We asked who is keeping state lawmakers safe. 27 states responded.

Politics Reporter

Published

Political violence is on the rise — making the job more dangerous for state lawmakers and posing new challenges for state law enforcement officials.

Every high-profile act of violence sets off new waves of threats and fears of more — the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September sent chills down the spines of elected officials throughout the country. But Utah, where he was killed, was already ahead of the curve on addressing threats to lawmakers and high-profile public officials.

Nine years earlier, it had set up a new unit to track and prevent violence against public officials.

The unit follows a four-step process, said Taylor Keys, a spokesperson for the state Department of Public Safety: It receives and identifies reports of threats and concerning behaviors, gathers the facts, assesses the individual’s risk of posing a real physical threat, and then manages the risk with intervention and case management.

In the days after Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, Utah lawmakers reported receiving an uptick in threats. Keys said the agency “regularly reviews” security measures and safety plans for lawmakers and “will continue to leverage new technologies, training, and security features in the coming years to safeguard lawmakers.”

But many states aren’t as proactive and prepared as Utah. Most state legislatures are in session only part-time, and many of the state enforcement agencies charged with protecting them are stretched thin and lack standardized procedures for reporting threats, collecting data and conducting regular training.

A spate of high-profile violent attacks over the past year threw this reality into stark relief.

Last April, an arsonist attempted to burn down the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion in an attack targeting Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro. In June, a gunman assassinated former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, before wounding state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Republican Indiana state lawmakers who resisted a White House-led push to redraw congressional lines in the state reported receiving threats. And Kirk’s killing rankled lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

And for some lawmakers, the environment is becoming untenable: Two recent reports show that harassment, abuse and violence are leading factors driving women and younger legislators, especially, to exit office.

State legislatures shape consequential policy and serve as a critical pipeline for higher office. But serving in office and entering the pipeline to power poses increasingly high risks to personal safety, especially for groups already underrepresented in the halls of power. While being a state lawmaker is a part-time job with a part-time salary in most states, lawmakers can’t opt out of being a full-time public figure.

“Elected and appointed officials live in a risk environment by nature of their job and their outward, public-facing positions,” said former Lt. Col. Tim Cameron of the Wyoming Highway Patrol, who spoke to The 19th in 2025 before he retired from the agency after more than 46 years in law enforcement. “Within the last year and a half to two years, that’s moved into a threat environment.”

The 19th spoke with experts and reached out to state-level law enforcement agencies in all 50 states to capture a comprehensive picture of the scope of political violence against state lawmakers and how law enforcement is responding. Officials in a dozen states told The 19th how they identify and respond to threats, what data they collect, and how they’re adapting their responses and procedures to an ever-evolving landscape.

How did states respond? Jump to their answers here.

As political violence is on the rise, many states are scrambling to keep pace. Political violence, Cameron said, was a major topic of discussion at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference he attended in 2025.

“Anyone charged with executive protection is really looking closely at what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and looking to utilize technology to leverage that in every way they can,” he said. “So it is going to be a challenge moving forward. And nobody has enough people.”

A February report from the nonprofit organization Future Caucus, based on interviews and surveys with 89 young lawmakers in 31 states, found that threats of violence “have become a serious deterrent to both candidate recruitment and retention,” especially for women, lawmakers of color and LGBTQ+ lawmakers.

“This is a four-alarm fire,” said Layla Zaidane, the president and CEO of Future Caucus, which supports young state lawmakers in bridging divides and working on policy across the political aisle.

“They can stomach the low pay. They can stomach no staff. They can handle even trying to figure out the toxic polarization and transcending that,” Zaidane said of young lawmakers. “But political violence was the thing that, when you add it all together, was the decider of: ‘I don’t know if I’m going to run again, I don’t know if this is worth it.’”

The rise in violent incidents is having an outsized impact on women, who make up half of the United States population but account for only a third of state lawmakers; even fewer women of color are represented in the political arena.

And when it comes to hyperpolarization and the increasingly toxic and hostile climate in state capitols, “women bear the brunt of this, multi-fold, compared to their male peers,” said Aparna Ghosh, the founder and executive director of the Ghosh Innovation Lab, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research and builds tools to support diverse and representative state legislatures.

