Escalating Political Violence and Rising Threat Levels Drive Fivefold Increase in Federal Campaign Security Spending Since 2016

The 2024 election cycle has marked a watershed moment in the financial landscape of American politics, characterized not only by record-breaking donations but by a staggering surge in expenditures dedicated to personal and digital security. According to a comprehensive new report released on Thursday by the Security Project at the nonpartisan Public Service Alliance, federal campaign and political action committee (PAC) spending on security measures has increased more than fivefold compared to the figures recorded ahead of the 2016 election. This dramatic rise reflects a deteriorating safety environment for public servants, where violent threats against candidates, officeholders, and their families have become a pervasive and expensive reality across all levels of government.

Justin Sherman, the interim vice president of the Security Project and the report’s primary author, characterizes the rising costs as a significant barrier to public service. The financial burden of addressing these threats is no longer a marginal concern but a central budgetary line item that can create immense pressure, particularly for challengers and candidates without established fundraising machines. The core of the issue, as Sherman notes, is that the fundamental right to run for office is increasingly being weighed against the physical safety of the individual and their household.

The Financial Toll of Personal Safety

The Public Service Alliance report, which analyzed a decade of spending data tracked by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), provides a granular look at how political organizations are pivoting to meet new threats. While the most visible expenditures are often related to physical security at large-scale campaign rallies and public events, the most rapid growth has occurred in less visible sectors: digital defense and residential protection.

According to the data, spending on digital security—which includes services such as personal data deletion from the open web and 24/7 online threat monitoring—has skyrocketed. In the 2023–2024 election cycle, campaigns and committees spent just over $900,000 on these services. By comparison, during the 2015–2016 cycle, that figure stood at approximately $184,000. This represents a nearly 400 percent increase in just eight years, illustrating the degree to which "doxxing" and online harassment have transitioned from internet nuisances to legitimate physical security risks.

Similarly, the cost of securing the private residences of candidates has seen a marked uptick. Expenditures for home alarm systems, perimeter fencing, and motion-sensor surveillance doubled between the 2017–2018 cycle and the 2023–2024 cycle, rising from $130,000 to over $300,000. These figures, while significant, likely underrepresent the true cost of security, as federal reporting requirements for "security" remain broad and often lack the specificity needed to distinguish between proactive upgrades and reactive emergency measures.

A Decade of Escalating Threats: 2015 to 2025

The surge in spending is a direct response to a measurable increase in hostility toward public officials. Research conducted by the Public Service Alliance found that reported threats against the families of public servants increased by an astronomical 3,700 percent between 2015 and 2025. This trend is corroborated by public sentiment; a 2025 survey from the Pew Research Center revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans, across the political spectrum, agree that politically motivated violence is on the rise.

The localized data is even more concerning. An investigation by the Minnesota Star Tribune recently highlighted the rapid deterioration of safety for state-level officials. In 2024, the Minnesota State Capitol reported 18 security incidents involving workers. By 2025, that number had jumped to 92. The trend showed no signs of slowing in the following year, with 45 incidents recorded in just the first two months of 2026. This data suggests that the threat environment is not a temporary spike tied to a single election cycle but a sustained shift in the political culture of the United States.

The Minnesota Tragedy: A Catalyst for Reform

The human cost of this escalating violence reached a breaking point in Minnesota during the summer of 2025. The political community was devastated by a targeted shooting that claimed the lives of Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. The gunman, who was later found to have maintained detailed notes containing the names and home addresses of several lawmakers, also targeted and shot State Senator John Hoffman and his wife on the same night.

In the wake of this tragedy, survivors and colleagues have turned toward legislative remedies to prevent future violence. State Senator Bonnie Westlin, who was among those targeted in the gunman’s notes, has partnered with Senator Hoffman to introduce a bill aimed at shielding the personal information of candidates.

"It sort of breaks my heart that we’ve reached a point where running for office in some cases has meant risking your life," Westlin said in a recent interview. "That’s not what public service should include. We’re all here to do the work for our communities and our state."

The proposed legislation in Minnesota seeks to remove candidates’ home addresses from public versions of campaign filings. By redacting this information, lawmakers hope to disrupt the ability of bad actors to stalk or harass public figures. Furthermore, the bill would ensure that money spent on home security upgrades would not count toward a campaign’s official spending limits, removing the financial "penalty" for candidates who must prioritize their safety.

