Close
Enter your
text here

News & Updates

2026: A Defining Year for Major Events and the Case for Early Security Planning 1024 589 Joe LaSorsa

2026: A Defining Year for Major Events and the Case for Early Security Planning

The year 2026 will be unlike any other in recent U.S. history. It brings together a rare concentration of large-scale, high-visibility events that will draw unprecedented crowds, global attention, and significant operational complexity. For companies sending employees and for high-net-worth individuals planning to attend these events personally, 2026 is not a year to plan reactively. It is a year that demands early, deliberate, and professional preparation.

At Executive Support and Logistics, we view 2026 as a convergence point where logistics, security, travel, and risk management must align well in advance to avoid preventable exposure and disruption.

Why 2026 Is Different

Several factors make 2026 a uniquely challenging year from a security and planning perspective.

First, the United States will mark the 250th anniversary of its founding. The Semiquincentennial will be celebrated nationwide throughout the year, with major events, ceremonies, and international dignitary attendance concentrated around July 4. These celebrations are expected to be significantly larger than typical national holidays and will draw dense crowds in multiple cities simultaneously.

Second, the FIFA World Cup will be hosted across the United States, bringing millions of international visitors over a multi-week period. Unlike single-day events, the World Cup creates sustained operational strain on transportation, lodging, healthcare, emergency services, and security resources. Host cities will experience continuous high-density crowds, fan zones, demonstrations, and extended media presence.

In addition, 2026 will include major recurring events such as the Super Bowl, large-scale political gatherings, major conventions, international sporting competitions, and cultural festivals. When viewed collectively, these events create overlapping demand for the same limited resources: secure accommodations, vetted transportation, trained personnel, and reliable contingency support.

The Risk Environment Around Major Events

Large events inherently elevate risk. This is not limited to high-profile threats; it includes everyday issues that often have a greater likelihood of impacting travelers and organizations.

Crowd density increases the chance of medical emergencies, accidental injuries, and panic-driven incidents. Transportation bottlenecks and road closures can disrupt schedules with little notice. Petty crime, targeted theft, and opportunistic scams rise sharply around major venues and transit hubs. Protests and demonstrations—often unrelated to the event itself—can emerge quickly and alter access routes or force last-minute changes.

For corporate travelers and high-net-worth individuals, these risks are compounded by visibility. Executives, families, and VIP attendees may stand out due to travel patterns, accommodations, or access credentials. Without advance planning, even well-intentioned itineraries can place people in unnecessarily exposed environments.

The Importance of Early Planning

The most consistent lesson from large-scale event security is simple: early planning reduces risk.

Securing travel and lodging early is no longer a matter of convenience—it is a protective measure. As availability tightens, late planners are often forced into secondary locations, less secure accommodations, or unreliable transportation options. Early reservations allow for proper vetting, proximity planning, and controlled movement.

Advance risk assessments are equally critical. Understanding the local environment, crime patterns, medical infrastructure, and venue layouts allows organizations to plan realistic movements and response options. This is especially important when employees are unfamiliar with the city or when multiple events are occurring at the same time.

Early engagement with professional logistics and security support allows for discreet, proportional measures to be put in place without creating disruption or drawing attention. This may include secure ground transportation, route planning, advance site assessments, or low-profile protective support. When arranged early, these measures integrate smoothly into travel plans rather than feeling reactive or intrusive.

What Proactive Preparation Looks Like

Proactive preparation is not about alarmism. It is about control.

Well-prepared organizations establish clear communication plans before travel begins. Travelers know who to contact, how to receive updates, and what to do if plans change. Contingency planning accounts for delays, venue evacuations, medical issues, and unexpected security concerns.

Monitoring remains continuous. Conditions can change quickly around major events, and having real-time situational awareness allows for informed decisions rather than rushed reactions.

Most importantly, proactive planning preserves focus. Executives and attendees can engage fully in the event itself—whether business, celebration, or personal enjoyment—without being distracted by logistics or safety concerns.

Looking Ahead to 2026

The events of 2026 will be historic, memorable, and, for many, once-in-a-lifetime experiences. They will also place extraordinary pressure on infrastructure and security environments across the United States.

Organizations and individuals who begin planning now will have options. Those who wait will face constraints.

