Abortion providers say 2025 was the year the temperature around clinics really climbed. Across the country, they reported a jump in threats and harassment that forced them to upgrade cameras, hire more security, and rethink how to keep both staff and patients safe. Many providers link the wave to shifting political and legal signals out of Washington that, in their view, made some demonstrators feel freer to push the line.
A survey by the National Abortion Federation, shared with MS NOW, found that among the association’s more than 400 member clinics, hospitals and individual providers, roughly 200 facilities and workers reported incidents of violence or harassment in 2025. According to the survey, more than 60 facilities received death threats or threats of harm, and 10 clinics reported being hit with multiple threats over the course of the year.
DOJ narrows federal tools for clinic protection
In late January, the Justice Department quietly issued a one-page memo that significantly narrowed when federal prosecutors can bring abortion-related cases under the FACE Act, the key federal law used to protect clinics. Prosecutors were instructed to file such cases only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as incidents involving death, serious bodily harm or serious property damage. As described in the Justice Department memo, the directive also ordered three existing FACE Act cases dismissed and required senior Civil Rights Division approval before any new abortion-related FACE actions could move forward.
Pardons changed the political signal
At almost the same time, providers were watching a very different signal come from the White House. Just days into his second term, President Trump granted clemency to 23 activists who had been convicted of blocking clinic entrances, a tactic that has long been at the center of clinic-protest confrontations. Advocates and researchers say the move shifted the political tone around clinic protests and how risky certain tactics felt for activists on the ground.
The timing did not go unnoticed. Reporting at the time noted that the pardons landed on the eve of the March for Life rally and were sharply criticized by abortion-rights groups, who argued the gesture would embolden some demonstrators. Axios covered the pardons and the immediate fallout among both supporters and opponents.
Clinics closing even as harassment rises
All of this is unfolding as the basic map of where people can get care keeps shifting. A Guttmacher Institute analysis found net declines and what it called “churn” in brick-and-mortar clinic numbers between March 2024 and December 2025, with closures and pauses in services clustered in certain states. The practical result, providers say, is that every blockade, threat or online harassment campaign lands harder when fewer clinics are open to absorb patients.
On paper, the total number of facilities might not look dramatically different year to year. But Guttmacher Institute data show that relatively small net changes conceal substantial turnover underneath, with clinics closing in one area and opening or resuming services in another.
Harassment went digital and on the ground
The National Abortion Federation survey and provider accounts describe a familiar mix of in-person obstruction and a newer wave of coordinated digital harassment. Clinics reported classic tactics such as blocking entrances, combined with organized efforts to overwhelm phones and inboxes so that patients and staff could not get through.
According to reporting shared with MS NOW, one Wichita clinic reported receiving thousands of automated messages on two separate days. A Boulder facility said it logged more than 65,000 calls, emails and social media messages after it announced a youth program, a volume that could snarl any small office. Clinics also reported roughly half a dozen blockades across Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee and Texas.
Providers push back but warn of weakening protections
In response, NAF and allied organizations have been pressing Congress, state officials and local law enforcement to recognize what they describe as rising risks for staff and patients, and to restore or reinforce protections where they can. In comments tied to a congressional resolution recognizing abortion providers, NAF leadership warned, “At a time when abortion providers are facing escalating violence, political interference, and the erosion of critical protections like the FACE Act,” clinic leaders are ramping up security and building mutual-aid networks to share resources and information. For more detail on those statements, see Rep. Pressley’s release.
Legal implications
The Justice Department’s narrower standard effectively shifts most FACE Act enforcement to state and local authorities unless an incident causes serious injury or significant property damage, removing a federal backstop that providers had long cited in high-profile obstruction cases. According to the Justice Department memo, the order to dismiss three named cases and the requirement for higher-level sign-off on new abortion-related FACE actions are now standing policy.
Even as the legal and political ground moves under their feet, clinics say they intend to keep providing care while tightening their own defenses and looking for outside support. The National Abortion Federation notes that it offers emergency response, security assessments and trainings to its members, and is urging policymakers to restore the enforcement tools that, in its view, help keep both patients and staff safer. NAF provides additional detail on its security work and the trends it is tracking.
