- Key insight: Major banks are taking more precautions to protect their CEOs after a health insurance executive was gunned down in 2024.
- Supporting data: Some large financial institutions increased their security spending last year by multiples of two, seven or even 10.
- Expert quote: “Increasingly, you have businesses that are getting pulled into geopolitical battles and all different other types of political battles. And so as a result of that, the figureheads, the CEO and other parts of the C-suite, are becoming targets.” —Holden Triplett, co-founder of risk advisory firm Trenchcoat Advisors
Many large banks ramped up their spending on the physical and digital security of their top executives in the year following the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Processing Content
Wells Fargo, Capital One Financial, American Express and Goldman Sachs all paid more to protect their CEOs in 2025, as the slaying of Thompson brought concerns about corporate leaders’ safety into the spotlight. Some banks upped spending on private flights, car services and home-security systems, which the companies said in recent public filings enhanced productivity and guarded confidential information.
Top leaders at major corporations, and especially banks, have increasingly become targets of physical threats, said Holden Triplett, a former leader in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and co-founder of risk advisory firm Trenchcoat Advisors.
“Increasingly, you have businesses that are getting pulled into geopolitical battles and all different other types of political battles,” Triplett said. “And so as a result of that, the figureheads, the CEO and other parts of the C-suite, are becoming targets.”
Thompson was shot on Dec. 4, 2024, in midtown Manhattan, just before UnitedHealth’s annual investor conference was scheduled to begin. Five days later, authorities arrested Luigi Mangione, who now faces state and federal charges. His New York state murder trial is scheduled to begin in September, and his federal trial is slated for the new year. Convictions in either case could mean life in prison.
Triplett said the case has put the spotlight on CEO security, adding that corporations should be prepared for threats against their leaders.
Many banks alluded in their proxy statements to a recent focus on security. Most companies classify these costs as business-related necessities, rather than personal benefits for the executives.
Goldman Sachs spent about $96,000 on personal security for CEO David Solomon in 2025, a 15% increase from 2024. Personal security for Chief Financial Officer Denis Coleman nearly doubled, from about $35,000 in 2024 to $69,000 in 2025.
“We do not consider these security measures to be personal benefits but rather business-related necessities due to the high-profile standing of these executives and the firm’s evaluation of the threat environment related to them, including in respect of violence and threats of violence directed to corporate executives,” Goldman wrote in its proxy statement.
In 2025, American Express spent more than 10 times as much on security for its top leadership as it did in 2024. The company paid nearly $3.5 million for CEO Stephen Squeri’s home security and protection services, which the bank said in its proxy “reflected enhanced security measures and higher security service costs in light of the overall security environment.” In 2024, those costs were $317,000.
Capital One’s security expenses for CEO Richard Fairbank grew from $15,000 in 2024 to $53,000 in 2025, which the company said in its proxy also includes a security guard who provides personal security.
In 2025, Wells Fargo spent $556,000 for CEO Charlie Scharf on “physical and digital security at or near his residences.” Those expenses marked a nearly sevenfold increase from 2024.
Bank of America paid an additional $49,000 to provide security for CEO Brian Moynihan during his personal travel in 2025. The company didn’t specify such spending in 2024. The bank said in its proxy that its security measures are “based on internal expertise and independent evaluations from leading external advisors and are designed to enable [executives] to perform their duties safely and effectively.”
JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon’s residential, personal travel and other related security costs have been relatively unchanged for the past few years, but are some of the highest among large bank executives. In 2025, the company spent more than $1 million on his protection.
Many banks also say that security concerns are the reason they require their executives to use corporate aircraft and corporate car services for travel. Some companies require executives to reimburse some of those costs beyond a certain amount, though those limits vary widely.
Last year, Charles Schwab gave CEO Rick Wurster a $300,000 allowance for personal use of corporate aircraft, “in response to external events and assessment of the company’s CEO security practices.”
Triplett said security costs could also include: measures to scope out potential threats on routes or in locations ahead of executives’ travel; home security measures such as cameras, access controls, safe rooms and perimeter systems that might be similar to what office buildings use; screening of personal staff; and enhanced personal cybersecurity.
Triplett said U.S. bank leaders are especially at risk of physical threats, in part because banks are symbols of U.S. economic power. Certain American banks with offices in Paris
Banks “provide a critical piece of infrastructure to U.S. financial soft power … which is increasingly important in the chaotic world we’re living in,” Triplett said.
It’s becoming more common for companies and their leaders to be targeted for their positions on issues that aren’t directly related to their business, according to Triplett. For example, banks with ties to the oil-and-gas sector could rouse climate activism groups, he said. Even outside of economic impact, banks could be targeted for their stances — or perceived stances — on social issues, or geopolitics.
Triplett said that along with increasing intent, bad actors also have increasing capabilities. Tools and tactics to cause harm are becoming more accessible to smaller groups and individuals by way of technology. Those factors mean “threat and risk have gone way up,” Triplett said.
Banks in New York City
Companies should have liaison plans with local and federal law enforcement, he said, but they shouldn’t rely solely on the government to find threat information. As more groups develop capabilities that could pose threats, corporate security teams should be cognizant of the government’s limits, Triplett said.
“It sounds so dire, but it’s only going to get worse,” he said. “The capabilities of the U.S. government are going to be increasingly strained and focused on other things, where it’s going to be harder and harder for their resources to be looking at every potential company or CEO that’s out there. They simply can’t cover it all.”