At Executive Support and Logistics, we believe the value of early preparation lies not in doing more, but in doing the right things at the right time. Thoughtful planning, professional coordination, and measured security support allow major events to be experienced as they should be—confidently, efficiently, and safely.

2026 is coming quickly. The time to prepare is now.

Addendum: 2026 Major U.S. Events – Planning Timeline

This timeline is intended to support early planning, travel coordination, and security risk awareness for organizations and individuals preparing for 2026. Dates reflect currently announced or traditionally scheduled events and should be treated as planning benchmarks.

January–March 2026

  • January 2026

Multiple Locations Nationwide

Start of nationwide programming tied to the U.S. 250th Anniversary (Semiquincentennial). Federal, state, and local governments begin year-long commemorative events, ceremonies, and educational programs. Expect increased public gatherings, media coverage, and official travel activity throughout the year.

  • February 8, 2026

Santa Clara, California

Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium. Surrounding week includes high-profile corporate events, media activity, VIP hospitality, and private functions across the San Francisco Bay Area. Elevated security posture, road closures, and restricted access zones expected.

  • March 2026

Various U.S. Cities

Major international conferences, political gatherings, and early spring conventions traditionally increase corporate travel volume ahead of the summer event cycle.

April–May 2026

  • April 2026

Indianapolis, Indiana

NCAA Men’s Final Four. Large crowds, significant corporate hospitality, and limited hotel availability in the downtown core.

  • May 2026

Louisville, Kentucky

Kentucky Derby. High-net-worth attendance, celebrity presence, and private events across the region. Transportation congestion and premium accommodation demand are typical.

  • May 2026

Miami, Florida

Formula 1 Miami Grand Prix. International attendance, luxury hospitality events, and heightened demand for secure transportation and vetted accommodations.

June–July 2026 (Peak Period)

  • June–July 2026

Multiple U.S. Host Cities

FIFA World Cup 2026 (U.S. matches). Sustained, multi-week international attendance across multiple cities. Expect fan zones, public viewing areas, demonstrations, extended crowd density, and strain on transportation, lodging, and emergency services. This period represents the highest overall risk and complexity of the year.

  • July 4, 2026

Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Nationwide

U.S. 250th Independence Day celebrations. Large-scale public events, fireworks, ceremonies, and international dignitary attendance. Elevated federal security posture and significant crowd concentrations expected in multiple cities simultaneously.

  • Mid-July 2026

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MLB All-Star Game. Overlaps with post-Independence Day travel and World Cup activity, increasing congestion and competition for resources.

  • July 19, 2026

New York / New Jersey Region

FIFA World Cup Final. One of the highest-attendance single-day events of the year, with global media focus, VIP presence, and extensive security operations.

August–September 2026

  • Late August–September 2026

New York City

U.S. Open Tennis Championships. Two-week event with international attendance, corporate hospitality, and steady demand for secure ground transportation.

  • September 11, 2026

New York City and Nationwide

25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Memorial services, official ceremonies, and heightened security sensitivity, particularly in major metropolitan areas.

October–November 2026

  • October 2026

Austin, Texas

Formula 1 United States Grand Prix. High-profile international attendance, major hospitality events, and regional travel congestion.

  • November 2026

Las Vegas, Nevada

Formula 1 Las Vegas Grand Prix. Significant VIP presence, late-night event schedules, road closures, and complex movement planning requirements.

December 2026

Major U.S. Cities

End-of-year corporate events, holiday travel surge, and residual international tourism following a year of global events. Continued strain on travel infrastructure and security resources.

 

 

6 Executive Protection Dysfunctions 1024 768 ESLNA
executive protection dysfunctions

6 Executive Protection Dysfunctions

In the blog the focus is to highlight the factors that lead to the failure of executive protection (EP) programs.

We will now delve into why some of these programs fail.

Initially, we will concentrate on the six main dysfunctions responsible for creating problems in corporate and high-net-worth protection programs.

These 6 dysfunctions are:

  1. Dissimilar framing of what executive protection entails.
  2. Poor scoping of EP programs.
  3. Inappropriate control span in the EP program.
  4. Weak EP program leadership.
  5. Fostering a fear-based environment.
  6. Excessive ego in an EP program.