A report the Ghosh Innovation Lab published last summer, based on 60 interviews and a nationally representative survey of over 300 women legislators, concluded that the assassination of Hortman “exposed a crisis that has been building for years.” Women lawmakers, the report found, “face systematic harassment, threats, and violence that compromise their safety, well-being, and democratic participation.”

The report found that 93 percent of women lawmakers said they experienced some form of harm or abuse in office, 59 percent said it disrupted their legislative duties and 32 percent said it impacted their desire to stay in office.

“It’s not just about an incident, but it’s about the everyday things that add up that push them out of office,” Ghosh said. “This is a huge problem for democracy, because this constant harm that women are facing is eroding the intent to run for office, so it’s eroding democracy in some way.”

Black and white photo of an empty legislative chamber with rows of wooden desks and chairs. A bright red, spray-painted target symbol is scrawled across one desk in the foreground. — (Emily Scherer for The 19th)

In the wake of Hortman’s assassination, several states have weighed legislation that would allow lawmakers to have their home addresses and other identifying information removed from public records. And as federal campaign spending on security expenses has continued to climb into the millions, 25 states now officially or informally authorize state candidates to use campaign funds for personal security, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Vote Mama Foundation.

The role of law enforcement has also come under scrutiny, with the Ghosh Innovation Lab report concluding that state capitols and law enforcement “systematically fail to protect women legislators.”

The top safety shortcomings identified by women legislators surveyed for the report were a lack of training in handling threats (53 percent), the absence of a panic button for reporting incidents (46 percent) and unclear reporting procedures (42 percent). They also cited inadequate technological solutions, insufficient legal support, buildings feeling overly exposed, too few security officers and poor coordination with law enforcement.

“Whatever training they’re getting is their own responsibility, and that’s part of where the system breaks down,” said Ghosh. “It’s two things: One is that we’re not a proactive system, we react to incidents, that is one huge thing. And the second is it feels like safety and security is a legislator problem, not an institutional problem.”

At the federal level, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) protects members of Congress, often in coordination with local law enforcement, and issues regular public assessments indicating that threats against federal lawmakers are on the rise.

But far less is known about the risk environment and security landscape for state lawmakers.

States have widely varying levels of security for their state capitol complexes and different open carry rules. A 2024 review from the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau found that 39 states use metal detectors in their capitol buildings, 31 use X-ray machines to scan packages and belongings and 10 require visitors to have photo identification.

Many states have dedicated capitol police forces, specialized units within state police or highway patrols responsible for protecting lawmakers and executive officials, or both. Local sheriff’s offices and police departments also respond to reports of threats from state lawmakers.

“The big problem is that there’s no standardization in the protocols and processes, and this is the gray zone where the system breaks down,” Ghosh said.

To get a clearer picture of the protection landscape, The 19th asked these questions to state agencies responsible for protecting state lawmakers in all 50 states:

What steps should a lawmaker take if they receive a threat?
What are the agency’s processes for identifying and responding to threats?
Does the agency collect data or produce threat assessments on threats to public officials, including state lawmakers? If not, are there plans to start collecting that data and/or to make it public, as the U.S. Capitol Police does?
Has the agency implemented or plans to implement any additional security measures, safety plans or training for state lawmakers/capitol protectees in the wake of the Hortman and Kirk shootings?

Representatives of law enforcement agencies in 27 states responded to The 19th’s inquiries. Representatives of agencies in four states declined to comment, and 19 did not respond to requests for comment. Of the agencies that responded, many declined to share specific security plans or details but said they were committed to ensuring the security of state elected officials and those working at and visiting state capitol complexes.

The basics are the same: All agencies said lawmakers should immediately report a threat to a state, capitol or local law enforcement agency. But where lawmakers report threats can vary depending on whether the legislature is in session and the nature of the threat: a lawmaker might report a threat to the state capitol police or the highway patrol if the legislature is in session, or to their local police or sheriff’s department if they’re in their home county.

All the law enforcement officials emphasized that keeping evidence of threats is important.

Chris Loftis, a spokesperson for the Washington State Patrol, also said lawmakers should preserve “all evidence, including emails, voicemails, and social media posts” and are “advised not to engage directly with the individual making the threat.”

States use different methods to identify and trace threats. Many said they work with other agencies to monitor, identify and respond to threats. New York State Police spokesman Beau Duffy said the agency has a team of social media analysts who identify threats. Sgt. Ricardo Breceda of the New Mexico State Police said they use a variety of sources, including law enforcement databases.

