Enterprise Executive Protection Spending Spiked in 2024, Still Right-Sizing After Targeted Attack

Security spending in major U.S. corporations has been climbing in recent years, and the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is likely to send executive protection (EP) budgets even higher.

At least a dozen S&P 500 companies flagged an increase in security risks in their 2025 proxy statements—annual disclosures to shareholders—according to Reuters. Those rising risks bring increased security spending.

Of the 208 S&P 500 annual proxy statements for fiscal year 2024 reviewed by executive compensation research firm Equilar, 31.3 percent of them granted a security perk to at least one named executive officer—up from 24.5 percent in 2023. The expense rose to a median value of $94,276, compared to $69,180 in 2023.

Relatively few companies outline their security costs in shareholder disclosures. Only 18 percent of S&P 500 companies and 5 percent of Russell 3000 companies disclosed personal and home security as a CEO compensation perk, according to The Conference Board data.

Allied Universal Enhanced Protection Services President Glen Kucera told Reuters that the number of customers requiring assessment and EP services increased 10 to 15 times the number prior to the targeted attack on Thompson on 4 December 2024. These requests extended far beyond the health insurance industry, especially after public sentiment swung favorably toward Thompson’s alleged killer and “Wanted” posters featuring corporate executives started appearing on Manhattan lampposts.

Because of the rush of panic spending at the very end of 2024, Kucera tells Security Management, the 2025 proxy statements’ numbers around EP are likely unreliable for security budget benchmarking.

“That was the first 30 days, it was incredibly frantic spending,” Kucera says. “And what that kind of evolved to was a little more strategic reaction,” reliant on threat assessments of homes, offices, and event spaces, as well as deterrent postings of K-9 teams in offices at high-profile times to discourage intrusions.

This makes budgetary sense, Kucera adds. Hiring a 24/7 armed EP team for a single executive will easily run more than $500,000 a year, not to mention adding logistical complexity around armed guard requirements when the executive travels. In comparison, a threat assessment can cost between $25,000 and $50,000, depending on the situation and the number of individuals potentially needing security, and that assessment guides future spending by gauging threats to individuals, ingress and egress concerns at venues, executives’ residences, travel risks, and other factors. Then, the organization can select the level of protection called for by those factors and add additional measures as conditions change.

“It’s a process, not an event,” Kucera says. “The threat is evolving, right? Companies are evolving. Products are evolving. And that’s constantly being monitored to determine how—within the dollars we have in our budget—do we do the best we can to protect our assets and our people.”

High-profile CEOs have typically been more likely to get personal EP services, especially home and personal security systems and security personnel, Compensation Advisory Partners (CAP) analyzed. Only 15 percent of the 500 companies CAP reviewed provided a security perk to non-CEO named executive officers.

Personal security for 10 CEOs in 2023 cost a combined $41.6 million, according to Investor’s Business Daily. Communications and technology firms tend to be the biggest spenders on executive security, as well as companies with controversial figures at the helm, such as Tesla’s Elon Musk. Meta spent $23.4 million on personal and travel security for CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his family in 2023; the company justified the high cost by citing Zuckerberg’s unique position as one of the most recognized executives in the world and that he has been targeted by specific threats.

EP spending is expanding outside of the tech sector, though. Industry publication Fierce Healthcare reported that major health insurance companies spent relatively little on EP in 2024, but annual proxy reports to shareholders suggest those approaches are changing. CVS Health, for instance, noted that regular evaluations of executive safety concerns led to enhanced security recommendations for top executives, including home protection and cybersecurity measures, private corporate airplane use for travel, and corporate driver services.

Geopolitical changes, criminal groups’ adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, and the ability to send money quickly via digital currencies are changing the threat landscape for executive travel. https://t.co/bbYaYnnaeB

— Security Management (@SecMgmtMag) April 2, 2025

Unsurprisingly, UnitedHealth Group boosted its executive security after Thompson’s death. According to annual filings, the company spent $1.7 million in security for its leadership in 2024 (it did not disclose where spending stood pre-December versus after the targeted attack). The conglomerate will likely spend even more on executives’ security in 2025 to assure investors and company leaders that the organization is committed to safety, Fortune reported.

Heightened focus on executive risk in late 2024 and early 2025 will likely drive costs higher as organizations reevaluate the risks to their executives and business-critical employees. Security spending around corporate events—such as the investor conference Thompson was walking to on 4 December—is also likely to expand, especially when it comes to pre-event threat assessments and risk analysis.

“There’s a lot more focus on preemptive [security], trying to identify threats,” Kucera says. “You always want to get ahead of that and identify opportunities. The alternative is 24/7 protection, and nobody has the budget for that.”

Instead, companies are performing assessments, monitoring social media for threatening or negative chatter, and establishing points and times of concern where security efforts can be focused. This comes up more around company events and high-profile announcements or press, such as policy adjustments, controversial products, or stock price reports.

“There’s a huge amount of work being done in the background on trying to identify those circumstances where the threat could be heightened,” Kucera adds.