10/07/2026
I never thought I would find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with certain people in this industry on some of these issues.
But after what I have experienced over the last year, and after watching how some organizations operate, I have come to the conclusion that there is either a serious double standard in the executive protection training industry, or far too little concern about whether everyone is actually playing by the same rules.
A little perspective:
When I last counted in 2022, there were 111 companies in the United States offering some form of executive protection training.
Some programs are one or two days. Some are seven to ten days. Others offer programs closer in length to what we provide at ESI, anywhere from 28 days to nine weeks.
Some programs come and go. Some provide tremendous value.
And I genuinely believe that quality training from different organizations can give professionals another tool for their toolbox. There is room in this industry for different schools, different instructors, different methodologies, and different approaches.
What grinds my gears is something else entirely.
False advertising.
Ignoring the regulations that training organizations are required to follow.
And operating under standards that apparently are not applied equally across the industry.
Over the last year, ESI has undergone four VA investigations, two ATF investigations, three investigations by our primary state regulatory agency, the Colorado Division of Private Occupational Schools, and for good measure, a review by our local county health department.
What did those reviews uncover?
Things like certificate wording that needed to be changed.
Changes to the way attendance needed to be documented.
A requirement that our transcripts provide an hour-by-hour breakdown of the subjects taught.
I personally had to provide documentation concerning my own records. We spent hours reviewing the serial numbers of every fi***rm owned by the organization with ATF. I even had to provide the health department with catering receipts.
My staff and I scanned and submitted more than 500 student records.
We provided instructor resumes, instructor applications, financial records, attendance documentation, student work, grades, policies, and supporting documentation.
At one point, I was literally taking screenshots of social media posts and submitting them for regulatory review.
Side note: no one in my office is allowed to use a stapler anymore.
Ever.
But here is the important part.
I am a stickler for documentation.
Our student files contain their work, their grades, their attendance records, counseling documentation when appropriate, and the records of what happened during their training, the good and the bad.
And thank God they do.
Because when ESI was asked to prove what we do, we could.
We could demonstrate that the training happened.
We could demonstrate that the hours were taught.
We could demonstrate that students were evaluated.
We could demonstrate that our instructors were qualified.
And we could demonstrate that ESI provides what we say we provide.
Training to a standard.
Not simply handing someone a certificate because they were a warm body in a seat and could pay tuition.
When a student struggles at ESI, we address it. We speak with them. We provide counseling and opportunities to correct the problem.
And when that does not work, we remove them from the program.
Yes, that costs us money.
I have denied admission to approximately eight to ten applicants this year alone. I have removed four students from training and sent them home.
Why?
Because standards do not mean very much if you are unwilling to enforce them when enforcement becomes inconvenient or expensive.
That is probably the part of this industry conversation that frustrates me the most.
ESI gets reported. We get investigated. We get scrutinized. We get criticized.
Fine.
Scrutinize us.
Ask us to prove what we do.
Hold us accountable.
I can live with that.
What I have a harder time accepting is watching organizations criticize ESI while simultaneously borrowing our program language, mimicking our marketing, approaching our instructors, or recreating pieces of what we have spent decades developing.
I stay out of most industry drama.
I do not comment on every controversy.
I do not respond every time someone takes a shot at ESI.
Most of the time, I sit quietly in the back of the room and watch how people move.
And I have learned a lot by doing that.
ESI is not perfect. No organization is.
We will continue changing things when they need to be changed. We will continue improving our curriculum. We will continue strengthening our policies. We will continue adapting to new regulations and new realities in this profession.
But one thing is not changing:
We are going to have standards.
Even when those standards cost us money.
Even when enforcing them makes someone angry.
Even when doing things correctly requires 500 student files, mountains of documentation, hours of regulatory review, and apparently a lifetime ban on office staplers.
ESI has been training executive protection and security professionals for decades.
We are still here.
We are still evolving.
And we are going to continue doing what we have always set out to do:
Provide world-class executive protection and security specialist training, and train people to a standard worthy of the profession.
