend is perhaps most evident in local election offices.
Cohen, the executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, said she often thinks of the animus faced by those who’ve taken work in elections offices not because they felt driven to preserve democracy, but because they needed a paycheck. “Imagine taking a job because you need a job,” Cohen said, “then spending the day answering the phone and being told you’re a traitor and a criminal and should be hanged.”
