Security lapses at Utah campus where Charlie Kirk was killed, review says
An independent review has pointed to a number of security shortcomings at the Utah campus where conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot dead last year. The report said Utah Valley University (UVU) did not carry out a proper written security assessment nor prepare an event action plan, deferring key decision-making about the event to Kirk’s…
An independent review has pointed to a number of security shortcomings at the Utah campus where conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot dead last year.
The report said Utah Valley University (UVU) did not carry out a proper written security assessment nor prepare an event action plan, deferring key decision-making about the event to Kirk’s conservative organisation Turning Point USA.
It also said that Kirk’s aides had insisted on a outdoor venue, overriding security concerns from campus officials, who then failed to properly assess the dangers.
The 31-year-old activist had been addressing thousands of people in an Orem campus courtyard when he was shot from a nearby rooftop on 10 September 2025.
Kirk’s family said the report reinforced their concerns about how the event was managed.
University officials had raised concerns in August 2025 about holding the event at a location surrounded by tall buildings and had suggested alternative venues, including some indoors, the report, external – published by UVU – says.
“But a Turning Point representative insisted that Kirk speak at a campus courtyard because he had been there previously and the organisation was familiar with the location,” it adds.
Despite the “significant protective operations considerations”, no line-of-sight assessment was documented in the planning process, the external consultants note.
They also identified shortcomings in the co-ordination between university police and Kirk’s private security team.
A proposed meeting between the university’s police chief and Turning Point security shortly before the event did not take place, the report said.
The reviewers described the absence of a joint security briefing and walk-through as a missed opportunity to have identified risks, clarified responsibilities and considered additional security measures.
However, the review concluded that no university employee or representative had acted in bad faith or shown “willful and wanton disregard” for anyone’s safety.
