LGBTQ candidates are confronting a harsher campaign trail, with a major US survey documenting widespread abuse, death threats and safety fears. The findings matter beyond elections: they raise urgent questions about who can afford to stand for office, whose voices are heard and how representative democracy can remain.

Essential Takeaways

  • Harassment is widespread: Nearly two-thirds of surveyed candidates experienced in-person harassment, while almost eight in 10 faced abuse online.
  • Threats can turn deadly: One in three candidates received online death threats, and one in seven experienced them in person.
  • Campaigns were reshaped: More than half changed where or how they campaigned because of safety concerns.
  • Security remains unequal: Fewer than one in 10 could afford private security, despite mounting risks.
  • Mental health has suffered: Nearly two-thirds said attacks had a negative psychological impact.

A campaign trail increasingly marked by fear

Running for office is already an exhausting exercise in door-knocking, fundraising and public scrutiny. For many LGBTQ candidates, though, the noise now includes abuse, intimidation and the unnerving possibility that a campaign event could become unsafe.

A survey of 215 LGBTQ candidates who stood for office between 2023 and 2025 across 42 US states, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, found that nearly nine in 10 worried their identity would increase the risk of harassment or attack. Four in five feared physical violence, according to the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and Loyola Marymount University.

The figures offer a sobering picture of what happens before a candidate even reaches the ballot. As the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute's report makes clear, fear itself can become a barrier to participation, particularly when candidates are balancing jobs, families and already expensive campaigns. [2], [3]

Online abuse is spilling into real life

Digital campaigning has made it easier for candidates to reach voters, but it has also created a direct route for threats. Almost eight in 10 respondents reported online harassment, with one in three receiving death threats online.

The danger isn't confined to a screen. Nearly two-thirds experienced harassment in person, while one in seven received an in-person death threat. Research highlighted by LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations shows how political hostility can move quickly from anonymous posts to campaign offices, homes and public events. [2], [7]

That has practical consequences. More than half of candidates changed the way or places they campaigned because they felt unsafe, while almost one in five said the effect was significant. A candidate who avoids crowded meetings or limits door-to-door work may be protecting themselves, but they're also losing valuable opportunities to meet voters.

Safety is becoming a financial test

Private security can offer reassurance, but it's hardly an accessible campaign expense. Fewer than one in 10 surveyed candidates could afford it, leaving many to depend on volunteers, local police advice, cameras or informal safety plans.

That unevenness matters. Candidates with deep financial backing may be able to pay for monitoring, secure transport and professional advice. Others might have to choose between a basic campaign need and protecting their home or family. The report's findings suggest that safety is becoming another hidden cost of political participation. [2], [3]

The pressure is especially acute for transgender candidates and LGBTQ+ women, who the research identifies as facing disproportionate effects from political violence. Security concerns and mental-health strain can pile up quickly, particularly in states where legislation and public debate already target transgender people.

The mental-health toll doesn't end on election day

Threats don't simply disappear when the polls close. Nearly two-thirds of candidates said attacks harmed their mental health, with some describing lasting trauma and serious emotional consequences.

Evan Low, president and chief executive of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, has argued that candidates need more than help with speeches, budgets and voter outreach. They also need honest preparation for doxxing, harassment, family safety and the psychological strain of campaigning under a microscope.

That approach reflects a wider shift in candidate training. Organisations supporting LGBTQ people in politics are increasingly treating personal security and wellbeing as core campaign infrastructure, rather than optional extras. The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute's history and leadership programmes have long focused on building political participation, but the current climate is forcing that work to become more defensive as well as aspirational. [4], [5], [6]

Representation is at stake

The most worrying consequence may be the people who decide not to run at all. If younger LGBTQ Americans see public office as a route to threats against their families, financial hardship and long-term distress, many may reasonably conclude that the price is too high.

That would leave legislatures less representative at precisely the moment when LGBTQ communities face a growing number of policy battles. LGBTQ elected officials can introduce anti-discrimination measures, improve public services and bring lived experience into debates that otherwise risk becoming abstract or hostile.

Yet there is a striking tension in the findings. Despite the danger, LGBTQ candidates continue to seek office in record numbers and support organisations report strong demand for training and endorsements. That determination is encouraging, but it shouldn't be mistaken for proof that the system is safe. A democracy shouldn't rely on extraordinary bravery just to hear ordinary community voices. [2], [5], [6]

The immediate test will be whether political groups, public bodies and campaign organisations provide meaningful funding for security, mental-health support and rapid responses to threats. Fewer attacks would be the clearest sign of progress, but better protection could help ensure that more people can participate while that progress is still being won.

It's a small step towards making public service safer, fairer and more representative.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: