UVU Report Confirms Security Failures in Charlie Kirk Killing, but Blames No One

Key points

• The 158-page independent review, commissioned by UVU and conducted by the Lake Forest Group, was released on September 25, 2026.
• The report identifies 10 key findings, including inconsistent application of UVU policies, insufficient security for a high-profile outdoor event, and a lack of personnel assigned to monitor campus security cameras.
• The review concludes that no one at UVU acted in bad faith or in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others.
• The report details a timeline of events between July 10 and September 9, 2025, identifying key decision points, including the approval of the event on August 27 without a documented security assessment plan.
• The report clarifies that UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long’s text to TPUSA security supervisor Dan Flood stating 'We got you covered' referred to the Hall of Flags outdoor pedestrian walkway, not the rooftop from which the fatal shot was fired.
• Kirk’s family attorney Brett Parkinson stated that the report reaffirms the family’s claims that UVU security was woefully understaffed and unprepared to manage the risks associated with the event.

Background

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed on September 10, 2025, during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The shooter, Tyler Robinson, is charged with aggravated murder and faces potential death penalty charges. Following the assassination, Kirk’s family filed a wrongful-death notice of claim against UVU, its police department, police Chief Jeffrey Long, former UVU President Astrid Tuminez, and the state, alleging that UVU failed to provide adequate security measures, including risk assessment, staffing, and surveillance. The family’s legal actions and the subsequent release of the independent review have intensified scrutiny of UVU’s security protocols and coordination with TPUSA.

How outlets are covering it

Fox News emphasizes the report’s conclusion that no one at UVU acted in bad faith, while highlighting the family’s legal warning and the discrepancies between the report’s findings and the family’s claims regarding the 'We got you covered' text. CNN focuses on the report’s finding that TPUSA insisted on an outdoor venue despite security concerns, underscoring the tension between the university and the organization. The Washington Post highlights the report’s conclusion that security should have been more stringent and notes the family’s accusation of 'stunning failures' in UVU’s security measures. All three outlets agree on the report’s identification of significant security failures but differ in emphasis: Fox News focuses on the legal implications and the family’s response, CNN highlights the role of TPUSA in the security decisions, and The Washington Post emphasizes the broader implications for campus security and the family’s legal claims.

Why it matters

The release of the UVU security review provides critical insights into the failures that contributed to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure. The report’s findings highlight the importance of robust security protocols for high-profile events and the need for effective coordination between event organizers and university security teams. The legal disputes between Kirk’s family and UVU underscore the ongoing challenges in holding institutions accountable for security lapses and the potential for similar incidents in the future. The review’s recommendations for improving security measures may serve as a model for other universities and organizations in enhancing their safety protocols for public events.

What to watch

Kirk’s family is expected to pursue a wrongful-death lawsuit against UVU, with the notice of claim filed last week. UVU President Jon Anderson has pledged to implement the report’s recommendations to improve security protocols, including reevaluating staffing levels and training. The case against Tyler Robinson, the accused shooter, is moving toward trial, with potential implications for the legal proceedings against UVU. The review’s findings may also influence broader discussions about campus security and the responsibilities of universities in ensuring the safety of public events.