“Our response depends on the nature and severity of the threat and can range from routine follow-up investigations to the activation of specialized tactical teams if necessary,” Breceda said.

Some officials and courts have found that some harassing and abrasive rhetoric directed at public officials falls under the First Amendment’s free speech protections, a finding that has at times frustrated lawmakers. Zaidane pointed to a 2021 case in which a man charged with making a threat to a Michigan state legislator’s office was acquitted after his lawyer said he was “just blowing off steam.”

“I think, at a minimum, better enforcement of laws and coordination with law enforcement would make lawmakers feel like the system has their back,” Zaidane said. “Like there are still bright lines that we should not cross in America and that we are committed to upholding those.”

Another thing lawmakers want more of, Ghosh said, is data.

For over 20 years, the U.S. Capitol Police has published annual public threat assessments detailing the number of threats they investigate. In new data released in January, the USCP’s Threat Assessment Section reported investigating nearly 15,000 “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications” against lawmakers, their families, staff and the U.S. Capitol complex in 2025, marking the third consecutive year the USCP has investigated more threats.

But most state law enforcement and state capitol security agencies either don’t collect or don’t publish such statistics. Utah is one of just a few states in the country that collects statewide data on threats to state lawmakers and produces assessments. The lack of comprehensive data from official sources makes it difficult to know the scope and scale of political violence against state lawmakers.

“They want that kind of tracking and monitoring system,” Ghosh said of women lawmakers. “They want security briefings annually.”

Some state agencies told The 19th they don’t have a full picture of how threats are reported and investigated across their states because jurisdictions respond differently to threat reports. Several others said they do centrally collect that data but don’t release it for security reasons.

“We collect data, but sometimes we’re not aware of the other complaints that potentially could be made to the sheriff of whatever respective county,” said Cameron of the Wyoming Highway Patrol.

Some state agencies share data with other law enforcement authorities, including through fusion centers.

Ghosh said women lawmakers also want more official safety training from law enforcement — many told her that they spend thousands of dollars out of pocket for self-defense and security training.

“They want systems to back them up and say, ‘We’re going to prepare you for what’s coming,’ even if it doesn’t happen,” Ghosh said.

Many states are working to expand security as well as training for lawmakers in the wake of the Minnesota shooting, though most declined to share specifics.

Cameron said that in Wyoming, the conversation about improving protective operations “never stops.” The state Highway Patrol has a trooper focused on protective intelligence who attended a threat intelligence course at the U.S. Marshals Service headquarters in Crystal City, Virginia, and investigates threats against lawmakers, he said.

“We’re constantly training our people. We recently instituted a special response team, more or less a SWAT unit, but they’re cross-trained to do executive protection,” he added. “Sometimes we’ll activate some of those members, so our [executive protection division] has additional personnel, either for advanced work or on site work or escort work.”

He said he’d like to see more adoption of drones and drone technology, an area where law enforcement in the United States is “behind,” to protect the state capitol and lawmakers.

Ghosh said the women lawmakers she’s spoken to need three things to carry out their work: to feel prepared, protected and nurtured.

“It’s simple things, right?” she said. “Their safety needs to feel well supported and ready to do the work that they’re meant to do. They want these three things, and when it breaks down is when they’re unable to do this work.”

Here’s what states said in response to The 19th’s questions when we reached out over the past six months:

Colorado

“The Colorado State Patrol works closely with our elected officials to share information and address concerns as they arise. This partnership is critical for facilitating open communication and providing protection. While we cannot comment on the specifics regarding data collection and protocols, we can share that the Colorado State Patrol thoroughly investigates every statement in collaboration with local and federal law enforcement.”

