Utah Valley University review finds security planning gaps before Charlie Kirk killing

Utah Valley University’s external review found gaps in security planning and coordination before Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at an outdoor campus event in 2025. Released on September 25, the review says the event had no comprehensive written security assessment or written action plan, leaving decisions about the venue, attendance and protective measures without a formal framework. Its findings give the university a detailed account of what needs to change for future major events.

The review also concluded that no university employee or agent acted in bad faith or showed ‘willful and wanton disregard’ for anyone’s safety. That finding is part of the reviewers’ assessment, while questions about potential legal liability remain separate. The university commissioned the review to examine its planning, preparedness, response and recovery after Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025.

How the outdoor event was arranged

According to the university’s published account of the review, its Turning Point USA student chapter requested in July 2025 that Kirk speak in the fountain courtyard. In an August 21 questionnaire, the organization projected about 600 attendees and reported no security concerns. Those early plans placed the event in an open space before the university and organizers had resolved how to manage access and crowd size.

University participants raised concerns at an August 25 planning meeting about the outdoor location, expected attendance, possible protests, crowd management and access control. They suggested alternative venues. Turning Point USA requested that the event stay in the courtyard and preferred to handle its own ticketing; the university committee allowed both arrangements, according to the university’s summary. The BBC reported that Kirk’s aides insisted on the outdoor venue despite campus officials’ concerns.

Warnings and coordination before the shooting

The review found that planning did not formally assess elevated vantage points, building access or other risks specific to the site. The BBC reported that no line-of-sight assessment was documented. The university’s timeline says communication between campus police and Turning Point USA began on September 3, a week before the event.

Turning Point USA’s security team raised a concern on September 8 about access to an elevated walkway above the speaking area, then raised the issue again on the morning of September 10, according to the university. Campus officers cleared people from the area directly above where Kirk would speak and blocked it with police tape. A proposed 11 a.m. meeting between the university police chief and the organization’s security team did not take place.

Reviewers called the absence of a joint security briefing and site walk-through a missed opportunity to identify risks, clarify responsibilities and coordinate protective measures. Their finding concerns the planning process; it does not establish that any single omitted measure would have prevented the shooting. The review also found that the university had safety policies, staff and resources but applied them inconsistently before and during the event.

Responses and changes

Kirk’s family had already raised concerns about the handling of the event. In the BBC’s account, family lawyer Brett Parkinson said the review backed those concerns and called for accountability over what he described as the university’s fatal shortcomings. The family’s position is also described in an earlier NewsJaws article on its allegations about Utah officials. The BBC reported that Turning Point USA referred a request for comment on the findings to Parkinson’s statement; that referral does not establish its position on each review finding.

University President Jon Anderson said UVU must learn from the review and follow through on its recommendations. The university says it has completed, begun or is pursuing many actions, including documented assessments for major events, clearer rules for venue and ticketing decisions, and advance briefings involving police, organizers and private security. Its account does not say every recommended measure is finished or demonstrate how the changes will perform at a future event.

The reviewers also identified confusion during the emergency response over leadership, who could issue alerts and what protective instructions should say. They recommended clearer assignments and exercises to test them. UVU says it will continue reporting its progress and using training and exercises to assess the changes. The review sets out improvements for campus events, while the family’s demand for accountability and any potential legal claim remain unresolved by its findings.