Election Threats
If you know of suspected threats or acts of violence against election workers, please let us know. If someone is in imminent danger or risk of harm, contact 911 or your local police immediately.
Report threats against election workers to the FBI
- Election Threats Task Force
- Swatting
- Artificial Intelligence
- Videos
- Training and Community Engagement
- Reporting a Threat to Election Workers
- Election Mail Handling Procedures to Protect Against Hazardous Materials
- Recent Task Force Cases
Election Threats Task Force
The Election Threats Task Force leads the Department’s efforts to address violence against election workers and to ensure that all election workers—whether elected, appointed, or volunteer—are able to do their jobs free from threats and intimidation.
Announced by Attorney General Garland and launched by Deputy Attorney General Monaco in June 2021, the task force engages with the election community and state and local law enforcement to assess allegations and reports of threats against election workers and, where appropriate, has investigated and prosecuted these matters in partnership with FBI Field Offices and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices throughout the country.
The Task Force is led by the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and includes several other entities within the Department of Justice, including the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, the Civil Rights Division, the National Security Division, and the FBI, as well as key interagency partners, including the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Department of Homeland Security.
- Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General to all Federal Prosecutors, et al., “Guidance Regarding Threats Against Election Workers”
June 25, 2021 - Blog Post: Justice Department Launches Task Force to Combat Threats Against Election Workers
Swatting
The Department of Justice partners with state and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute “swatting” incidents, which involve the making of hoax emergency calls to 911 or other emergency service providers and the false reporting of imminent or ongoing crimes in order to solicit an armed SWAT response. (Law enforcement tactical units are often called “special weapons and tactics,” or SWAT, teams.) These incidents create real risks, not simply by manufacturing an emergency at the targeted location, but also by diverting law enforcement resources from their important public safety duties.
In recent years, a number of election workers have been targeted in swatting incidents. The guidance document below is intended to provide both election workers and law enforcement with additional background about swatting and recommended practices for preventing and responding to such crimes.
CISA Resource:
Artificial Intelligence
Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is not inherently criminal and, like other forms of expression, is generally protected by the First Amendment. But AI may be abused to enable, amplify, and accelerate conduct that is criminal and unprotected by the First Amendment, such as threats, fraud, and deprivation of the right to vote through disinformation related to the time, place, or manner of elections. DOJ takes all election crime extremely seriously and will, in appropriate cases, treat the use of AI to facilitate election crime as an aggravating factor. If you are aware of any criminal or potentially criminal activity regarding elections, including criminal activity that may involve generative AI, please report the conduct immediately to your local FBI Election Crime Coordinator. Preserving original communications and screen shots or audio or video recordings of any communications believed to be involved in the criminal effort, whether AI generated or not, will assist the FBI in assessing the information.
CISA Resource:
Videos
More Videos:
- Justice Department Hosts Election Threats Task Force Meeting (September 2024)
- Community Oriented Policing Service Video: What's New in Blue | Preparing for a Safe Election Season (Watch on YouTube)
Training and Community Engagement
Since its formation, the Task Force has organized or participated in more than 100 meetings, presentations, and trainings about protecting election workers, including with elections officials, non-governmental organizations, and state and local law enforcement. In addition, the Task Force has worked with FBI Field Offices and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to build capacity and expertise to investigate and prosecute threats to election workers.
Reporting a Threat to Election Workers
The public can play a crucial role in reporting suspected threats or acts of violence against election workers. To report suspected threats or violent acts, contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324), or file an online complaint at tips.fbi.gov. Complaints submitted will be reviewed by the task force and referred for investigation or response accordingly. If someone is in imminent danger or risk of harm, contact 911 or local police immediately.
Election Mail Handling Procedures to Protect Against Hazardous Materials
The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency produced a guide that provides an overview for election officials on preparing to handle mail safely, identifying potentially suspicious mail, and responding to potential hazardous materials exposure from handling mail.
