Both Salsburey and his wife face federal criminal cases, and authorities say the investigation uncovered narcotics trafficking spanning many months.
Yet independent reviews of state licensing records show that at least some guards provided by ARK were not properly licensed to work as armed security personnel in Ohio — a violation of state requirements that typically mandate official training, fingerprinting and certification before an individual can guard clients.
Sources familiar with the records indicate that some guards on ARK payroll lacked the requisite Ohio registration and weapon permits, raising alarms about basic legal compliance and oversight at the firm.
After state regulators moved to revoke the company’s licenses on safety and legal grounds, ARK Protection Group lost the authorization to provide security services in Ohio — a significant rebuke from authorities and a highly unusual action affecting a firm tied to a major political campaign.
In the wake of the scandal and licensing action, Ramaswamy’s campaign confirmed it has begun transitioning to a new security provider to ensure continued protection for the candidate and his family.
Spokesperson Connie Luck said that the decision reflects “deeply troubling developments” and underscores the campaign’s priority on safety. ARK Protection Group founder Ron Gazboda issued a statement expressing regret over the situation and support for his former client’s transition.
The campaign has not yet disclosed the name of the new firm it plans to employ, but sources say the change is underway and security arrangements for upcoming events and travel are being revised.
The episode has reverberated beyond law enforcement circles and into the political sphere. Opponents and some commentators have seized on the incident as evidence of poor judgment or oversight by the campaign, questioning how someone with access to a candidate’s family could evade detection despite background checks.
Critics have pressed the campaign with hard questions, such as why ties with the firm were only severed after media reporting rather than immediately after the bodyguard’s arrest, and what assurances the public has about the vetting process for security firms contracted to safeguard political figures.
The situation has also renewed debate over how political candidates secure protection in Ohio. Currently, state law does not provide automatic security details for gubernatorial nominees, leading many candidates to hire private firms at their own expense — a practice now under intense scrutiny.
In recent legislative sessions, some Ohio lawmakers have suggested expanding state‑provided security protections for candidates and elected officials, partly to avoid conflicts like the one now unfolding around Ramaswamy’s team. Despite bipartisan interest, funding and implementation details remain unresolved.
At a moment when public concern about drug trafficking, political polarization and candidate safety is high, the revocation of a security company’s license linked to a gubernatorial campaign is both unusual and politically sensitive.
For Ramaswamy, the fallout goes beyond personnel — it touches on broader questions about preparedness, campaign management and public trust. For Ohio voters, the incident may highlight the need for clearer standards and transparency regarding how political figures are protected and held accountable.
As the campaign moves forward with a new security provider, the focus is likely to remain on both legal proceedings against the former bodyguard and how the licensing revocation shapes future contracting practices in Ohio.
Political analysts suggest that the episode could prompt legislative review on candidate security protections or regulatory adjustments to ensure stricter compliance by private firms operating in politically sensitive contexts.
For now, the revocation stands as a rare regulatory rebuke with wide‑ranging implications for electoral politics, public safety, and the reputations of those involved.
