An aerial perspective captures a gathering of individuals near terraced grass areas and a concrete water feature in a courtyard at Utah Valley University (UVU) on September 10, 2026, in Orem, Utah.
An independent investigation commissioned by UVU concerning the assassination of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk revealed that the university did not have a formal security plan in place for the heightened security needed during the event where the incident occurred.
On Friday, a 158-page report indicated that, despite this lack of preparation, it found no evidence of bad faith on the part of university employees either before or after Kirk’s tragic murder.
The Project Team stated, “Our analysis suggests that no UVU employee or agent acted in bad faith or willfully disregarded the safety of others during the events surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” However, they noted that upon reflection, certain actions, omissions, and institutional practices were identified that UVU should address to improve safety for future campus events.
The report documented communication between UVU police and TPUSA dating back to September 3, 2025, just days before Kirk was killed. It also provided a timeline of the day of the attack.
In summation, the report presented 10 key findings:
UVU had a strong foundation of safety policies, but there was inconsistency in their implementation and documentation leading up to and during the events on September 10, 2025.
The nature of the TPUSA event, characterized by its high-profile speaker, expected protests, and open-air setting, necessitated a more detailed security plan than what was available at that time.
The open-air venue required improved assessments of sightlines, reviews of elevated positions, access control, planning for crowd movement, and management of protests.
The TPUSA gathering revealed a clear need for standardizing incident command and emergency procedures, which had previously shown weaknesses identified before the event.
Security technology and awareness should be better integrated into operations; tools like video surveillance were primarily used afterward rather than proactively during the event.
UVU’s existing resources for monitoring and information sharing fell short of what was required for specific threat investigations.
There should be formal agreements with external agencies for mutual assistance, given that they responded swiftly and professionally during the incident.
UVU ought to reassess its public safety strategies in light of the increasingly complex risks posed by major events and protests.
Efforts to recover after the shooting need to be strengthened, including additional support for first responders.
The state of Utah is enhancing public safety initiatives which involve collaboration and intelligence sharing, and UVU should participate in these efforts.
Concerns were raised by TPUSA to UVU police regarding elevated viewing areas near where Kirk was speaking, some of which prompted a response. For instance, on September 8, 2025, TPUSA’s security team flagged the elevated Hall of Flags walkway. In response, UVU Police Chief Long sent officers to address the situation before Kirk’s arrival.
Meanwhile, UVU noted that their security team did not have access to crowd size estimates from TPUSA’s ticketing, leading to an initial staffing of only three officers. After realizing the crowd’s size, Chief Long requested additional uniformed officers, including a detective, sergeant, and another officer.
TPUSA’s security claimed to have had 10-12 personnel on-site.
The report cited that several critical security decisions for the event were left to a TPUSA representative, despite concerns raised by UVU staff regarding the event’s outdoor location and the ticketing system used.
Reviewers concluded that UVU’s actions during the TPUSA event diverged significantly from their usual policies.
This review was a collaborative effort by experts from various organizations who visited the site, conducted over 70 interviews, and reviewed extensive university documentation.
The report follows a notice of claim filed by Kirk’s family, alleging a “series of stunning failures and reckless decisions” on UVU’s part that left him vulnerable. Although not yet a lawsuit, it signals the family’s intention to pursue legal action.
Brett Parkinson, the family’s attorney, stated, “This report reaffirms the facts we presented in our Notice of Claim, highlighting that UVU security was critically understaffed and ill-prepared for the risks inherent in such an event. UVU organized the event, which meant they held responsibility for the safety of everyone present, including Charlie. Accountability for UVU’s failures that day is essential for justice for Charlie and his family.”
