In the wake of the shocking murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, corporate executives across America are re-evaluating their security measures.
Thompson, 51, was shot dead in broad daylight outside the Hilton Midtown hotel in Manhattan on 4 December, an act that has sent shockwaves through corporate boardrooms.
Yet despite the heightened concerns, many high-ranking executives remain resistant to hiring bodyguards, citing lifestyle disruptions and the unintended attention that such visible security measures can bring.
According to the New York Post, Marc Segal, CEO of the security firm AHNA Group, emphasised the broader implications, stating, "If something happens to a public company CEO, it will affect the stock price."
Similarly, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld from Yale's School of Management warned that inadequate security measures could expose companies to shareholder lawsuits, creating another layer of risk.
Bodyguards: A Double-Edged Sword?
Despite the clear dangers, many CEOs are hesitant to employ personal bodyguards.
According to an unnamed executive who spoke to the New York Post, bodyguards often represent an unwelcome intrusion into one's personal life, with the added risk of making the executive a more conspicuous target.
"Unless they're ex-Mossad, they probably aren't going to be that helpful," the executive remarked.
For some, the risks outweigh the benefits. While the presence of security personnel can be a status symbol, Segal explained that such ostentatious measures may not be effective in every scenario.
Instead, he advocated for tailored security approaches, stating, "Security is like medicine: Security firms shouldn't be prescribing something [like bodyguards] if they don't know what's right for the company."
Stealth Over Strength
Other executives have opted for less obtrusive security measures. Following Thompson's death, many companies reportedly began scrubbing their websites of executive biographies and photographs.
This low-profile approach allows executives to remain anonymous, reducing the likelihood of being targeted. As Segal noted, monitoring online threats and securing entry points at company events and homes are increasingly favoured over traditional bodyguards.
For some, personal preparedness is key. Certain executives have chosen to apply for concealed carry permits or equip themselves with pepper spray. In one extreme case, an executive reportedly began wearing a bulletproof vest.
Crypto Executives Take No Chances
Cryptocurrency executives, who face unique risks due to the nature of digital wealth, are among those more willing to invest in personal security.
Tadas Kasputis, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, recalled being kidnapped in Lithuania in 2015, an ordeal that convinced him to hire bodyguards.
"They came out of nowhere," he said. "[They] pushed me into a van and drove around town trying to get me to tell them my bitcoin wallet passwords."
A Broader Shift in Corporate Security
As discussions around executive safety intensify, companies like Meta have set the standard for robust security spending.
The tech giant reportedly allocated £20 million ($25 million) last year to protect CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other high-ranking officials, a figure expected to rise in light of recent events.
Kevin Hartz, a former CEO turned security consultant, suggested that such spending will become increasingly common as companies adapt to the evolving threat landscape.
Ultimately, the murder of Brian Thompson has forced corporate America to confront an uncomfortable truth: while the cost of enhanced security is high, the potential consequences of neglecting it are far greater.