When I was in law school in the late 1980s, our campus hosted a former Contra commander from Nicaragua, whose right-wing politics made him deeply controversial. Before he even reached the microphone, a student rushed the stage and tried to hurdle the lectern to confront him. Security intervened immediately, no one was harmed, and the event was cancelled on the spot. Back then, it felt dramatic. Today, it feels almost quaint.
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk during a college campus appearance last September shows just how much grievance-driven violence has escalated. While political killings on campus remain rare, the level of polarization, targeted harassment, and ideological hostility directed at students, faculty, clinicians, and visiting speakers has never been higher.
Related Article: Campuses Bolster Executive Protection Efforts Following Charlie Kirk, Brian Thompson Murders
These pressures are not isolated. They reflect broader security trends I see across corporate, government, healthcare, and education sectors. And these trends are converging most acutely on campuses.
As we move into 2026, four developments will shape the campus security landscape.
1. Polarization and Grievance-Driven Violence
The first is the intensifying polarization and grievance-driven violence that defines much of American life. The United States has entered an era where political outrage and conspiratorial thinking escalate into real-world harm.
The killing of Kirk at a Utah campus shattered the old psychological barrier between protest and targeted violence. Across the country, individuals perceived to represent controversial causes — whether political, social, economic, or medical — are increasingly being singled out.
At the nexus of societal tensions, campuses sit squarely in this crossfire. Protests surrounding immigration/ICE, Israel-Gaza, DEI programs, sustainability, reproductive health policies, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ issues have made many campuses symbolic battlegrounds.
Jewish and Muslim students and faculty report harassment, intimidation, and physical attacks. Professors who take positions on culturally sensitive topics on either side of civil discourse face doxxing, stalking, harassment, and “cancel” campaigns meant to pressure their administrations into firing them.
Related Article: School Shooters Manipulate Others, Evade Bystander Concerns
The attack at the Capital Jewish Museum, which could easily have occurred at a Hillel event or cultural lecture hall on a campus, underscores the porous boundary between academic spaces and the broader ideological environment.
For 2026, campus safety leaders need to strengthen their behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) programs, to include collaborating with external stakeholders such as social services, mental health authorities, law enforcement, and healthcare institutions. It will be critical to build better support systems for individuals suddenly thrust into the spotlight and targeted by online campaigns.
Likewise, it will be essential to monitor emerging grievance narratives, not for censorship but for early warning. Just as importantly, campuses must rehearse for “event-driven surges,” in which risk spikes around guest speakers, controversial decisions, student activism, or geopolitical flare-ups.
The challenge is balancing safety with free speech and academic openness. That tension shows no sign of subsiding.
2. The Drone Era Arrives on Campus
The second trend is the accelerating normalization of drones in campus security operations. What was once a novelty is fast becoming a core capability for leading institutions. Universities such as Penn State, Notre Dame, Clemson, George Mason, Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Liberty, and Grambling State are deploying drones for:
- dispatch and emergency overwatch
- rapid reconnaissance during active incidents
- search and rescue in wooded or rural perimeters
- event and stadium management
- patrols of large parking lots
- real-time tracking during foot pursuits
- documenting incident scenes before evidence is disturbed or lost
Academic medical centers are integrating drones for perimeter monitoring around emergency departments, observing crowding at ambulance bays, and responding more quickly to fights or patient-on-staff assaults.
The operational benefits are significant. In many cases, a drone can provide actionable information in under two minutes, which is far faster than an officer navigating a complex, multi-building campus.
Related Article: Utica Launches School Dismissal Safety Initiative Using Drones
But the rise of drones also introduces new threat vectors that campuses must address. Consumer-grade drones with high-quality cameras allow stalkers, harassers, or ideologically motivated actors to gather intelligence on building access patterns, dormitory routines, or VIP movements. Drones can drop contraband into residence hall courtyards, disrupt events, harass protesters or counter-protesters, or simply cause panic among students unfamiliar with or threatened by their presence.
Of particular concern is what nefarious groups or individuals may learn from the Ukraine-Russia war. The use, scale, and capabilities of drone warfare in that conflict may well educate and inspire terrorists, malign activists, or other threat actors.
