Violent threats and security incidents aimed at AI companies and their leadership have surged dramatically in recent months, prompting major investments in executive protection and armed security.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the AI industry is facing an unprecedented wave of violent threats and security incidents as public opposition to the technology intensifies. According to data from security firm Liferaft, digital threats targeting AI executives and data centers increased sevenfold between late February and May, marking a sharp escalation in hostility towards tech companies and their leaders.
Threats transformed into violence in April when a Texas man allegedly attempted to firebomb the home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The suspect was charged with attempted murder and arson, and police discovered a manifesto advocating for the killing of AI CEOs and investors. The man has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Just five days after the attack on Altman’s residence, security personnel at Anthropic confronted an intruder who had gained access to the company’s lobby by following an employee through the entrance. The individual claimed he needed to warn executives that a top Anthropic executive was “going to be killed,” according to incident records. While the encounter ended without violence or arrest, it underscored the growing threat environment facing AI companies.
San Francisco police have responded to multiple threats against employees of both Anthropic and OpenAI in recent months. In one incident in April, a man who had applied for a job at Anthropic using a false identity allegedly posted online threats to harm the children of company employees, which he characterized as punishment for alleged theft of his work. Police classified the incident as a terroristic threat, though no arrest was made. The individual later stated he had “no actual desire to physically harm anyone.”
Additional incidents have involved threats over customer service issues. In June, Anthropic security officials reported an Oklahoma man to police after he threatened violence while demanding a refund. The man wrote that he would come to the company’s office with his pistol to discuss his money, expressing frustration over the inability to contact a human representative.
The surge in threats has prompted significant changes in how AI companies approach security. Tech executives who once moved freely in public are now traveling with armed guards. Some industry leaders have begun downplaying their involvement with AI to avoid attracting attention. Companies are also advising employees to hide corporate logos when in unfamiliar areas due to the risk of targeted attacks.
Security spending among technology companies has risen sharply. According to an analysis by Equilar of corporate filings, 38.1 percent of S&P 500 technology companies disclosed executive protection spending in 2025, up from 26.8 percent in 2021. Companies at the center of the AI boom have reported particularly dramatic increases. Palantir Technologies increased executive protection spending by 150 percent to nearly three million dollars in 2025. Oracle’s spending rose 85.5 percent, with most funding residential security for Larry Ellison in response to specific threats and safety concerns.
At Palantir, CEO Alex Karp addressed the mounting tensions at a conference on AI and labor hosted by American Compass. “When told ‘your job is going to disappear,’ people go for the pitchfork,” Karp said, acknowledging that fear of unemployment is fueling the backlash.
Dakota Dominguez, vice president of client relations at JPT Security, noted the shift in the industry. “Tech CEOs, a few years ago, definitely did not have security,” Dominguez said. “A lot of tech companies now are incorporating that into their budgets.” He added that tech companies are increasingly requesting armed guards due to industry backlash, though executives typically prefer less conspicuous security compared to politicians or entertainment figures.
At Anthropic, security operations have expanded considerably. The company has maintained round-the-clock security since 2024 and communicates regularly with employees about emerging threats. A company spokesman stated that Anthropic tracks concerning behavior through a person-of-interest process designed to catch escalation patterns early. Several individuals involved in police-reported incidents were already being monitored by Anthropic security.
Public concern centers on several issues, including job displacement, effects on children, and energy costs associated with data centers. Employee anger has mounted as companies attribute layoffs to efficiencies created by AI adoption. In May, Meta Platforms announced approximately 1,400 layoffs in Washington state amid an AI pivot, prompting online commenters to post violent rhetoric about CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s yacht, which was spotted in Seattle at the time.
Bonnie Kate Wolf, a 34-year-old Pinterest designer who was laid off as the company embraced AI, voiced frustration with industry executives. Before her accounts were deactivated, she posted to an office Slack channel urging colleagues not to forget those being replaced by AI. “That’s why people are setting warehouses on fire,” Wolf said. “You can’t go back to serfdom. It really feels like the people in power want to be kings. Historically, that doesn’t work out for kings.”
A wide range of issues related to AI are impacting public sentiment about the technology. People once only concerned about the economy are realizing that AI can potentially touch every aspect of life including faith. Breitbart News Social Media Director Wynton Hall has written his instant bestseller Code Red: The Left, the Right, China, and the Race to Control AI to serve as the definitive guide on how the MAGA movement can create positions on AI that benefit humanity without handing control of our nation to the leftists of Silicon Valley or allowing the Chinese to take over the world.
Read more at the Wall Street Journal here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of AI, free speech, and online censorship