Federal campaign and political action committee spending on security during the 2024 election cycle was over five times the amount spent ahead of the 2016 election, according to a new report published on Thursday.

The report by the Security Project at the nonpartisan group Public Service Alliance notes that the jump in spending comes as violent threats against public servants and their families are rising at all levels of government. Justin Sherman, interim vice president of the Security Project and the author of the report, finds the rising costs of addressing such threats concerning and says for some candidates it can create additional financial pressure.

“No candidate, regardless of party, regardless of where in the country they're running, should have to weigh serving in public office against threats to them or their families,” Sherman says.

A Minnesota Star Tribune investigation recently found that threats against Minnesota State Capitol workers had increased from 18 incidents in 2024 to 92 in 2025, and that in the first two months of 2026, there were 45. Other research from the Public Service Alliance has found that reported threats against public servants’ families increased 3,700 percent between 2015 and 2025, and a 2025 survey last year from Pew Research Center found an overwhelming number of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum agreed that politically motivated violence is increasing.

The Public Service Alliance report looks at spending data tracked by the Federal Election Commission over the past 10 years. While a large portion of the costs the report identifies are related to securing campaign events, spending on digital security, such as data deletion or online threat monitoring services, has skyrocketed. According to the report, campaigns and committees spent just over $900,000 in the 2023–2024 cycle, compared to around $184,000 in the cycle eight years prior—a nearly 400 percent increase.

The report also says that spending to secure candidates’ homes, such as purchases of home alarms and fencing, also increased, doubling from around $130,000 during the 2017–2018 cycle to just over $300,000 in the 2023–2024 cycle.

Sherman says that limitations in the FEC data can make it difficult to track whether security spending is proactive or reactive. Disbursement forms filled out by campaigns only require a brief description for what was purchased and don’t typically include much else.

On the state level, legislatures are considering reforms that would ensure that political candidates could pay to secure their offices, homes, and personal information while on the campaign trail. Right now, only a handful of states have laws that explicitly say that candidates can use campaign funds to pay for security, says Helen Brewer, a senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Brewer says that legislators have said they’ve seen an uptick in threats and incidents, and it’s happening to people on both sides of the aisle in various states. “It's people seeing it all over the place, which is unfortunate,” Brewer says.

Utah state senator Mike McKell is currently serving his 14th year in his state’s legislature, which he does in addition to being a practicing attorney. In recent years, he says, his personal law office has been vandalized and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have had their homes vandalized, tires slashed, and been targeted in other ways.

McKell recently helped pass an election law that includes language that makes it clear that candidates and officeholders can use campaign money to purchase security systems for their offices, homes, and places of business. (Utah is a part-time legislature.) Says McKell, “The part about my bill that I hate the most is the part about security—but it’s because we need it, and because it's been a problem in the state of Utah.”