E-mail us
Executive Protection: The Boy in the Bubble
Executive Protection 10/5/2025
Public debate events
Executive Protection: Unfortunately, it is not a new phenomenon to see violence on a university or college campus when a controversial guest is invited to speak. As a result, many student groups have had their events canceled due to concerns about safety and security. However, there is a type of speaker who has decided to go on, or just outside campus, in an open public space, to “debate” students on current topics of the day.
They are often controversial, with a few deliberately “triggering” those they debate, hoping to capture a few minutes of video to use later to prove a point about their political opponents. It is a dangerous game they play often with insufficient security or a law enforcement presence.
Cam Higby
Look no further than conservative activist Cam Higby, who, in October 2025, got into a physical confrontation at DC’s Union Station with a woman after a debate event at the University of Maryland. Mr. Higby, in a phone interview with Fox News Digital, said “a woman approached him and started being combative.” he later pepper-sprayed the woman who allegedly lunged at him during their interaction.
You won’t be surprised Mr. Higby has experienced violence previously during these events. In June 2025, while engaging in what could be described as “trolling”, participants of an anti-ICE rally in downtown Seattle he was filmed being attacked by three men until he used pepper-spray to escape. Mr. Higby later reported he “suffered a concussion, dizziness, nausea, and other symptoms that required ER and urgent care treatment.”
In an interview, Mr. Higby said, “his mission is to expose violence on the left and promote peaceful political dialogue.” Now, this may be true, but Mr. Higby has become known for setting up debate sites with signs reading, “The left is violent! Let’s Debate!” So, is there any argument that this type of messaging alone can incite the violence he wants to expose?
Mr. Higby says, “We want people fired up. We want people to be excited to talk about political issues, but what we don’t invite people to do is touch us.” Well, one look at the many videos of Mr. Higby’s encounters with others clearly shows why he should worry about being touched or worse. His personal and physical security measures are dangerously inadequate for the threat he’s creating toward himself and his crew at these events.
A major concern about the recent incident with the woman in DC is, as Mr. Higby noted, “it was unclear if the woman had any weapons, as she had her hands in her pockets during the majority of the encounter.”
Sorry, but what? You allowed a woman hostile to your message to approach, get within your personal space, make contact with you, knock you over, and require the use of pepper spray—all while her hands might be on a weapon in her pockets.
Charlie Kirk
Mr. Kirk, like Mr. Higby and a dozen others, used the same format of a public space for a debate with members of the general public on campus. And upon reviewing the video of Mr. Kirk’s shooting at Utah Valley University, you’ll notice a much better security posture: close protection agents, fencing, and a standoff space from the public that allows time to react to any violence directed toward Mr. Kirk. But this didn’t prevent an assassin with a rifle and a clear line of sight from shooting Mr. Kirk. And given the almost complete lack of any real security measures for speakers like Mr. Higby, it is not if, but when, the next speaker is seriously injured or worse.
First Amendment
First amendment advocates are calling for more access to public spaces like a college campus. They acknowledge the danger, but want the threats mitigated by local and campus security or law enforcement. Universities and Colleges are delaying or refusing to host these events for fear of more violence. And those that do open their doors are asking for financial assistance to cover the expenses for additional security measures.
But the issue isn’t the first amendment, campus police or security measures. Its the tone these “debaters” take with those they engage with. Its the lack of maturity or self control many in the crowds demonstrate as they ignore the simple fact they can walk away and not engage in a back and forth with someone you already know is going to trigger them.
And as the Joker famously states, “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. In this case your unstoppable force is the belief system of the speaker vs. the immovable object is the inability of those in the crowd to see another’s point of view as what it is, just their point of view. The inherent friction between to the two forces causes the very violent reactions we are seeing.
Solutions
We are not going to change the temperature of debates in public places and reduce the risk to these speakers. We may not be able to provide the level of protection the speakers require because they move from place to place, different threat environments, and there is a lack of protective intelligence available. And private sector agents don’t have the authority to do more than ask for help from campus security and law enforcement.
So, we are going to provide better training to the agents, better awareness of the threats to the speakers, and build better relationships and networks with the colleges, universities, law enforcement and other stake holders so these events are held in a suitable location with appropriate security measures.
We will train agents to understand the emotional vs intellectual dilemma involved when rational people turn to violence over ones differing views. Agents risk mitigation efforts must be based on more than the physical threat level, but they need to take into account the emotional or extremist feelings of those in opposition to the speaker.
Agents must understand the factors of physical security for both large and small scale events, and need to see through the eyes of the assailant.
We need to consider pre-emptive PSA campaigns that reiterate opinions are just that, opinions. And violence isn’t an option when you disagree over opinions. It might be beneficial for these PSA campaigns to be conducted on, and at, any location scheduled to host these speakers.
Hosts should be encouraged to give equal time to speakers with an opposing view, and every effort needs to be made to desensitize people to the rhetoric of many of the more divisive speakers.
Or, we place our speakers in large bullet proof fish bowls, surrounded by agents and barriers, and we regulate speech and outlaw divisive opinions. I’m betting on better education for the speakers on the threats, better training for the agents, and a shift in society that ignores the rhetoric and brings back real debate.
Matthew Parker, CEO, ISA and EPtraining.us.
#executiveprotectiontraining, #enddivisivedebate