— Trooper Gabriel Moltrer, Colorado State Patrol
Delaware
1. “Delaware lawmakers who receive threats should immediately contact law enforcement and inform the Capitol Police, who will conduct a threat assessment and coordinate with other agencies as needed.”
2. “The Delaware Capitol Police identifies threats through law enforcement coordination, public reports, and by screening communications such as emails. Capitol Police work with intelligence analysts at the Delaware State Police to identify threats and will also respond if a legislator notifies them of an issue. Threats are categorized by risk level. Actions can include immediate protective measures for high-risk situations to investigations coordinated with state and federal partners.”
3. “The Delaware Capitol Police maintains internal records of threats against lawmakers but doesn’t publish information regarding criminal investigations. There are no plans to release this data due to operational security concerns.”
4. “The Delaware Capitol Police regularly conducts security assessments of state facilities, including Legislative Hall, and provides enhanced security briefings and personal safety training. Additionally, it is working to expand protective service capacity and improve emergency notification systems. All lawmakers are encouraged to participate in security briefings and report suspicious activity immediately.”
— John Petersen, director of media and community relations, Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Iowa

“If an Iowa lawmaker receives a perceived threat, we would advise them to contact the nearest law enforcement agency as well as the Iowa State Patrol (Capitol Complex) Office (aka District 16).”

— Nicole Schwalbach, open records custodian, Iowa Department of Public Safety
Georgia
1. “Immediately report it to local or state law enforcement.”
2. “Each threat is assessed, and additional security measures are put in place until the threat has been cleared.”
3. “We do not disclose operational procedures.”
4. “Our agency continually remains on high alert and assesses all threats reported. We continue to work with all levels of government to provide security and safety.”
— Courtney Lund, public information officer, Georgia Department of Public Safety
Indiana
1. “Contact police right away, if the threat is via social media or text screenshots of the correspondence could prove beneficial to the investigation.”
2. “Each situation is different, we respond to threats of violence immediately and thoroughly.”
3. “We do not, the Indiana State Police is not the only agency that can/does investigate threats against elected officials. Those investigations can also occur at the local or county level as well. As of right now we do not have plans to specifically capture all threats to elected officials for the purpose of public release.”
4. “We work closely with other police agencies and elected officials if they need safety/security resources. We do not share specific safety or security plans.”
— Sgt. John Perrine, Indiana State Police
Kansas

“The Kansas Highway Patrol actively monitors security matters and maintains a law enforcement presence throughout the Capitol Complex in Topeka, Kansas. The Capitol Complex includes the Docking, Landon, Curtis, and Eisenhower state office buildings, Memorial Hall, Kansas Department of Health and Environment laboratory, the Kansas Judicial Center, and the Statehouse.”

— April McCollum, public information officer, Kansas Highway Patrol
Kentucky

“The Kentucky State Police is committed to providing public safety to all Kentuckians and visitors to the Kentucky State Capitol. The KSP Security Branch protects and secures state buildings, officials, and visitors through screening, roving patrols, and other security protocols. The KSP Legislative Branch consists of sworn troopers specially detailed to the State Capitol to provide protection and ensure the legislative process is conducted in a safe, secure environment. To avoid hindering security operations, KSP does not provide specific details regarding security protocols.”

— Sherry Bray, agency spokesperson, Kentucky State Police
Louisiana

“The House and Senate along with Capitol Security are in the process of developing further security protocols in light of the current climate. The details are not widely shared in an effort to keep those processes secure.”

— Meg Casper Sunstrom, chief communications officer, Louisiana Legislative Communications Office
Massachusetts

“We don’t discuss protective measures, but we urge anyone who receives a threat or becomes aware of someone exhibiting threatening behaviors to report it to local or state police.”

— Tim McGuirk, director of public affairs, Massachusetts State Police
Michigan

“The Michigan State Police takes the safety of our legislators and other elected officials very seriously. We work in close coordination with both the House and Senate police departments and procedures are in place for legislators to report any threats or concerns. Our security planning is fluid, and adjustments are made as needed, from day-to-day. In general, we don’t publicly discuss the details of these measures.”

