Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
A guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world.
The shooting death of Brian Thompson, the CEO of America’s largest health insurance company, in Manhattan last week sent chills through American boardrooms. The suspect charged Monday with the murder of a United Healthcare executive was found with a handwritten manifesto in which he wrote “some kind of malice toward corporate America,” officials said. After two assassination attempts on Donald Trump marred his campaign, the killing is yet another example of individuals venting their grievances through violence, this time against a businessman. Ta.
Thankfully, physical attacks on senior executives are rare. But in the United States, one of the most unequal societies in the developed world, dissatisfaction with many social ills has long drawn ire from politicians as well as corporations. Although this is usually expressed peacefully, activities on both the left and the right are becoming increasingly violent. Depending on how you look at it, political violence in the United States is at its highest in decades. The country’s polarized and toxic discourse, sometimes fueled by social media, is also partly to blame.
Thompson’s murder revealed the extent of the anger, especially toward the U.S. health care system. Many people complain of difficulty obtaining affordable insurance or being denied certain treatments. In July, about 100 people gathered in front of UnitedHealthcare’s headquarters to protest the way the company reviews treatments before agreeing to pay for them. The words “denial,” “defense,” and “expulsion” were found on the shell casing at the scene of Thompson’s murder, an apparent reference to criticism of the insurance company’s tactics.
No matter how deep-seated the frustration, nothing justifies resorting to or condoning violence. Sadly, a sizable minority thinks otherwise. One in five Americans believes violence is the solution to domestic political divisions. Indeed, the muted reaction on social media to Thompson’s murder is alarming. The number of followers on the suspect’s X account increased rapidly, with some commenters describing him as a “king” and demanding that police “release him.” A video has been released showing people dressed up as the alleged killer.
This normalization of violence means major companies cannot afford to be complacent about the safety of their executives. The percentage of large U.S. companies that provide security for at least one top executive has increased slightly in recent years, to more than one in four. Many executives at technology and oil companies provide personal security and oversight for their families, often under public criticism. Meta spent $23 million on Mark Zuckerberg’s security last year. That Mr Thompson did not have any security detail with him when he was shot during rush hour should raise questions. His widow said she had faced threats before.
For better or worse, demands on CEOs have increased over time. Expectations now extend from delivering returns to shareholders to addressing the social, political and environmental impacts of business. This is happening in tandem with a movement toward executives becoming more visible as the face of their companies, just as social media has made business leaders more accessible to the public.
Of course, executives are well compensated for managing these pressures. But in America’s gun-owning community, with the intensification of public discourse, it was probably only a matter of time before lingering anger at industry and management turned into violent vigilantism. It’s a sad but inevitable sign of the times that American companies are now scrambling to assess whether they have adequate security for their top employees.
