By Donald J. Mihalek
Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare — one of the world’s largest health insurance companies — was assassinated in midtown Manhattan on December 4, 2024. Thompson’s death marks the latest in a series of assassinations and attempts worldwide this past year.
The assassination attempt on former President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, remains perhaps the most well-known. Unfortunately, this disturbing trend seems to be escalating. Statistics and intelligence reports confirm a dramatic rise in threats against public officials.
Given this context, it is alarming that the CEO of a major corporation had no executive protection while walking in Manhattan.
Executive protection: A choice, not a mandate
Unlike government officials, whose protection is often mandated by law, corporate executives typically have a choice regarding security. Some corporate boards mandate executive protection for high-ranking positions like CEOs or CFOs, while others leave the decision to the individual executive.
This disparity creates significant inconsistencies. For instance, while Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or Amazon’s Jeff Bezos have extensive security teams, others, like billionaire Warren Buffet, historically had none until family intervention.
In an age where personal information is easily accessible online, the risk to executives has grown. Photos, addresses, family details and travel schedules are all readily available. Such exposure significantly increases their vulnerability, as evidenced by the tragic outcome in the Thompson assassination.
Corporate decisions, local and global events, and the immediacy of information demand meticulous executive protection planning. Executives and corporations face a choice: reassess protection strategies in light of threat intelligence or remain open targets.
When reassessing, armed executive protection should be considered. Former and retired law enforcement officers are often preferred for these roles due to the legal authorities afforded by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).
Understanding LEOSA and its role in executive protection
LEOSA, or 18 USC 926C, is a federal statute enacted in 2004 and amended in 2010 and 2013. It preempts state and local laws, allowing qualified law enforcement officers (QLEOs) or retired officers (QRLEOs) to carry concealed firearms nationwide.
This preemption was affirmed in the 2024 3rd US Circuit Court ruling that nullified all of New Jersey’s unconstitutional LEOSA laws and policies which had barred LEOSA’s authorities in that state. At the time of the lawsuit, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in support and affirmed that “it was the view of the United States government that 18usc926c was the law of the land.”
In 2021, the Trump Administration also issued an Executive Order that expanded LEOSA authority. It mandated all federal agencies to fully comply with LEOSA and extended LEOSA carry authority to federal judges and prosecutors.
However, as written, LEOSA remains a limited personal concealed carry waiver for qualified law enforcement officers. To be considered “qualified,” an officer must:
- Have 10 or more years of satisfactory service in a law enforcement position.
- Leave their agency in good standing.
- Possess a LEOSA credential issued by their agency.
Additionally, the individual must complete a yearly firearm qualification. This qualification is not managed by the state or any other entity; it is the officer’s responsibility to ensure they “qualify” with any weapon similar to the one they intend to carry.
It is important to note that a LEOSA credential is not necessarily the same as a retired law enforcement credential. Rather, it is a separate and distinct document that affirms the officer has met the qualifications outlined in 18 USC 926C at the time of issuance.
While the law and Executive Order have broadened the scope of who is eligible under LEOSA, they did not expand its original intent — a limited personal concealed carry waiver that overrides state and local laws across the United States and its territories.
Navigating LEOSA in executive protection work
LEOSA does not grant any additional authority or provide liability protections. It also does not serve as a “license” for a specific type of work. Instead, it simply allows qualified retired law enforcement officers (QRLEOs) to carry a firearm across jurisdictional lines, free from state and local restrictions.
This is where some confusion arises. Certain states, with New Jersey being a notable example, have attempted to formalize and control the LEOSA process by adding qualifications and rules. However, the Third Circuit Court ruled such actions unconstitutional.
LEOSA has always been a personal concealed carry authority, not a process regulated by state or local governments. The only prohibitions outlined in the federal statute are on private property and state property (e.g., state courthouses), where the property owners or authorities may choose to restrict LEOSA carry.
For those performing corporate or executive protection (EP) who meet the qualified officer definitions, LEOSA eligibility is a significant advantage and one of the reasons corporations may prefer to hire you. It enables you to carry a firearm legally across jurisdictions. However, depending on the state, LEOSA compliance may be only one part of the requirements needed to perform executive protection work.
Some states require an additional license to perform security, private investigator, or executive protection (EP) work. If you are operating in one of those states, obtaining such a license may be essential to provide a degree of liability protection for yourself and your company, as LEOSA does not offer any liability protections.
Any liability protections for a QRLEO performing executive protection (EP) work would typically come from the employing corporation or potentially from a LEOSA-specific liability policy, such as FEDS Protection or Star-Wright. However, it is important to note that these policies are generally designed for active law enforcement officers carrying firearms during their personal time under LEOSA provisions and may not fully apply to private EP work.
Nicholas Harbist, the attorney from the BlankRome firm who successfully handled the New Jersey LEOSA lawsuit, explains: “While LEOSA creates a Right to Carry by qualified retired officers and precludes states from arresting a qualified officer with appropriate identification, it does not preclude the states from exercising regulatory power over executive protection services. This may include regulatory restrictions on the practice of executive protection services or insurance requirements. These regulatory processes, restrictions, and insurance requirements can vary from state to state, and it is incumbent upon either the service or the retired officer performing the services to ensure they meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.”
While LEOSA is a vital personal constitutional authority enabling QRLEOs to carry firearms across the United States and its territories, it must be exercised within the scope of its original intent, with liability considerations properly addressed.
Denial is a dangerous illusion. It can overshadow critical factors in executive protection, offering false comfort — a lesson starkly underscored by the tragic aftermath of the Thompson assassination.
About the author
Donald J. Mihalek is the Executive VP of the FLEOA Foundation, an ABC News Contributor, a retired senior Secret Service agent and a regional field training instructor who served on the President’s detail and during two presidential transitions. He was also a police officer and served in the U.S. Coast Guard.
LISTEN! Amid high-profile risks, Chuck Andrews explores the critical skills and strategies for transitioning from law enforcement to corporate security, enhancing executive safety, on this episode of the Policing Matters podcast.
