Abstract
Across national, local, and institutional politics, a recurring pattern has emerged in which the behavior of prominent actors and the design of contemporary institutions convert ordinary public service and public participation into a personal safety hazard for the individuals involved—and, increasingly, for their families. This paper distinguishes the question of who pulls the trigger (the proximate aggressor) from the question of what conditions load the gun (the political and institutional behaviors that generate, direct, and amplify the threat). It develops a typology of threat-generating behavior, examines the displacement of hostility onto family members as a distinct and morally significant phenomenon, and traces the downstream effects—attrition, self-censorship, and the narrowing of who is willing to serve. It argues that these threats are not merely the work of unstable individuals but are, in important measure, a predictable output of how prominent figures direct attention and how institutions structure conflict. A biblicist reflection closes the paper.
1. The Question Behind the Withdrawal
A useful entry point is the one case, in an earlier controversy over musicians declining to perform at a national celebration, that did not fit the political mold. Most of the withdrawing performers offered reputational or procedural reasons. One did not: the former Poison frontman Bret Michaels cited safety concerns and online threats directed at his crew and family rather than a partisan objection. His was the only explanation that pointed past the politics of the event to a more basic fact—that taking a visible position in a charged environment now carries a credible risk to one’s physical safety and to the safety of people who never chose public life at all.
That fact deserves analysis in its own right, because it operates across the whole political system rather than within any single controversy. The question is not merely “are threats increasing?”—they are—but “what is it about the behavior of political actors and institutions that produces these threats?” The distinction matters. A threat has a proximate author: the person who sends the message, makes the call, publishes the address. But that author rarely acts in a vacuum. He is responding to attention that someone directed, operating through infrastructure that someone built, and emboldened by a climate that institutional behavior either restrains or inflames. To understand the threat is to look past the trigger to the conditions that loaded it.
2. The Empirical Landscape
The scale is not speculative. A November 2025 threat assessment described the United States as experiencing the highest levels of political violence since the 1970s amid rising domestic tensions, warning that those who protect the political process should be on high alert even during off-year elections. The phenomenon spans every tier of public life.
At the national tier, the targets are members of Congress, federal judges, and senior officials. The Capitol Police reported investigating more than double the number of threats against members of Congress compared with four years earlier, and threats against election workers escalated to the point that roughly one in six reported being threatened, with many experienced administrators leaving the job or considering it.
At the local tier, the figures are arguably more striking because the targets hold low-profile, often unpaid positions. A 2021 National League of Cities report found that 81 percent of local elected officials reported receiving threats and 87 percent observed the problem worsening. Through 2025, monitoring found that hostility among local officials remained elevated, with incident counts on pace to surpass previous yearly totals—and that this hostility is frequently intra-party, perpetrated by colleagues sharing the affected official’s own party affiliation.
At the institutional tier—the governance of schools, health systems, and other bodies that are political without being partisan in the electoral sense—the same dynamic appears. Research drawing on more than 820 survey responses from school board officials found that a growing climate of hostility threatens not only the safety of board members, their families, and students, but the basic functioning of local government, chilling community engagement and narrowing the diversity of those willing to serve. Threats against local school officials have nearly tripled since the onset of the COVID-19 period, according to the largest study of its kind. In public health, the pattern was acute: officials reported death threats, physical assault, and an armed protest in the front yard of Ohio’s then-health officer, with several resignations and many others withdrawing from public-facing roles. A study of pandemic-era departures found that more than a third of public health officials who resigned or were fired during the first eleven months reported experiencing harassment, across 256 documented departures spanning 42 states.
Two features of this landscape resist any simple partisan story. First, the aggression flows from multiple directions: a member of Congress on the right received voicemails wishing him dead and threatening his family while serving on a high-profile committee, while a mayor on the left declined to seek re-election because of threats from the opposite flank. Second, a meaningful share of threats are not ideological at all. Researchers found that many officials attributed the hostility to frustrated constituents who did not get the help they wanted and lashed out, rather than to partisan or ideological motives. Any honest framework must account for threats that come from the right, the left, intra-party rivals, and apolitical frustration alike.
3. A Typology of Threat-Generating Behavior
If the proximate aggressors are varied, the behaviors that generate and channel their aggression fall into recognizable types. Four are worth distinguishing, because they implicate different actors and call for different remedies.
The principal’s amplification. The most consequential behavior is the direction of mass attention at a named target by a figure with a large following. This mechanism is content-neutral in principle—it works the same regardless of ideology—but its effects are well documented. The Maine secretary of state and the members of the Colorado Supreme Court who ruled on a high-profile ballot question received a surge of threats after being publicly castigated in speeches and social media posts; a federal judge assigned to a politically sensitive case was targeted in an apparent swatting attempt. The prominent figure need not issue any threat. By converting an official into a villain before an audience that numbers in the millions, he ensures that some small fraction of that audience—and a small fraction of millions is a crowd—will act on the cue. The principal supplies the target and the grievance; the audience supplies the volunteers. This is the single most important behavior in the system, and the one for which prominent actors most often deny responsibility, because the chain from rhetoric to harm passes through an independent third party.
