This article was first published in Chief Executive Officer

---

The recent assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has cast a spotlight on the vulnerabilities faced by many corporate leaders and is a great example of how C-Suite executive’s safety can affect not only their personal wellbeing, but also can drastically affect a company’s reputation and stock. According to News Nation, UnitedHealth Group shares are down more than 14% since Thompson was shot and the company is counting its losses in billions.

While many corporations see security as an unnecessary financial loss and many won’t consider it in their budget, history has shown us that failing to protect their executives can cause an enormous financial loss. As we have seen, there have been many reported incidents surrounding violence towards C-suite executives. Some of the most well-known cases, the kidnappings of the Toronto crypto company CEO who got kidnapped last November and was held for $1M ransom before being released, the murder of the tech executive Bob Lee, founder of Cash App in San Francisco, in 2023, and the death of another tech executive Vivek Taneja, who was assaulted in downtown D.C. on February of the same year and succumbed to his injuries a day later. These incidents, along with many others, bring again to light potential dangers that corporate leaders face today.

Reality Check

While the general public assumes that all high-profile individuals, including celebrities, have security, the reality is that many C-suite executives operate day-to-day without any security presence. Whether they are traveling for business, attending meetings and conferences, or simply going about their daily routines, these individuals often find themselves exposed to various threats without the support of a dedicated security team.

The reasons for this vary. In some cases, the cost of executive protection is not prioritized within the company’s budget. In others, reductions in force (RIF) have affected the security team. Additionally, even when security is provided, many executives resist it, preferring to avoid the perceived inconvenience of having protection around them. One of the biggest challenges when assigning security to specific individuals is their non-compliance, as they believe they will lose their privacy and be forced to change how they live their lives.

Significant Incidents Involving CEOs:

Brian Thompson was the latest victim, but not the only one by far:

• Pava LaPere, a 26-year-old tech entrepreneur, was found dead on the roof of her building, half-naked, strangled, and brutally beaten.
• 51-year-old Forrest Hayes, the former senior director of Apple’s worldwide operations, was killed by a high-priced prostitute who injected him with a lethal dose of heroin and then left him to die on his luxury yacht.
• In 2019, Tushar Atre a tech executive and founder of a Santa Cruz-based web design company, was kidnapped from his home on October 1, 2019. He was later found dead in his girlfriend’s BMW SUV. Several suspects, including former employees, were arrested in connection with his death.
• In 2022, Artemis Seaford, a high-level executive at Meta and dual U.S. – Greek national, was found to be surveilled by surveillance-for-hire software for around one year.
• In 2015, Tadas Kasputis, one of the founders of CoinStruction and the ExMarkets crypto-exchange was kidnapped in his hometown Kaunas city in Lithuania by criminals who wanted to gain access to his crypto wallet.
• In 1998, Bill Gates, was hit in the face with a cream pie as he was about to enter a building for a meeting in Brussels.
• In 2018, Jeff Bezos had his mobile phone “hacked” after receiving a WhatsApp message.

As we can see from multiple cases, threats towards these individuals can come from any direction and at any given opportunity. Those of wealth or stature in society find themselves becoming a target or being “condemned” by groups who feel that they somehow deserve more and that their goal is best obtained through violence of some sort.

We all saw how executives and personnel from pharmaceutical companies were targeted during the Covid lockdowns and how specific minorities (Asian) have been singled out for harassment recently due to stories surrounding the supposed origins of Covid as well as the tedious political arena of U.S/Chinese relations. Russian businessmen/women have become victims of various crimes against themselves, their families, assets, and companies.

The Need to Protect the Brand

One thing that often escapes the attention of many corporate boards is that CEOs and other high-level C-suite executives are not just leaders of their organizations, they are the face of the company, the human embodiment of the Brand. Protecting these individuals extends far beyond safeguarding their lives; it is also about safeguarding the brand’s reputation, market value, and future stability.

The visibility of executives today has grown exponentially. Shareholders, clients, and the media closely associate a company’s identity and trustworthiness with its leadership team. When a CEO or prominent executive is harmed, whether through assassination, kidnapping or any other physical harm, the ripple effects can be catastrophic for their organizations. Such events can erode stakeholder confidence, shake public perception, and cause financial volatility.

For example, and as we mentioned earlier, following the tragic assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the company’s stock value reportedly dropped over 14%, resulting in billions of dollars in losses. This kind of damage is not limited to financial metrics alone; it can also impact on employee morale, customer trust, and the company’s ability to attract new business.

The brand-equity connection is further amplified in industries like technology, finance, crypto and healthcare, where executives are often seen as visionaries or cultural icons. Consider figures like Bob Lee, founder of Cash App, whose untimely death not only shocked the tech world, but raised concerns about safety for executives in high-risk urban environments. In these scenarios, the absence of robust protection not only puts lives at risk but also undermines the strength of the brand narrative and leadership continuity.

Corporate boards must understand that executive security is not just some numbers in your budget as an expense, but a proactive and strategic investment in their brand protection. While the first thing that comes to mind is the importance of preserving human lives, organizations have to also realize that any harm done to their executives and employees will have a tremendous impact on their business.

The loss of the leaders in their business (the brains behind their products), the loss of their intellectual property, and the disturbance of their daily operations will cause the employees, customers and investors to lose faith in them. Failing to protect their own executives leaves companies vulnerable, not just to physical threats but to reputational damage that can take years to repair.

