A long-awaited independent review has found that Utah Valley University (UVU) exhibited significant security lapses on the day conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated on campus, according to a 158-page report released Friday. The review, conducted by an outside firm, determined that university staff and security personnel ceded critical decision-making authority to Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the organization hosting the event, and failed to produce a formal written security assessment.
The report specifically highlighted that several key event-security decisions were left to a TPUSA field representative, even as UVU staff raised concerns. Among those concerns were the choice to hold the event in the outdoor Fountain Courtyard and to use TPUSA’s own ticketing system instead of the university’s. According to the review, those decisions placed Kirk in an area that was “more difficult to control” and hampered UVU’s ability to gauge crowd size and attendance.
In one instance, UVU Police Department Chief Jeffrey Long messaged Turning Point Security Supervisor Dan Flood to arrange a meeting aimed at ensuring “both groups had a shared understanding of the security posture.” However, the report states that these face-to-face meetings never took place.
The findings stand in contrast to allegations from lawyers representing the Kirk family, who earlier sent a notice of claim to UVU accusing the university of having no security plan and deploying only six police officers. They also claimed that a TPUSA member texted Chief Long before the event with concerns about the specific rooftop from which the shooter ultimately fired. Those claims are detailed in a separate legal notice from the Kirk family.
Kirk was fatally shot while debating student Hunter Kozak, marking one of the most prominent acts of political violence in 2025. Tyler Robinson was arrested and charged with aggravated murder and six other counts. The case was sent to trial last month, where Robinson could face the death penalty if convicted.
During the shooting, the report also stated that the university’s actions were “significantly inconsistent” with its own policies. Nevertheless, the review concluded that no UVU personnel acted “in bad faith or in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others.”
Brett Parkinson, an attorney for the Kirk family, told The Hill that the report “affirms the facts we laid out in our Notice of Claim: that UVU security was woefully understaffed and unprepared to manage the obvious risks associated with an event of this nature.” He added, “UVU hosted this event, and in doing so, assumed responsibility for the safety of all in attendance, including Charlie. The buck stopped with UVU leadership and law enforcement. Justice for Charlie and his family requires true accountability for UVU’s fatal shortcomings that day.”
UVU President Jon Anderson said in a press release that the university’s “responsibility is to care for our community, learn from the findings of this review, and follow through on its recommendations.” He noted that the report “provides additional recommendations” to guide UVU’s future work.
The assassination has intensified scrutiny of campus security protocols nationwide, with some drawing parallels to broader debates over security funding shortfalls that leave institutions vulnerable. As the trial proceeds, the report’s conclusions are likely to fuel further questions about how political events are secured and who bears ultimate responsibility when violence occurs.