The institutional infrastructure of exposure. A threat requires a target’s coordinates, and these are increasingly easy to obtain and publish. Doxxing—the publication of a person’s home address, workplace, or family information alongside hostile messaging—has become a standard tool against election workers, public health officials, educators, and others, with school board members discussing mask policies finding their home addresses published alongside calls for violence. This is an institutional behavior in the sense that platforms, data brokers, and the broader information architecture make exposure cheap and durable. The individual who posts an address may be a lone actor, but the capacity to do so at scale is a structural feature that institutions have built and largely declined to dismantle.
The diffuse aggressor. Not every threat is orchestrated. A large share originates with individuals acting on private grievance—the frustrated constituent, the aggrieved parent, the person whose mental distress finds a political outlet. Officials themselves often attribute hostility to non-ideological frustration. This type is harder to deter because it has no organizing logic to disrupt; it is the ambient hostility of a population that has been taught, by the surrounding climate, that public officials are fair game.
Intra-institutional hostility. The least discussed type is officials threatening or intimidating one another. Monitoring has captured a male official threatening sexual violence against a female colleague over a meeting, and a county official attempting to intimidate a same-party colleague from another jurisdiction over a staffing disagreement. This matters because it shows the problem is not solely a matter of an inflamed public menacing a virtuous officialdom; the behavior is present within institutions, eroding the collegial relationships that officials themselves cite as a primary defense against external threats.
4. The Family as the Soft Target
A distinct and morally serious feature of the contemporary threat is its displacement from the official onto people who never entered public life. This is the heart of the Michaels case, and it recurs everywhere. A Central Bucks school board member resigned mid-meeting after threats against his family, declaring that families should be off-limits and that he had signed up for hostility directed at himself but not at his wife. The pregnant school board official who described being left deeply distressed by constant concern over threats illustrates the same boundary collapse: the personal toll of hostility reaches well beyond the official’s formal role.
The targeting of families is strategically rational from the aggressor’s standpoint and precisely for that reason especially corrosive. An official may have accepted personal risk as the price of service; few accept it on behalf of a spouse or child who made no such choice. Threatening the family therefore exerts maximum leverage at minimum cost, and it converts the official’s love for innocent dependents into the instrument of his coercion. It is the point at which political behavior most clearly abandons any pretense of being about policy and reveals itself as raw intimidation. That a man like the school board member quoted above will absorb abuse aimed at himself but resign instantly over abuse aimed at his wife tells us where the genuine pressure point lies—and tells the aggressor the same thing.
5. The Downstream Effect: Attrition and the Narrowing of Service
Even where threats never become violence, they accomplish something. Researchers emphasize that threats negatively affect officials regardless of whether physical harm follows, shaping behavior through fear alone. The documented consequences form a consistent pattern: officials resign, decline to seek re-election, withdraw from public-facing roles, or avoid engaging on the controversial questions most in need of responsible attention. In public health, harassment led directly to resignations and to officials playing a deliberately reduced public role. In education governance, researchers worry that harassment will drive members from service or push them to avoid controversial topics altogether.
This produces a selection effect that is more dangerous than any single incident. If the cost of holding a position is a credible risk to one’s family, the people willing to pay that cost are not a random sample of the qualified. Some of the most capable and conscientious—those with young children, those temperamentally averse to conflict, those without resources for private security—are filtered out, while those who remain are disproportionately either the unusually thick-skinned or, more troublingly, those who relish combat. The narrowing of the diversity of those willing to serve, and the erosion of institutional effectiveness that follows, is the long-run damage. A republic does not need to lose officials to assassination to be harmed; it is enough that the good ones quietly decline to serve.
6. Why Institutions Generate This Even Without Intending To
It would be comforting to locate the entire problem in a few malicious individuals. The structural reality is less comforting. Institutions generate safety threats as a byproduct of ordinary features, even absent any intent to harm.
Three mechanisms operate largely automatically. First, visibility without protection: institutions routinely thrust individuals into public prominence—a board member casting a contested vote, a health officer announcing an unpopular measure—without supplying the security that prominence now requires, so the individual bears a risk the institution created. Second, conflict without containment: many institutional processes (open meetings, public comment periods, recorded votes) are designed for transparency and accountability, virtues in themselves, but they also create repeated, personalized, on-the-record occasions for hostility to attach to a named human being rather than to an anonymous body. Third, rhetoric without ownership: leaders extract the mobilizing benefits of naming villains while disclaiming responsibility for what the mobilized do, because the causal chain runs through independent actors. Each mechanism is individually defensible; together they make the manufacture of personal danger a standing feature of normal political and institutional life.
