Threats, harassment and violence are reshaping LGBTQ+ political campaigns nationwide, deterring candidates and altering how they run, a new report finds.
A sweeping new study of LGBTQ+ political candidates shows a rising tide of intimidation that is endangering those who run for office, negatively affecting campaign behavior and, potentially, democratic representation itself.
The report, “Threats on the Trail,” was developed by Loyola Marymount University for the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, a nonprofit that trains and supports LGBTQ+ individuals seeking public office.
The group is affiliated with, but legally separate from, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, a political action committee that endorses and financially backs LGBTQ+ candidates.
Speaking in Fall 2025 with 215 such candidates across 42 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., who ran for office between 2023 and 2025, researchers found that political violence has become a defining feature of many campaigns.
“This report makes clear that political violence is not just increasing — it is reshaping who feels able to run for office in the first place,” LGBTQ+ Victory Institute President and CEO Evan Low said in a statement. “No one should have to choose between serving their community and protecting their own safety.”
Fear, harassment and threats reshape campaigns
Nearly 9 in 10 survey respondents said they worried running as an openly LGBTQ+ person would increase their risk of harassment or attack. About 4 in 5 feared physical violence.
Those concerns were especially pronounced among bisexual and queer candidates, as well as among non-cisgender candidates, individuals whose gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth. More than three-quarters of respondents believed they faced greater danger than their non-LGBTQ+ peers, particularly women, non-cisgender candidates, candidates of color and those running in suburban or rural districts.
Harassment was widespread. Close to two-thirds of respondents said they experienced in-person provocation, while nearly 8 in 10 reported online abuse, often regularly. Some candidates said they avoided reading online comments altogether, relying on staff to filter content. Others said they no longer posted real-time updates while canvassing, fearing being targeted.
One transgender candidate described being warned to avoid schools due to threats tied to their identity. Another candidate said they relied on their Campaign Manager to shield them from online vitriol to protect their mental health.
Threats frequently escalated beyond harassment. One in 3 candidates reported receiving death threats online, and 1 in 7 experienced them in person, with 1 in 20 saying such threats occurred at least weekly.
Image via LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.
Non-cisgender and queer candidates — with “queer” often used as an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities — reported the highest rates of online death threats, while candidates in suburban, rural and Republican-leaning districts were more likely to face in-person threats.
And some incidents were severe. One described receiving a message targeting their child with graphic threats. Another said an anti-LGBTQ+ neighbor shot at their home. Florida Politics could not find reporting of the incident by press time.
Daniel Hernández, Vice President of Political Programs at LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and a former Arizona lawmaker who is credited with helping to save former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords life after she was shot in the head in 2011, said the findings reflect lived experience.
“From surviving gun violence to having my own campaign office targeted, I know how real these threats are and how deeply they affect candidates, their teams, and their families,” he said. “This report makes clear the stakes are higher than ever.”
Campaigning under constraint and unequal burdens
Safety concerns are forcing candidates to fundamentally change how they campaign.
More than half of the candidates said they adjusted their activities due to safety fears, and nearly 1 in 5 described the impact as significant.
More than two-thirds said they avoided door-to-door canvassing or scaled back social media engagement, while 20% skipped public events or forums. Seventeen percent avoided parades or marches, and 7% declined media interviews to avoid drawing additional attention.
Image via LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.
Some described installing security cameras, paying for surveillance and limiting public appearances. Others stopped going out in public altogether after being threatened.
Despite the risks, fewer than 1 in 10 candidates said they could afford private security, which grew scarier for many of them as others close to them were targeted. Seventy-nine percent reported threats against friends or family, and nearly 60% said colleagues or other elected officials had faced aggression.
One in 3 LGBTQ+ candidates felt they lacked adequate support — a figure that rose to 43% among non-cisgender candidates and 42% among candidates of color. Many relied solely on local law enforcement for protection.
Candidates also faced persistent rhetorical attacks. Half said they were labeled “radical” for supporting LGBTQ+ rights, 45% were accused of undermining traditional values, nearly 40% faced claims they were harmful to children and 38% reported moral or religious attacks.
Image via LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.
Roughly 1 in 4 said they faced transgender-related attacks, and a similar share said their families were weaponized against them.
Sixteen percent said they were dismissed as “single-issue” candidates for being openly LGBTQ+ and/or including equal rights as a platform priority.
The resultant toll was significant. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said the attacks harmed their mental health, with some reporting lasting psychological effects.
Elliot Imse, Executive Director of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, called the findings “a systemic challenge to participation.”
“When candidates are forced to change their behavior, limit public engagement, or reconsider running altogether because of safety concerns, that’s not just a personal issue — it’s a breakdown in the conditions required for a healthy democracy,” he said.
Representation, resilience and what comes next
The report’s findings come against the backdrop of limited LGBTQ+ representation in public office.
According to the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute’s most recent data, about 0.26% of U.S. elected officials are openly LGBTQ+ — an infinitesimal share compared to the 7.6% of Americans who identify today as LGBTQ+.
In the 2024 election cycle, the organization tracked 1,017 openly LGBTQ+ candidates, 495 of whom won. By comparison, an estimated 315,000 to 500,000 candidates run for office in a typical even-numbered election year across all levels of government.
More than half of respondents said they experienced double standards compared to non-LGBTQ+ candidates, and 1 in 4 said those standards were significantly higher. Three-quarters said their qualifications were scrutinized more closely. Fifty-four percent said their appearance received more attention, and many reported that their families faced heightened scrutiny.
Image via LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.
More than a third, meanwhile, said they encountered concerns about their electability from voters, party leaders or donors. Of them, roughly 70% believed voters would question others’ willingness to support an openly LGBTQ+ candidate, and nearly 80% felt their identity could cost them support.
One candidate said LGBTQ+ candidates must be “200% better in every way” to compete, reflecting what many described as a persistent imbalance in expectations. Yet nearly all respondents said their LGBTQ+ identity ultimately strengthened their candidacy by deepening empathy, resilience and connection to their communities.
LGBTQ+ Victory Institute said that, informed by the report’s findings, it plans to expand safety training and mental health support for candidates and elected officials, including a new pilot program and additional initiatives at its International LGBTQ+ Leaders Conference and LGBTQ+ Elected Officials Summit in December.
“The need far exceeds the programs available,” the organization said, “but Victory Institute will continue to find opportunities to support the leaders critical to building an inclusive democracy.”
Survey respondents were 73% White, 14% Latino or Hispanic, 7% Black, 5% Asian and 4% Native American.
In terms of gender identity, 46% were cisgender men, 29% cisgender women and 10% transgender women, with the remainder identifying as genderqueer (rejecting traditional gender categories), nonbinary (not exclusively male or female), gender non-conforming or two-spirit (containing a fluid identity both masculine and feminine).
Sexual orientations included 46% gay, 19% lesbian, 21% bisexual, 25% queer, 9% pansexual, 2% asexual and 2% demisexual, meaning they experience attraction only after forming a strong emotional bond.
Eighty-one percent of respondents were Democrats, while 10% were nonpartisan, 6% identified as independent and 3% said they were affiliated with other parties.
Read the full report here.