Recent high-profile assassinations have forced universities and healthcare corporations in 2025 to urgently re-evaluate their executive protection protocols for controversial speakers, dignitaries, and top executives.
The murders of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and right-wing political commentator Charlie Kirk, as well as the murders and attempted murders of Democratic lawmakers and President Donald Trump have served as stark reminders of the vulnerabilities faced by public figures, prompting a significant shift in security practices.
UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Sparks Industry-Wide Alarm
The first major incident directly impacting campuses occurred just before the end of 2024 in early December, when UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed in Manhattan. He was walking to the New York Hilton Midtown Hotel for his company’s annual investor conference.
On-Demand Webinar: Executive Protection and Workplace Violence: Identifying and Preventing Incidents
In the aftermath, social media posts went viral, listing the personal information and salaries of eight other health insurance executives. Many users celebrated the murder, and “wanted” posters featuring healthcare executives appeared throughout New York City. The New York Police Department issued a warning that the ambush of Johnson could inspire copycat attacks against other executives, particularly within the healthcare sector.
This tragedy prompted many companies to increase personal security benefits for their executives. Personal security is now the second most common benefit under consideration for executives, often including:
- Assigning security staff to accompany executives during travel and public events.
- Hiring armed drivers.
- Conducting comprehensive home security assessments.
Charlie Kirk Assassination Intensifies University Security Debates
The focus on executive and dignitary protection expanded to universities in September 2025, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking to a large audience at Utah Valley University.
While violence has occurred at past speaking events nationwide, the public and graphic nature of this shooting has alarmed officials responsible for college campus security. The incident highlighted that although Kirk was a controversial figure, any well-known presenter or visiting dignitary carries some level of risk.
Debating the Path Forward for Campus Protection
The key debate on university campuses now is whether to establish in-house dignitary protection teams.
Michael Dorn, Executive Director of Safe Havens International, outlined the necessary steps for colleges to develop their own protective details for high-profile speakers and dignitaries. He emphasizes a structured approach to building internal capabilities in the article he wrote for Campus Safety.
Related Article: Executive Protection: Meeting the Rising Risks of a Hyper-Visible Era
However, veteran security experts Adi Barshishat and Oren Alter advise against this model. They argue that creating an effective in-house team requires highly specialized training, significant resources, and complex legal expertise that most universities lack. Instead, they advocate for partnerships with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies as a safer and more effective solution in Why Campus Security Departments Should Not Handle Dignitary Protection.
The murders of Thompson and Kirk have fundamentally altered the landscape of executive protection.
For the healthcare industry, the response has been a swift increase in direct personal security measures for top executives. For higher education, the assassination of a speaker has ignited a critical debate on the best way to secure high-profile events.
Both sectors are now forced to confront a new reality where the threat of targeted violence is no longer a distant possibility but an urgent, tangible concern demanding immediate and strategic action.