— Lori Dougovito, communications specialist, Michigan State Police
Minnesota
1. “Report it to law enforcement based on jurisdiction.”
2. “We follow an established threat investigation protocol.”
3. “Yes, we do collect data and work with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) on threat assessments on both reported threats and assessments on high profile individuals when needed. We have shared this information with the Advisory Committee on Capitol Area Security.”
4. “We are not able to go into detail about our specific security measures.”
— Lt. Mike Lee, Minnesota State Patrol
Missouri
1. “This will depend on the nature of the threat and the location/circumstances of the threat. If a suspect poses an immediate physical threat, the legislator should call 911 and the local law enforcement will respond. Often the law enforcement agency responding will contact and share information with Missouri Capitol Police (MCP) if they are located outside of Cole County. If a legislator receives a ‘mean speech’ or non-criminal threat by telephone to the legislator’s office located in Cole County, this should be reported to MCP.”
2. “I think this is a good time to go into level of threats, including:
  - Consider the means and type of threat, whether criminal or non-criminal, how received (note, email, in-person email), the intent and if the person making the threat has the means to carry it out.
  - Is it protected First Amendment speech that doesn’t involve a threat?
  - Is it an immediate physical threat and what are ALL of the implications – involving staff, family members, other legislators, other officials, constituents?
  Investigate and proceed based on information gathered through the initial investigation and those of other investigative agencies. Collaboration and direct investigative information sharing with partner agencies as well as information sharing through Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), the state fusion center.”
3. “MCP does not produce a specific report like this at this time and does not have plans to produce something like it.”
4. “MCP provides active threat training and is available at any time to provide specific training consultation with individual legislators and staff.
The safety and security of those who work in and visit the Capitol and the surrounding area are the highest priority for MCP and our security partners. While the policy is not to discuss specific details of security plans or operations, they include long-term advance planning, training, exercises and close coordination between state government and our local and federal partners. Another key is sharing regional and national homeland security and intelligence information on a real-time basis. Security operations and staffing are adapted based on available information and other sources.”

— Mike O’Connell, communications director, Missouri Department of Public Safety
Mississippi

“Anyone who receives a threat is strongly encouraged to contact law enforcement immediately. For security reasons, we cannot discuss specific security plans. Our law enforcement agencies work closely together every day to ensure the safety of everyone who lives, works, and visits Mississippi and the State Capitol.”

— Bailey C. Martin, media and public relations specialist, Mississippi Department of Public Safety
Montana

“The Department of Administration does not comment on security-related issues for operational security reasons. The Department works closely with local, state, and federal law enforcement partners to monitor trends and provide security measures to ensure public safety on State property based on best practices.”

— Janna Williams, communications director, Montana Department of Administration
New Mexico
1. “Any lawmaker who suspects they have received a threat should immediately contact the New Mexico State Police and Capitol Security. This ensures law enforcement can quickly assess the situation and take any necessary precautions to ensure everyone’s safety.”
2. “Threat identification may come from various sources, including law enforcement databases and coordination with local and federal partners when appropriate. Our response depends on the nature and severity of the threat and can range from routine follow-up investigations to the activation of specialized tactical teams if necessary.”
3. “The New Mexico State Police does not currently produce formal threat assessments specific to public officials. However, we continuously monitor and evaluate potential risks in coordination with our law enforcement partners to ensure public safety.”
4. “The New Mexico State Police is responsible for security at the State Capitol during both special and regular legislative sessions. We take the safety of lawmakers, staff, visitors, and members of the media very seriously. While we cannot discuss specific security measures, our officers continuously assess conditions and adjust as needed. NMSP remains dedicated to protecting the public and ensuring that the legislative process can proceed safely. We encourage everyone to follow posted signage and instructions from NMSP and Capitol staff, and to promptly report any suspicious activity to an NMSP officer or Capitol security.”
— Sgt. Ricardo Breceda, New Mexico State Police
New York
1. “Any lawmaker who receives a threat or becomes aware of a threat should immediately contact police.”
2. “The NYSP thoroughly investigates any complaints or any other information concerning threats to lawmakers, whether it is developed by us or one of our federal, state or local law enforcement partners. We also operate the New York State Intelligence Center, which has a staff of social media analysts who monitor, analyze and report threats. There is a specific process we follow to investigate threats.”
3. “The New York State Police produces threat assessments, and we also track cases and threats that we investigate. We do not publish that data and we don’t have any plans to.”
4. “The NYSP is responsible for security at the New York State Capitol complex, and we did increase security following the shootings in Minnesota. We do provide briefings when necessary to state lawmakers and their staffs about security policies and procedures, along with steps they can take to stay safe.”
— Beau Duffy, executive director of public information, New York State Police
Ohio

“The Ohio State Highway Patrol does not discuss operational plans or specific security protocols. The Patrol remains committed to the safety and welfare for all citizens and visitors of Ohio.”