These traits are interlinked, and one problem can give rise to another. Even a single dysfunction can create significant issues and jeopardize an otherwise stable EP program.

If two or more dysfunctions appear simultaneously, the situation can become even more dire. If these preventable problems are left unchecked, they can cause an EP program to become a disaster.

We will examine each of these dysfunctions individually. Beginning with a fundamental issue, which is that clients and providers often have different interpretations of executive protection when they engage in conversations.

The dissimilar framing of executive protection leads to program dysfunction. Similar to how a frame sets the boundaries for what’s inside and outside a painting or photo, sociologists use framing to describe how we use stereotypes and stories to comprehend and communicate about reality and the categories we use to discuss it.

Framing enables us to simplify complex, messy things into clear-cut categories, making communication easier.

However, using dissimilar frames to describe the same things leads to confusion and dysfunction.

New clients often define executive protection based on what they see in the media, which is quite different from the frame of reference of experienced providers who have worked with corporations and high net worth individuals for several decades.

Moreover, not all providers in the executive protection industry frame their services the same way, highlighting the need for industry standardization.

Agreed-upon standards would contribute to shared frames of reference for good and bad executive protection services.

Different providers have different frames of reference, making it difficult to manage client expectations.

For example, big shops can differ significantly from single-man operations, and some teams rely more on protective intelligence and advances than others.

Additionally, North American and European perspectives on executive protection can differ.

Those accustomed to the Secret Service’s resources may face challenges in even the most ambitious corporate programs with budget constraints.

From the provider’s perspective, corporate and high net worth executive protection should go beyond keeping the principal safe. It should also enhance productivity, respect the client’s personal preferences and lifestyle, and offer comprehensive support.

Providers need to communicate the value proposition of a well-run executive protection program, including both hard and soft skills.

Failure to establish clear expectations and understanding of what executive protection entails can lead to program dysfunctions and other issues.

To address the problem of dissimilar framing, we must calibrate our frames through communication and education.

Since most clients are not familiar with executive protection practices, it falls upon providers to explicitly articulate their framing of key issues.

For example, in our frame of reference, we know that sustainment training is critical to any good program. Without it, skills deteriorate, and team readiness suffers. However, this may come as a surprise to new clients who are unfamiliar with the concept.

It is our responsibility to communicate the benefits and drawbacks of sustainment training and educate clients on why it is a necessary component of any personal protection service. By doing so, we can help clients calibrate their framing and establish clear expectations for the program.

Just because certain practices are common does not mean they are the best or even good practices in the executive protection industry.

Unfortunately, new clients often look to other companies’ practices to establish a frame of reference, and this can be problematic. If these common practices have fallen afoul of the dysfunction-causing issues we have mentioned, they do more harm than good.

To establish a shared frame of reference, it is our responsibility as providers to clearly describe our view on executive protection best practices. As a specialized service that many new clients have little experience with, we must take the lead in calibrating this frame of reference.

This process involves discussing issues such as leadership, scoping, span of control, SOPs, training, quality control, and other factors that can impact program success.

By consistently communicating and educating about best practices over time, we can establish ourselves as trusted advisors rather than just commodity vendors.

Such framing calibration happens increasingly in well-run RFP processes where: 

  1. The starting point is an agreed frame of reference of best-in-class personal protection that encompasses all aspects of a 3.0 EP program. Through benchmarking against similar situations, clients gain an understanding of the dimensions and operations of a solid EP program.
  2. Clients are then empowered to make informed decisions regarding the components they want to include or exclude from the program based on their personal preferences and budget. This choice should be made from a full range of tried and tested risk mitigation methods.
  3. The scope of work (SOW) clearly outlines what falls within the agreed frame of reference. From our experience, the more detailed and specific the SOW, the more successful the EP program will be.

Defining program success in clear terms is crucial for establishing shared framing, both during and after RFP processes.

Consensus must be reached on what success looks like, and documented with metrics and key performance indicators that highlight any gaps between current and ideal states. Regular meetings with relevant stakeholders must then be held to agree on corrective actions and protect this consensus. These efforts are essential for driving shared understanding of the EP program’s purpose and ensuring that everyone is aligned on program quality.

This concludes our discussion of the most critical causes of dysfunctional EP teams.

Stand by for Part 2 “Poor scoping of EP Programs”