Article by David Lide with Maine Times reposted to Arkansas Post May 24, 2025
Portland, Maine—The McAfee Institute is a privately owned, public-facing training platform founded by Josh McAfee. It presents itself as a globally recognized provider of certifications for professionals in law enforcement, military, government, and the private sector. With polished branding, references to high-profile partnerships, and programs marketed to those in loss prevention, cybersecurity, and investigations, it gives the impression of credibility, access, and compliance.
As a professional journalist with a former public service background, I enrolled in several McAfee Institute courses to better understand how training programs are structured and delivered when public-facing. My intent was to assess whether these types of platforms maintain standards around credentialing, legal vetting, and the handling of sensitive content.
Early in the process, I encountered a content disclaimer warning of material that, in professional contexts, would typically be legally restricted to credentialed personnel. Out of an abundance of legal caution, I did not proceed further into the course or view the material. However, this moment raised critical questions: If the material is sensitive enough to warrant warnings, why is it accessible to anyone with a credit card? Where is the line between professional training and public exposure to risk and possible jail time?
Despite how the programs are promoted, enrollment required no credential verification or law enforcement verification at the time of checkout. The process was transactional. At checkout, no agency credentials, professional history, or clearance information was required. Access to the course content was immediate. If verification happens at all, it appears limited to the final certification stage after the participant has already consumed the possibly sensitive material.
At the time of enrollment, I was actively volunteering in a role closely aligned with the subject matter of the course and had been in contact with a confidential organization focused on public safety initiatives. Based on the criteria publicly advertised, this background would reasonably qualify for participation. Josh McAfee’s later claim that I “gained access under false pretenses” is not supported by the facts of my roles at the time.
When I raised legal and ethical concerns about the accessibility of course material to unvetted individuals, McAfee declined to answer direct questions. Instead, I was removed from the program, issued a refund, and sent a series of legal warnings when I asked further questions about his courses. In one communication, McAfee wrote: “You gained access to proprietary materials under false pretenses, and your access was revoked accordingly. Your claim of fair use is unfounded.”
This response raises further concerns. If the material in question is proprietary, restricted, or sensitive enough to prompt legal warnings, then the decision to allow open public enrollment without screening deserves independent scrutiny. At no point was I asked to provide official verification of credentials, nor was any mechanism in place to ensure compliance with eligibility standards at the time of checkout. The revocation of access occurred only after legal and ethical questions were raised to McAfee.
As of the most recent review, the courses remain publicly accessible. Anyone can enroll online without providing professional documentation, agency affiliation, or any credential verification at the time of checkout. This leaves members of the public exposed to potential legal risks simply by completing content that may not be legally authorized for civilian access. Depending on the potential nature of the material, and the jurisdiction, this could result in serious legal consequences for participants who acted in good faith, including possible jail time.
If credential verification were genuinely a prerequisite for access, it would be enforced before the content is delivered at the time of checkout—not after it has been consumed or questioned. Legal disclaimers buried in a terms-of-service page or introduced mid-course potentially do not substitute for responsible access control.
The McAfee Institute’s checkout page reinforces this concern. Enrollment is processed through a standard e-commerce interface that advertises promotional pricing, buy-now-pay-later options, and even shipping and billing preferences. No professional vetting is integrated into the transaction. The terms suggest agreement upon purchase but offer no actual barrier to entry, despite disclaimers about sensitive content that may carry legal implications if accessed by unauthorized individuals.
The unanswered questions at the heart of this report are not about certification value or course content quality. They are about accountability: Who reviewed the content? Who determined it was suitable for general public consumption and for law enforcement professionals who may not hold specific roles in that field? What safeguards are in place to protect both the public and the integrity of the professional training process?
Given the contradictions between public marketing, internal policy claims, and the legal threats issued in response to follow-up inquiries, a review by relevant regulatory agencies including the Missouri Department of Public Safety, U.S. Department of Justice, and licensing authorities may be warranted.
The public deserves to know whether commercial training platforms operating at the intersection of public safety and professional development are adhering to standards that protect everyone involved. So far, the McAfee Institute has declined to provide that assurance as of the publishing of this article. If they follow up with clarification, we will post it here.
Disclosure: this article was written by hand with the help of Ai.