CISA Resource:
Recent Task Force Cases
As of May 2024, the Department has announced the following enforcement actions involving threats to the election community:
- United States v. Solomon Pena et al. (District of New Mexico): Charged with conspiracy, interference with federally protected activities through violence, and firearms offenses for an alleged shooting spree targeting the homes of elected officials and a candidate for office. Solomon Pena is scheduled for trial on Sept. 16, 2024. Demetrio Trujillo is scheduled for sentencing on Oct. 15, 2024. Jose Louise Trujillo is scheduled for sentencing on Oct. 30, 2024.
- United States v. Katelyn Jones (Eastern District of Michigan): Sentenced to 30 days in prison on Jan. 16, 2024 for sending multiple threatening communications to a Michigan election official in the wake of the 2020 election.
- United States v. Chad Stark (Northern District of Georgia): Sentenced to 2 years in prison on Nov. 29, 2023 after pleading guilty to posting a message online threatening several Georgia public officials following the 2020 election.
- United States v. Travis Ford (District of Nebraska): Sentenced to 18 months in prison on Oct. 6, 2022 for making multiple threatening posts on an Instagram page associated with a Colorado election official.
- United States v. James Clark (District of Arizona): Sentenced to 3.5 years in prison on March 12, 2024 for sending a communication containing a bomb threat to an election official in the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.
- United States v. Walter Lee Hoornstra (Western District of Missouri): Charged with allegedly leaving a voicemail containing a threat on the personal cell phone of an election official in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office in Maricopa County, Arizona. Trial is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2024.
- United States v. Mark Rissi (District of Arizona): Sentenced to 2.5 years in prison on Aug. 28, 2023 for sending threatening communications to an election official on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and to an official with the Office of the Arizona Attorney General.
- United States v. Joshua Lubitz (Southern District of Florida): Sentenced to 18 months of home detention on July 24, 2023 for threatening poll workers for aiding voters.
- United States v. Frederick Goltz (Northern District of Texas): Sentenced to 3.5 years in prison on Aug. 2, 2023 for suggesting a “mass shooting of poll workers” and threatening two Maricopa County officials and their children.
- United States v. Gary Koch (Western District of Kentucky): Sentenced to 2 years' probation on Sept. 19, 2023 for mailing a threat to a political candidate.
- United States v. Jessica Higginbotham (Middle District of Georgia): Sentenced to 18 months in prison on July 31, 2023 for sending a threatening message to bomb the local headquarters of a political party the day before U.S. Senators from Georgia were in town for campaign events.
- United States v. Joshua Russell (District of Arizona): Sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison on March 25, 2024 for sending threatening communications to an election official with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.
- United States v. Andrew Nickels (Eastern District of Michigan): Sentenced to 14 months in prison on July 9, 2024 for sending a communication that included a threat of violence to an election worker in Michigan.
- United States v. Quintez Brown (Western District of Kentucky): Pleaded guilty on July 19, 2024 for attempting to kill a Louisville mayoral candidate by shooting at him multiple times in the candidate’s campaign office. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 21, 2024.
- United States v. William Hyde (Southern District of California): Charged with one count of communicating an interstate threat for allegedly leaving a voicemail containing a violent threat on the personal cell phone of an election official with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office in Phoenix, Arizona. Trial is scheduled for Oct. 1, 2024.
- United States vs. Brian Ogstad (District of Arizona): Pleaded guilty to sending threatening messages to election workers with Maricopa County Elections in Phoenix, Arizona. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 21, 2024.
- United States vs. Teak Brockbank (District of Colorado): Charged in connection with a series of online threats he made toward election officials in Colorado and Arizona, a Colorado state judge, and federal law enforcement agents. Preliminary and detention hearings were held on Aug. 28, 2024.
- United States v. William Braddock (Middle District of Florida): Charges were unsealed on September 26, 2024, against Braddock for threatening to kill his primary opponent in the 2021 election for the 13th Congressional District of Florida and a private citizen and acquaintance of his opponent.
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The list of cases above does not include a defendant who was charged and acquitted after a jury trial.