— Sgt. Tyler Ross, Ohio State Highway Patrol
North Dakota
1. “If a lawmaker receives a threat related to their official duties, they should immediately report it to the North Dakota Highway Patrol or to their local law enforcement agency. If the threat is unrelated to their official capacity, it should be reported directly to local law enforcement. Regardless of the circumstances, lawmakers (and everyone) should always be mindful of their personal safety, beginning with strong situational awareness and promptly reporting concerning behavior.”
2. We investigate all reported threats thoroughly and coordinate with the appropriate State’s Attorney’s Office to determine whether criminal charges are warranted. Our response is comprehensive and tailored to the nature and severity of the threat.”
3. “We utilize the North Dakota State and Local Intelligence Center (NDSLIC) for information-sharing, threat assessment processes, and analytical support. This information is not made public pursuant to North Dakota Century Code sections 44-04-18.4(7), 44-04-18.7, 44-04-24, 44-04-25, 44-04-26, and 37-17.1.”
4. “We do not publicize specific security measures or protocols due to safety considerations. We take the safety of dignitaries and all who work in state facilities very seriously and continuously prioritize their protection. We also work closely with Legislative Council to address ongoing needs, questions, and concerns of lawmakers as circumstances evolve.”
— Lt. Jenna Clawson Huibregtse, North Dakota Highway Patrol
Oregon

“Oregon State Police works directly with legislators to provide guidance related to possible threats, crimes, or concerning communications. OSP does not share mitigation or investigative practices in order to prevent the reduction of effectiveness those practices provide.

OSP encourages legislators to report incidents to local jurisdictions and to the Oregon State Police to ensure proper documentation and follow-up is conducted. We continue to provide on-going training to elected officials in order to support their security and safety as they conduct official business at the state capitol and around the state.”

— Capt. Kyle Kennedy, Oregon State Police
Rhode Island

“As a matter of policy, we do not discuss operational matters publicly for security and confidentiality reasons. Regarding your first question, we maintain open and ongoing communication with our Rhode Island lawmakers at both the state and federal levels. They are fully aware of the appropriate procedures to follow should they receive any type of threat.”

— Lt. Col. Robert Creamer, Rhode Island State Police
South Carolina

“The Bureau of Protective Services (BPS), a division of the SC Department of Public Safety, closely monitors high-profile and national events as part of its standard operating procedures. Should any event or incident have the potential to impact the safety of citizens, employees, and state officials who visit and work at the South Carolina State Capitol Complex, BPS assigns appropriate resources and personnel to ensure that all visitors and employees are protected. Additionally, the agency coordinates with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners when appropriate to further ensure a safe environment. Please note that we do not disclose specifics about security plans or procedures to ensure the integrity of the security operations.”

— South Carolina Bureau of Protective Services
South Dakota

“The security of our legislators is important to us. Guests at the capitol must enter through a security screening checkpoint and we have law enforcement on site every day.

In response to your questions, anyone threatened should call 9-1-1 and every threat will be investigated. As to the other questions, we decline to reveal our security protocols.”

— Brad Reiners, communications director, South Dakota Department of Public Safety
Texas

“The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) takes all matters of personal security and public safety very seriously. DPS is continuously monitoring events and their impact on public safety across the state, and collaborating with local, state and federal law enforcement partners to ensure the safety of all citizens. While we do not discuss operational specifics, including which elected officials receive DPS security details, we can tell you that we adjust our operations as needed to address any potential and emerging threats.

The department is reminding every Texan to report ALL suspicious behavior, including terroristic threats, threats to life or threats of political violence, through the iWatchTexas program via the mobile app, online at iWatchTexas.org or by calling 1-844-643-2251. All reports are confidential and reviewed by law enforcement analysts. iWatch Texas is not designed to report emergencies. If a situation requires an emergency response, call 911.”

