An Equilar study of proxies filed by S&P 500 companies in the first quarter of 2025 revealed that over 30% made arrangements to protect one or more executives in 2024—a 27.8% increase from 2023 and a 47.6% increase from 2021. The cost of these arrangements has steadily climbed as well, rising from a median of $43,068 in 2021 to $94,276 in 2024.
For example, many recent proxy statements disclose that the company engaged in a risk assessment (some internal, some by independent third parties) to determine the need for and optimal scope of security programs. In addition, several companies took the precaution of removing all director and NEO photographs from their proxy statements, reversing course on a yearslong trend toward including headshots.
SEC Guidance on Executive Security Challenged
Although one can easily argue that protecting executives is a business necessity, SEC guidance states that safeguards like home security systems and use of corporate aircraft are considered “perquisites,” and they must be quantified and disclosed as such under Item 402 of Regulation S-K. Specifically, the SEC contends that “an item is a perquisite or personal benefit if it confers a direct or indirect benefit that has a personal aspect, without regard to whether it may be provided for some business reason or for the convenience of the company.”
Some have called for the Commission to rethink that position. Notably, the topic was raised during the SEC’s June 2025 roundtable on executive compensation.
At the same time, numerous companies are pointedly challenging the characterization of security arrangements as a perquisite. S&P Global, for example, explains in its most recent proxy: “We view … security-related costs as critical to the safety of our CEO and former CEO and thus to the operation of our business and our ongoing success and we do not view these costs as providing additional compensation or personal benefits to our executives.” CVS and Broadcom, among others, include similar statements in their perquisites disclosures. The SEC may decide to revisit this issue, but for the 2026 proxy season at least, executive security is a “perquisite.”
Example
Explained the Need for Additional Security Measures
Some companies acknowledged—either directly or obliquely—the changed environment.
The section on “perquisites and security” in Lockheed Martin’s 2025 proxy is longer and more direct about the need for security arrangements than the similar section in 2024. In addition, the disclosure reveals that more precautions were taken and the amount of money devoted to security was increased.
J&J greatly expanded its security-related perquisites in late 2024. Previously, NEOs had the option to use company aircraft for personal travel. That policy remains in effect for most of the NEOs, but the CEO is now required to use company aircraft for all of his travel. The CEO also is newly required to “use an armed driver and secure Company vehicle” at all times. That option is available, but not mandatory, for the other NEOs.
CVS provided air and ground transportation to certain executives in 2024, but the 2025 proxy statement discloses the addition of “personal security benefits” in response to “recent events and increased safety concerns.”
Added Security Measures Without Giving a Specific Reason
Not every company that increased executive security chose to explain why.
In 2024, the only perquisite that Broadcom specifically mentioned for the CEO was a car service for business travel and reimbursement for travel to his residence in another state. The 2025 proxy statement discloses “residential and personal security.”
Eli Lilly previously offered its CEO personal use of corporate aircraft. The 2025 proxy discloses more extensive security precautions for more executives, though the Summary Compensation Table only included security services for the CEO.
Relied on Outside Recommendations
Some companies indicate that they sought advice from independent security professionals to determine what safeguards they should implement. This step may make expensive security measures more palatable to investors and proxy advisors.
Gilead Sciences (which did not change its perquisite disclosure from 2024 to 2025) notes that the Board relied on the findings of an independent study when deciding what security measures to implement.
S&P Global relied on the recommendations of an independent security firm to enhance their security arrangements for senior executives. The 2024 proxy statement disclosed only a company car and driver for the CEO’s security. The 2025 proxy statement refers more broadly to “executive security services.”
ServiceNow engaged an independent security firm for the first time in 2024. Notably, the company spent almost $1.9 million on home security systems and upgrades for the CEO that year.
Maintained Security Measures Already in Place
.Companies that had already implemented security precautions before 2024 often made tweaks to their disclosure.
After CEO security expenses rose from $1.545 million in 2023 to $4.651 million in 2024, the company agreed with investors that security-related expenses for 2025 and 2026 would be capped at 2024 amounts.
PNC’s 2024 proxy referred (for the first time) to “verified incidents regarding [the CEO’s] personal safety.” The language in the 2025 proxy is more specific and extends to all the NEOs.
Intel has, for many years, provided security services to certain NEOs and continually challenged the characterization of those services as perquisites.
