E-mail us
Defending Democracy: The Urgent Need to Protect Public Officials
Matthew Parker, CEO, ISA
Independent Security Advisors Defending Democracy Initiative
Introduction
As threats and acts of violence against elected officials mount, a pressing question stands out: Why has action lagged so far behind the evidence and expert recommendations? Recent events, including the July 13, 2024 shooting of a former president, underscore the reality that danger is not hypothetical—it is here, growing, and shaping the way democracy functions. Drawing on reporting, analysis, and firsthand experience from the Independent Security Advisors Defending Democracy Initiative (ISA DDI), this document brings together incident histories, data, and practical recommendations to make clear why protecting public officials is not simply a matter of individual safety but a democratic imperative.
The Escalating Threat: Incidents, Evidence, and Impact
A Troubling Timeline
History is full of warnings we haven’t heeded. In 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot at a public event. In 2017, Congressman Steve Scalise was nearly killed during a baseball practice. The January 6, 2021, insurrection marked a new peak in extremist intimidation targeting public officials. Paul Pelosi, husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked in his home in 2022 by a conspiracy-driven assailant. In 2024, the shooting of a former president at a rally triggered a spike in threats nationwide, with local officials, poll workers, and judges increasingly targeted.
These are not isolated incidents. They are signs of a disturbing trend: threats and violence are increasingly common, and they’re changing who is willing to serve, how officials vote, and whether the democratic process can function without coercion.
Threats Shape the Work of Democracy
The reality is that legislative outcomes now hinge on the physical safety of our representatives. Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney’s 2021 admission that colleagues refrained from voting to impeach the president because of concern for their personal safety is telling. In a Senate where a single vote can determine the fate of landmark legislation, even one official forced into absence by threats puts democracy itself at risk.
This is not a theoretical concern. The Health Care Freedom Act (“Skinny Repeal”) failed 49-51 in 2017, its outcome determined by the votes of just three Senators. Had even one Senator been absent—due to threats, illness, or intimidation—the course of national policy would have changed. In another example, Rep. Frederica S. Wilson felt compelled to skip votes and remain under protection in her home district following a wave of threats after sparring with President Trump. These stories highlight a new reality: threats to officials translate into gaps in governance, holes in the legislative fabric, and a weakened democracy.
Quantifying the Threat
Data paints an even starker picture. A 2023 Brennan Center for Justice study found that 75% of surveyed public officials said threats had increased in recent years; fully one-third had personally experienced abuse, harassment, or threats related to their role. By mid-2024, the Bridging Divides Initiative tallied over 320 “threat and harassment events” in 40 states and D.C.—an 87% increase from 2022. In January 2024, the Brennan Center reported that 43% of state legislators and 18% of local officeholders had experienced threats, with 40% of state legislators reporting threats or attacks in just the last three years.
The Changing Nature of Threats
A decade of data from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point shows that ideologically motivated threats have risen sharply, from 24% in 2013 to 58% in 2022. These threats are driven by anti-government extremism, racism, single-issue fanaticism, and conspiracy theories. The attack on Paul Pelosi in 2022 was emblematic: an assailant radicalized by conspiracy theories acted on the belief that violence was morally justified.
These aren’t mere “nuisance” incidents. They’re credible, frequent, and increasingly likely to escalate into violence. The climate of fear is so pervasive that elected officials—whose very job is to represent the public—are often forced to choose between their safety and fulfilling their duties.
A Crisis of Confidence
Peter Simi, co-author of the CTC report, notes that these threats reflect declining confidence in American institutions and deepening political division. As trust erodes, angry rhetoric escalates, and “enemies” become dehumanized targets. Social media amplifies these dynamics, and post-election periods—2016, 2020, and likely 2024—see the highest spikes in violence.
You have to ask yourself “are we really at this point where our democracy and our liberty and our humanity have become endangered or weaponized”
Matthew Parker, CEO, ISA
Systemic Barriers: Rhetoric vs. Action
**Despite the escalating threat, a disturbing pattern of systemic inaction continues. As far back as January 2021, thirty House Members alerted leadership, identifying themselves as “targets” and requesting enhanced security measures.