— Sheridan Nolan, press secretary, Texas Department of Public Safety
Utah
1. “Members of the Utah Legislature are instructed to immediately contact the Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) located at the Capitol if they receive a threat, have safety concerns, or are aware of suspicious activity. They are also instructed to call 911 immediately if there is a true emergency or if they believe their immediate safety or the safety of others is at risk.”
2. “Beginning in 2016, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) built a Threat Management Unit (TMU) that follows national best practices and standards regarding identifying and responding to threats. The DPS Threat Management Unit is a multidisciplinary group that employs a systematic, evidence-based process of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) to proactively prevent targeted violence. The TMU’s primary function is to enhance safety by implementing a four-step process: identifying and receiving reports of concerning behaviors, inquiring to gather facts and context, assessing the individual’s risk of posing a threat (not just having made a threat), and finally, managing the risk through intervention and case management. The DPS Threat Management Unit team includes professionals from law enforcement, mental health, and social services, aimed at providing lawmakers and other protectees with the necessary support services and resources to mitigate risk and prevent violence.
3. “The Department of Public Safety collects data and produces threat assessments on threats toward state lawmakers.”
4. “DPS/UHP regularly reviews security measures, safety plans, and training for state lawmakers and Capitol protectees, and will continue to leverage new technologies, training, and security features in the coming years to safeguard lawmakers.”
— Taylor Keys, associate director of communications and public affairs, Utah Department of Public Safety
Virginia
1. “Virginia lawmakers should promptly report any suspicious, threatening, or otherwise concerning activity to law enforcement. Reports may be made to the Virginia Division of Capitol Police or to law enforcement in their locality.”
2. “The Division of Capitol Police takes all threats seriously and responds accordingly.”
3. “All information that is reported is evaluated by the Division of Capitol Police and is shared with the Virginia Fusion Center for further analysis. News releases and public safety updates can be found here.”
4. The Division of Capitol Police continuously review past incidents, ongoing situations, and upcoming events to determine whether existing security protocols require adjustment or modification.”
— Caroline Frye, public relations specialist, Division of Capitol Police
Washington
1. “Washington lawmakers should promptly report any threat to their local law enforcement agency and the Washington State Patrol. All evidence, including emails, voicemails, and social media posts should be preserved. Lawmakers are advised not to engage directly with the individual making the threat.”
2. “The Washington State Patrol evaluates reported threats within its jurisdiction to determine credibility and severity. When appropriate, investigators coordinate with local law enforcement, federal partners, and legislative security officials. Depending on the circumstances, responses may include investigation, protective measures, or arrest.”
3. “The Washington State Patrol tracks and assesses threats directed at public officials, including state lawmakers, to inform protective decisions. While this information is not publicly released due to security and privacy considerations, it is used internally to guide resource allocation and enhance protective planning. (There are currently no plans to release this data).”
4. “The Washington State Patrol continually reviews and strengthens security protocols for the Capitol Campus and elected officials. Ongoing efforts include reinforcing training, updating tactics and strategies, and modernizing equipment. Coordination with legislative leadership remains a priority to ensure preparedness, and additional measures are considered as circumstances evolve.”
— Chris Loftis, director of public affairs, Washington State Patrol
Wyoming
1. “They would reach out to their county sheriff, or they could report it to the patrol, specifically our Troop O, which is our executive protection and capitol security group.”
2. “Typically, threats are identified by the legislators or the state elected officials when they receive threatening or suspicious communication. If it’s during session, they’ll notify us. If it’s where they have their home, where they represent, they’ll notify us or the sheriff, either one. We at the Capitol, we screen mail through security, typically, but sometimes, if they receive it at one of their satellite offices, they would again notify either us or the sheriff.”
3. “That’s been a recent conversation. We just had a bomb here with a device that got into the Capitol, and it caused a reaction, as it should have. One of the considerations was the safety of the governor and the first lady. So not only did we respond to the capitol, but we also took measures to protect them, so part of the conversation since then, and of course, your questions caused quite a conversation. We collect data, but sometimes we’re not aware of the other complaints that potentially could be made to the sheriff of whatever respective county. So I think we’re going to work on communications with our allied agencies across the state and try to get our division or Troop O to become the repository for tracking that information.”
4. “Our conversation about that never stops, looking for ways to improve our protective operations. We recently, within probably about a year ago, we have a trooper that does protective intelligence we sent to the US Marshals headquarters … in Crystal City, for a threat intelligence course. So he specifically investigates those threats to electeds if they come to us, and then constantly scanning the horizon, namely social media or media in general, just checking for threats. For a while, we were having protests every Saturday at the Capitol, it never posed a problem. Honestly, it was very orderly, and our presence was minimal, but really we were there to make sure that the protesters were unfettered in their ability to express their opinion, so everyone has gone really well. We’re constantly training our people. We recently instituted a special response team, more or less a SWAT unit, but they’re cross trained to do executive protection. Sometimes we’ll activate some of those members, so our EPD has additional personnel, either for advanced work or on site work or escort work.”
— Lt. Col. Tim Cameron, Wyoming Highway Patrol