The Giant With Feet made of Clay

One thing that has become increasingly apparent in light of these recent incidents is how surprisingly easy it can be for individuals, often with limited resources, minimal planning, and very little experience, to approach, harm or embarrass high-profile public figures, including CEOs and other C-suite executives. These events expose a concerning vulnerability: corporate leaders, who represent power and authority can still be physically or reputationally damaged with alarming ease.

The very perception of strength that many companies project, be it through financial dominance, market influence, or industry leadership, can quickly crumble when their most visible representatives are attacked or harmed. It reveals the “giant with feet made of clay”: an entity that appears powerful and unstoppable on the surface but, in reality, cannot adequately support or protect its executives, leaving them exposed to danger.

This illusion of invincibility creates a dangerous dichotomy. While corporations may excel at presenting their resilience in business operations, their failure to ensure the security of their leadership undermines their credibility. Each time a CEO or executive is harmed (whether through kidnapping, physical assault, or character assassination) it sends a message to stakeholders, employees, and even competitors that the “giant” is vulnerable. The company’s façade of stability cracks, and the repercussions can be severe:

• Financial Fallout: Attacks on executives often trigger stock price drops, erode investor confidence, and cause millions, if not billions, in losses.
• Reputational Damage: If a company cannot protect its leadership, what message does that send to clients, employees, and the public?
• Operational Disruption: The absence or incapacitation of key executives can destabilize decision-making and hinder long-term strategic goals.

High-profile incidents, like the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson or the kidnapping of crypto executives such as WonderFi’s Dean Skurka, are not anomalies, they are warning signs. They demonstrate that harm can come, not just from organized, well-funded adversaries or criminal organizations, but also from individuals acting alone with limited means. These cases emphasize a critical truth: public figures, especially those in leadership roles, are increasingly accessible targets.

Companies must reassess their priorities and abandon the illusion that their leaders are untouchable simply because they are perceived as powerful. Executive protection for your C-Suite executives is not a luxury or a budget allowance; it is a necessity. A company that fails to shield its most visible assets, its leadership, risks becoming a symbol of fragility rather than strength.

What Comes Tomorrow?

For those closely following the latest incident, the aftermath of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s assassination reveals troubling insights into public perception and growing hostility toward corporate leaders. Social media platforms quickly became a breeding ground for disturbing reactions. The majority of users were seen mocking or justifying Thompson’s death, with some going so far as to openly encourage similar attacks against other CEOs.

This online vitriol has already inspired real-world consequences. In a concerning copycat case, Briana Boston, a 42-year-old Florida woman, was charged after allegedly making a threatening call to BlueCross BlueShield over a rejected medical claim. While her actions did not escalate to violence, the threat underscores how quickly frustrations directed at executives can boil over into actionable hostility.

The assassination of Brian Thompson has set off a dangerous chain reaction. According to a recent warning issued by the New York Police Department (NYPD), US healthcare executives now face a heightened risk to their safety. Authorities uncovered an online “hitlist” circulating in the wake of Thompson’s death, featuring names, photos, and salaries of numerous other health insurance executives.

This list has amplified the sense of vulnerability. Executives who were once seen as inaccessible are now being publicly targeted. Compounding the issue, “wanted” posters featuring the faces and personal details of healthcare CEOs have appeared throughout Manhattan. These acts, whether meant as intimidation, protest, or a precursor to violence, signal a troubling escalation of hostility toward corporate leadership.

We are dealing with a disturbing growing phenomenon: digital outrage is no longer contained to online spaces. Social media platforms, already rife with grievances about systemic inequities, economic struggles, and corporate distrust, are now amplifying calls for real-world action against executives. Online forums and posts can radicalize individuals, especially those with personal frustrations or grievances, encouraging them to take matters into their own hands.

What comes tomorrow is not limited to healthcare. Brian Thompson’s assassination and its fallout serve as a stark warning to leaders across all industries. CEOs and C-suite executives are increasingly vulnerable, both as visible symbols of power and as targets of systemic frustrations.

Companies that fail to recognize and respond to this evolving threat landscape risk not only the lives of their leaders but also the stability of their operations and the trust of their stakeholders. The time for reactive measures has passed. A proactive, strategic approach to executive protection is now a necessity.

Don’t Be The “Giant With Feet of Clay’’

The evolving threat landscape necessitates a proactive approach to C-Suite executive protection. Companies should start thinking proactively, stop placing security as the first budget cut and must balance the need for security with the personal preferences of their executives, ensuring that protection measures are both effective and minimally intrusive.

1. Prioritize Executive Security: They should start treating executive protection as an integral part of corporate strategy, not an afterthought.
2. Adopt Proactive Risk Management: Conduct threat assessments, monitor vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures before incidents occur.
3. Invest in Discreet and Effective Security Solutions: Develop security protocols that do not disrupt executives’ lives but still provide robust protection.

As we have seen, the message is clear: the world has changed, and so must corporate priorities. CEOs and other C-suite executives are not only the face of their organizations, but they are also vital assets whose safety directly impacts a company’s stability, reputation, and bottom line. Ignoring this reality exposes businesses to unnecessary risks that can have catastrophic consequences.

The “giant with feet made of clay” is no longer a metaphor; it is a warning. Companies must shed the illusion of invincibility and untouchability and take decisive, proactive action to protect their leadership. By prioritizing security, managing risks effectively, and implementing discreet security measures, businesses can protect not only their executives but also their brand, market value, operations, and future success.

In an era where a single incident can bring a giant to its knees, the choice is simple: adapt and fortify, or remain vulnerable and hope you are not next.