Legislative Action at the State Level: Utah’s Proactive Approach

Minnesota is not alone in its pursuit of legislative safeguards. In Utah, State Senator Mike McKell has been a vocal advocate for modernizing election laws to reflect current security needs. McKell, who has served in the Utah legislature for 14 years while maintaining a private law practice, has witnessed the escalation of political violence firsthand. He reported that his own law office has been vandalized, while colleagues have dealt with slashed tires and home vandalism.

McKell successfully championed an election law that clarifies the legal use of campaign funds for security. Under the new Utah statute, candidates and officeholders are explicitly permitted to use campaign donations to purchase security systems for their homes, private offices, and places of business. This is particularly relevant in states like Utah, which operate with a part-time legislature, meaning lawmakers often spend a significant amount of time in non-governmental settings that lack the inherent security of a capitol building.

"The part about my bill that I hate the most is the part about security," McKell stated, "but it’s because we need it, and because it’s been a problem in the state of Utah."

The Role of the National Conference of State Legislatures

As states grapple with these challenges individually, national organizations are stepping in to provide structural support. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recently launched a dedicated fund to assist states in providing personal security resources for their lawmakers.

Katie Zeigler, the NCSL’s associate director of outreach and engagement, noted that the fund is designed to be strictly nonpartisan. To ensure fairness, the money must be provided equally to every lawmaker within a state, regardless of their political affiliation. These funds can be utilized for a variety of protective measures, including privacy monitoring services to scrub personal data from the internet and self-defense training for lawmakers and their staff.

According to Helen Brewer, a senior policy specialist at the NCSL, only a handful of states currently have laws that explicitly authorize the use of campaign funds for security. However, as the "uptick in threats and incidents" continues to affect both sides of the aisle, Brewer expects more states to follow the lead of Utah and Minnesota.

Transparency Gaps in Federal Election Commission Data

One of the primary challenges in addressing the security crisis is the lack of detailed data. Justin Sherman of the Security Project points out that current FEC reporting requirements are insufficient for a modern threat environment. When campaigns file disbursement forms, they are only required to provide a brief, often vague description of the purchase.

This lack of detail makes it difficult for analysts to determine if security spending is proactive—such as a candidate hiring a detail because of general concerns—or reactive, occurring after a specific threat or act of violence has already taken place. Without clearer data, policymakers may struggle to identify which types of security measures are most effective and where the greatest vulnerabilities lie.

The ambiguity in FEC data also masks the true cost of the "security tax" on modern campaigns. For many smaller campaigns, the cost of digital monitoring or physical guards can siphon off funds that would otherwise be used for voter outreach, advertising, or staff salaries. This creates a systemic disadvantage for candidates who do not have the personal wealth to cover security costs or the high-profile status to attract large-scale PAC support for protection.

Broader Impact on the Democratic Process

The implications of this spending surge extend far beyond campaign balance sheets. Experts warn that the normalization of political violence and the subsequent need for high-level security may fundamentally alter the nature of American democracy.

First, there is the risk of "candidate attrition." If the price of entry for public service includes constant threats to one’s family and the necessity of living behind security fences, many qualified individuals—particularly those with young families or limited financial resources—may opt out of running for office altogether. This could lead to a political class that is less representative of the general public.

Second, the physical barriers required for safety can diminish the accessibility of elected officials. The "town hall" tradition, where constituents can engage directly with their representatives, is increasingly being replaced by controlled environments and virtual events due to safety concerns. This creates a physical and psychological distance between the governed and those who govern.

Finally, the shift toward digital security highlights a new era of political warfare where personal data is weaponized. As long as data brokers continue to sell the home addresses and personal details of public servants, the cycle of spending on data deletion services will likely continue to grow, creating a permanent new expense for anyone seeking to serve in the public eye.

As the 2024 cycle concludes and the 2026 and 2028 cycles loom, the data from the Public Service Alliance serves as a sobering reminder of the current state of the American political landscape. The fivefold increase in security spending is not merely a financial statistic; it is a barometer of the rising temperature of the nation’s political discourse and a call to action for legislative and institutional reforms to protect the individuals who facilitate the democratic process.