Legal restrictions on counter-UAS technology remain strict. Universities cannot jam or disable drones, and even law enforcement agencies have limited authority unless specific threat criteria are met. In 2026, campuses will need to develop comprehensive policies covering:
- authorized vs. unauthorized drone use
- detection and response procedures
- privacy communication strategies for the community, such as holding public meetings and creating community advisory committees
- integration of drone intelligence with dispatch operations
Institutions that adopt drones must also prepare for others using them maliciously or irresponsibly.
3. Active-Shooter Pull Stations and Integrated Duress Alerts
A third trend migrating from the corporate world into campus environments is the rise of “active shooter pull stations.” These systems consist of wall-mounted triggers, analogous to fire alarms, and may also feature wearable panic buttons, mobile duress apps, and unified alerting platforms.
These systems are becoming staples in commercial real estate, clinics, and corporate offices, and campuses are beginning to take notice. For instance, since a campus shooting in April 2025 that killed two and wounded five, Florida State has invested millions of dollars in panic buttons, lockdown buttons, and door-locking mechanisms.
Related Article: How Common Are College Mass Shootings and What Is Being Done to Mitigate Them?
The traditional reporting of incidents by calling 911 or campus police introduces delays. Pull stations, panic buttons, pendants, and app-based alerts can trigger immediate notifications to dispatchers, activate campus-wide communications, and even initiate door-locking protocols.
For colleges and universities, where populations are spread across dozens or even hundreds of buildings with varying levels of access control, this integration can significantly reduce response times. In clinical settings such as teaching hospitals, pendant-based duress alerts are already helping protect nurses, physicians, and behavioral health staff amid rising workplace violence.
But campuses will need to make several policy and operational decisions:
- How to prevent false alarms or malicious triggers?
- Should alerts automatically lock doors or simply notify dispatchers?
- Should campus police or 911 receive the alert first?
- How to ensure accessibility for students or employees with disabilities?
- How to integrate these tools with gunshot detection, access control, cameras, and public-address systems?
These systems are not silver bullets, but when thoughtfully deployed and integrated, they represent a significant evolution in campus preparedness.
4. The New Campus Security Norm: Safety Politics
Finally, 2026 will be defined by what can best be described as safety politics: the expanding influence of parents, legislators, donors, trustees, advocacy groups, social-media communities, and accreditation bodies on campus security decisions.
Now add the financial pressures of a new era, from the Trump administration Department of Education’s orders and investigations, to the shift from a Baby Boomer model (higher education is treasured as a path to career success), to a population shift and wholesale questioning of the value of a degree. Higher learning faces a glut of competitors, not enough students, and challenging finances.
Campus security has always been multidisciplinary, but it has never been this politically charged. A lockdown, protest confrontation, viral video, or high-profile arrest can generate immediate pressure from actors who operate far outside the security department. Parents expect transparent, real-time communication after incidents. Donors and boards want assurances that their names or institutions are not linked to scandal, reputational crises, or perceived safety failures. Legislatures are issuing prescriptive mandates — such as reporting requirements and protest-response protocols — that reshape how campuses plan and operate.
Meantime, revenue is a massive factor in the politics of public safety. And stricter budgets exacerbate the situation of campus security departments that are already tightly staffed and struggle to identify, hire, train, and retain high-quality professionals.
Meanwhile, social-media narratives can drive decision-making as much as risk assessments do. A 20-second video of an arrest, confrontation, or poorly communicated lockdown can force presidents or trustees to intervene in operational decisions to manage reputational fallout.
For campus safety leaders, the new skill set is sensemaking. That means understanding stakeholder motivations, anticipating political pressures, communicating consistently, and grounding decisions in transparent risk frameworks. Safety strategy is now inseparable from communication strategy; campus police and safety leaders must be as comfortable explaining decisions as making them.
Polarization, drones, duress-alert technology, and safety politics may seem like disparate issues, but they are all facets of a shifting reality: campus security now blends operations with diplomacy, crisis management with communication, and physical security with societal volatility.
School districts, institutions of higher education and healthcare providers that anticipate these trends will be better positioned for the complexities of 2026. Preparation requires building the relationships, capacity, and narratives needed to navigate whatever volatility the year may bring.
Thanks to my colleague Jonathan Kassa, executive director of ZeroNow, for contributing key insights.
Mike Gips is managing director of ESRM at Kroll.
Note: The views expressed by guest bloggers and contributors are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Campus Safety.
