A distressing new study from the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and Loyola Marymount University has pulled back the curtain on the harsh reality facing gay, lesbian, and transgender people who choose to run for public office. In an era marked by intense political polarization and a retreat from federal protections, the campaign trail has shifted from a venue for open debate into a minefield of harassment and intimidation. By surveying over 200 candidates across the country, researchers found that the current political climate—fueled by national rhetoric that frequently demonizes queer identities—has created an environment where simply appearing on a ballot feels like an act of defiance against a rising tide of intolerance.
The findings are as stark as they are sobering: for the modern LGBTQ+ candidate, harassment is no longer a sporadic risk; it is a normalized feature of the process. Nearly nine out of ten prospective candidates reported deep fears about their personal safety, while 80 percent expressed genuine concern that running for office would invite physical violence. Statistically, the abuse is overwhelming, with nearly two-thirds of candidates suffering in-person harassment and a staggering three-quarters facing a barrage of online vitriol. More alarmingly, these aren’t just empty insults; one in three candidates reported receiving direct death threats. These figures paint a grim picture of a democracy where the ability to serve is increasingly gatekept by whoever is most capable of bearing the psychological and physical burden of daily trauma.
Evan Low, CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, emphasizes that these threats do not exist in a vacuum, but are closely tethered to the explosive growth of anti-LGBTQ legislation sweeping the nation. When politicians and public figures engage in rhetoric that paints the queer community as a threat, it provides a dangerous green light for fringe actors to target them with doxxing, stalking, and threats. This creates a systemic barrier that disproportionately impacts transgender individuals and LGBTQ+ women. For many, the decision to run involves a grueling cost-benefit analysis—not about their policy platforms on healthcare or the economy, but about whether they can afford private security or the long-term impact on their families’ mental health.
The pressure on these candidates is so intense that over half have been forced to fundamentally alter their campaigning habits, sacrificing the community engagement and visibility that are essential for winning. Because fewer than one in ten candidates can afford professional security, many find themselves facing these terrifying realities largely on their own. The psychological toll is severe, with a majority of those surveyed reporting that the ordeal left them with ongoing trauma. Leaders like Daniel Hernandez, who has faced weaponized violence himself, note that this isn’t just an abstract political issue—it is a personal, chilling reality that threatens to silence voices that our democracy desperately needs to hear.
Despite the systemic attempts to drive them out of the public square, members of the LGBTQ+ community continue to step forward in record numbers. Low notes that his organization has seen more candidates than ever before, proving that for many queer individuals, the desire to serve their neighbors and effect meaningful change outweighs the fear of retribution. However, this grit should not be mistaken for stability; the current environment is objectively hostile. The Victory Institute has had to pivot its training programs from simple campaign strategy to crisis management, offering guidance on how to manage digital stalking and protect loved ones, a sad necessity for anyone attempting to ascend to public office in the current climate.
Looking toward the future, the implications for our democracy could be permanent. If the threshold for public service continues to demand the endurance of constant abuse, we risk thinning the ranks of our leadership, potentially discouraging future generations from ever considering a life of service. Success, according to Low, will only be measured when these threats subside and the legislative attacks on LGBTQ+ existence cease. Until then, the story of the modern LGBTQ+ candidate is one of profound courage in the face of a pendulum swinging backward. They are running toward the front lines not to highlight their identity, but to fight for the quality of their communities, even as the landscape of American politics threatens to push them into the shadows.