The killing of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson in December 2024 changed how corporations assess the risk to their senior people. Demand for executive protection has risen since, in the United States and in the UK.
The case made a familiar point in public. Protection is often treated as a discretionary cost or an intrusion on privacy, until an incident demonstrates otherwise. This page sets out what the case revealed, and how proactive risk assessment and professional protection address it.
The Sunday Times Article on Executive Protection
Featured in The Sunday Times. John Moore, managing director of Westminster Security, was interviewed for the article “The booming business of bodyguards for British executives” (The Sunday Times, 30 May 2026). He described the surge in demand that followed the killing: “When it happened, there was a massive influx of companies and PAs getting in touch.”
Brian Thompson was shot outside a hotel in Manhattan on the morning of 4 December 2024. He was walking to an investor conference held by UnitedHealthcare’s parent company. The attack was targeted and premeditated, not opportunistic.
Thompson had no protection detail at the time. He and his family had previously received threats.
The killing drew immediate attention to how senior executives are protected, and to the assumptions that had left a high-profile figure exposed in a public place. An organisation’s duty of care extends to its executives, as it does to any employee.
The financial consequence was also substantial. UnitedHealth’s parent company lost about $41 billion in market value in the week after the killing (The Sunday Times). For a board, a figure of that scale is part of why executive protection is treated as a matter of corporate risk rather than personal preference.
The case highlighted gaps that are common across organisations, not specific to one company or sector.
The first is physical exposure during routine movement. Thompson was attacked on foot, in the open, on a predictable route to a known event. Arrival and departure at public engagements are among the highest-risk points in an executive’s day, and among the least often covered.
The second is the public availability of personal information. After the killing, UnitedHealthcare and other companies removed executive biographies and photographs from their websites. Home addresses, routines, and movements can frequently be assembled from open sources.
The third is the assumption that protection is a physical matter alone. Online threat monitoring and the management of an executive’s digital footprint are part of the same task as physical protection, not separate from it.
Professional executive protection is less conspicuous than the word “bodyguard” suggests. The aim is to reduce risk while preserving the principal’s ability to work and move normally.
The common components are:
The level of provision is matched to the assessment. For some principals this means protection during travel and public engagements; for others it extends to the residence.
In the UK, the pressure is increasingly domestic. A specialist intelligence group cited by The Sunday Times reported roughly a 330 per cent rise in protests and direct action against companies over the past year, and noted that activity once confined to the workplace now reaches executives’ homes. Incidents involving companies including Southern Water and Anglian Water reflect that shift.
Executive protection is a measurable cost, not an open-ended one. A Goldman Sachs report cited by The Sunday Times puts the median annual cost of personal security for US executives at about $180,000 (£135,000). In the UK, the same article reports day rates for a close-protection officer ranging from around £350 to £800–£900 for a tier-one operator, with a single permanent operator costing roughly £120,000 a year once full cover is accounted for.
Some firms disclose these figures. Meta has reported spending in the region of $27 million on its chief executive’s security; BT Group reported about £70,000 in security-related benefits for its chief executive. Set against the financial consequence of an incident, boards increasingly treat the expenditure as proportionate.
Executive protection is a tax-deductible expense in the United States, and personal security is tax-deductible in the UK where the qualifying conditions are met. Many organisations are unaware of this.
Four points follow from the case for any organisation reviewing its position:
Brian Thompson’s killing did not create a new category of risk. It demonstrated, in public, one that was already present and frequently underestimated. The response is not heightened alarm. It is a current assessment, a proportionate set of arrangements, and operators selected and trained to deliver them.
Westminster Security provides professional executive protection security services in London, the UK, and worldwide.