- Local law enforcement agencies, frequently hampered by insufficient funding and staffing, often lack the necessary resources and specialized training for dignitary protection.
- The utilization of private security firms, when it occurs, is often undermined by inadequate coordination with law enforcement and the absence of clearly defined standards.
- While recent congressional rules have provisions for security expenditures, significant gaps persist due to a lack of robust oversight, specific requirements, and comprehensive training protocols.**
Self Inflicted Barriers: Complacency
The reluctance of some officials to accept security only compounds the problem. As Matthew Parker, CEO of ISA, notes, “I fear some members of Congress will continue to voice the same old tired nonsense of ‘I’m just like everyone else, I don’t need security’ and thus will continue to endanger our democracy.” Elected officials are not “just like everyone else”—they are critical pieces in the machinery of government, symbols of democracy, and their absence leaves a hole in the nation’s fabric.
The Private Security Dilemma
**As Congress considers changes to allow the hiring of private security, some senior members of the administration have retained private security details that are often deputized, giving them some authority and access. While the private security market is eager, Parker warns that “for many it’s all about the money, and there is no concern for the safety and integrity of our democratic process.” He insists that if private security is to play a role, it must be accompanied by mandatory training, licensing, and vetting, and that elected officials must recognize their responsibility to ensure their own safety for the sake of their constituents and the nation.**
What Should Security Look Like?
Questions remain about the best way to secure officials, especially in their home districts: Should it be local or state law enforcement, National Guard teams, or private security? ISA’s experience training local, state, and private security agents suggests that with proper resources, equipment, and training, both police and private agents can do the job well. However, the private security industry, in general, is not ready to provide close protection at a national level without new rigorous standards.
Recommendations: What Needs To Change
- Standardize and Fund Security Measures
Congress, states, and local governments must clarify and expand the authority for officials to use public funds for security—not just at official events but also at home and during travel. Security protocols and spending should be standardized, with oversight and clear requirements for training and experience. - Professionalize Protection
State and local law enforcement should receive accredited, ongoing executive protection training and assign dedicated protective details, not ad hoc security, based on credible threat assessments. - Intelligence and Coordination
Agencies must improve intelligence sharing at all levels—federal, state, local, and private—and threat assessments should be dynamic, factoring in ideological triggers, public events, and local context. - Legislative and Cultural Change
Recognize threats as real, not as a “nuisance,” and treat them as a direct threat to democratic participation. Elected officials must accept that their safety is not just a personal issue, but a matter of national interest.
The Role of Training and Advocacy
Since 2012, ISA’s Defending Democracy Initiative has trained over 600 law enforcement officers in dignitary and executive protection, helping agencies respond effectively to the evolving threat landscape. ISA provides accredited, law enforcement-approved executive protection training to the public and private sectors. The Initiative delivers these courses directly to agencies and departments, preparing them to provide the close protection required to keep democracy functioning.
Conclusion: The Cost of Inaction
The evidence is overwhelming: threats to public officials have risen dramatically, are increasingly ideologically motivated, and are already affecting the functioning of our democracy. If we do not act—by funding and professionalizing protection, standardizing protocols, and rejecting complacency—we risk losing capable public servants, deterring new candidates, and allowing violence and intimidation to shape the course of our government.
Elected officials, for all their reluctance, must recognize their role as more than individuals—they are symbols of democracy. Their safety is our shared responsibility. As the Speaker of the House said after the shooting of Rep. Scalise, “an attack on one member of Congress is an attack on all of us.”
As another contentious election season approaches, the window for proactive, meaningful change is closing. The time has come to move from analysis and recommendations to real, well-funded action.
Protecting public officials is about more than personal safety. It is about defending the very foundation of our democracy. Matthew Parker, CEO, ISA
Sources and citations
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/rising-threats-to-public-officials-a-review-of-10-years-of-federal-data/
https://bridgingdivides.princeton.edu/UnderstandingThreats
https://bridgingdivides.princeton.edu/
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/intimidation-state-and-local-officeholders
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/local-officials-threats-harassment-data-rcna146063
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/01/princeton-threats-officials-elections-harassment
#defendingdemocracy, #executiveprotection, #executiveprotectiontraining, #defendingdemocracyinitiative