The implication is that reducing these threats is not only a matter of catching and punishing those who make them—though the lawful authority’s duty to do exactly that is real and should not be minimized. It is also a matter of how prominent actors choose to speak, how institutions choose to protect the people they expose, and whether a culture treats the targeting of an opponent’s family as beyond the pale or as an available tactic.
7. A Biblicist Reflection
Scripture treats the deployment of fear and the threat of violence against the innocent as among the clearest marks of wickedness, and it does so without partisan qualification.
The tongue is named explicitly as the instrument. “The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity… it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature” (James 3:6). The threat-maker who never lifts a hand has already sinned with his mouth, and Scripture does not regard the threat as a lesser thing because it stops short of the blow. The Psalmist knew the particular cruelty of the smooth word that conceals a violent intent: “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords” (Psalm 55:21). And the wisdom literature warns the young man precisely against joining those who lie in wait for the innocent: “My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood” (Proverbs 1:15–16).
The displacement of hostility onto families violates a principle Scripture states with unusual directness: guilt is personal, and the innocent are not to be made to answer for another. “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16). The aggressor who threatens a man’s wife or child to coerce the man has inverted this justice entirely, punishing the innocent to reach the one he hates. There is no construction of righteousness that survives contact with that act.
Two duties follow for those who would order their conduct rightly. The first belongs to the civil authority, which Scripture explicitly arms for this purpose: the magistrate “beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:4). The lawful protection of the threatened and the punishment of the threat-maker is not optional zeal but a God-ordained function of government. The second duty belongs to everyone who speaks publicly. The one who stirs a crowd against a named person, and then disclaims what the crowd does, should weigh the warning that we give account “of every idle word” (Matthew 12:36)—how much more of words that send fear into another household. The believer is called instead to be a peacemaker (Matthew 5:9) and to leave vengeance where it belongs: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves… Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:19). A political culture that has forgotten these things will keep manufacturing danger, and the remedy that finally holds is not better security details but the recovery of the fear of God that restrains the tongue before it becomes a drawn sword. Jesus Christ made the standard plain: the condition of the heart is already visible in the words it produces, and the words that threaten the innocent testify against the one who speaks them.
8. Conclusion
The safety threats that now attend public service and public participation are not random misfortune, nor solely the work of disturbed individuals. They are, in substantial part, a predictable product of how prominent actors direct attention, how institutions expose people without protecting them, and how a culture has come to tolerate the targeting of opponents and, worse, their families. The proximate aggressor pulls the trigger, but political and institutional behavior loads it—by naming the target, publishing his coordinates, and signaling that he is fair game. The downstream cost is measured not only in the rare act of violence but in the steady attrition of decent people from public life and the narrowing of who remains willing to serve. Addressing it requires lawful protection and punishment, which Scripture and prudence both endorse; but it requires equally a change in the behavior that generates the threat in the first place—a recovery of the simple conviction, lost in much of contemporary politics, that some lines are not to be crossed whatever the provocation.
References
ABC News. (2025, November 4). “Highly volatile” threat landscape for November elections, new assessment finds. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/highly-volatile-threat-landscape-november-elections-new-assessment/story?id=127148686
Bridging Divides Initiative. (2025). Survey on threats and harassment: First quarter 2025. Princeton University. https://bridgingdivides.princeton.edu/survey-threats-and-harassment-first-quarter-2025
Bridging Divides Initiative. (2025). Mitigating threats against school board officials. Princeton University. https://bridgingdivides.princeton.edu/mitigating-threats-against-school-board-officials
Institute for Policy Research. (2025, July 8). The consequences of violence against elected officials. Northwestern University. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2025/the-consequences-of-violence-against-elected-officials.html
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2022, March 23). Harassment of public health officials widespread during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/harassment-of-public-health-officials-widespread-during-the-initial-phase-of-the-covid-19-pandemic
NetPsychology. (2026, January 19). Doxing: When your private life becomes a weapon. https://netpsychology.org/doxing-when-your-private-life-becomes-a-weapon/
OPB. (2025, July 11). Since COVID, threats to local school officials have nearly tripled, research finds. https://www.opb.org/article/2025/07/11/threats-to-local-school-officials-have-nearly-tripled-research-finds/
PBS NewsHour / Associated Press. (2023, August 12). U.S. grapples with rising threats of political violence as 2024 election looms. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-grapples-with-rising-threats-of-political-violence-as-2024-election-looms
The Washington Post. (2024, January 10). Violent political threats surge as 2024 begins. (Reprinted, Santa Fe New Mexican.) https://www.pressreader.com/usa/santa-fe-new-mexican/20240110/281676849752528
