The UVU Report: What It Found, What It Means, and What People Are Saying Right Now

On September 25, 2026, Utah Valley University released a 158 page independent review of the security failures that led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk on its campus more than a year earlier. The report confirmed what Kirk's family had been arguing in legal filings for weeks: the university was unprepared, understaffed, and failed to follow basic security protocols. It also placed significant responsibility on Kirk's own organization, Turning Point USA, for insisting on an outdoor location despite warnings.

The reaction has been immediate and divided. Candace Owens, a former ally of Kirk who has spent months promoting conspiracy theories about his death, dismissed the report's findings. Erika Kirk and the Kirk family said the report proves their case. UVU's president said the school will learn from it. And the man accused of the killing is preparing for trial.

Here is what the report actually says, and here is what the people involved are saying right now.

‍

What the Report Found

The review was conducted by a consortium of independent experts from Robert L. Davis LLC, Doherty Advisory LLC, The Lake Forest Group, and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP. The project team performed site visits, conducted more than 70 interviews, and examined thousands of pages of university policies, training materials, operational records, digital evidence, and dispatch records. The total cost of the report was at least 440,657 dollars, according to receipts shared with The Salt Lake Tribune through public records requests.

The central finding is that the university did not conduct a formal security assessment, did not create a written event action plan, and deferred critical decision making to Turning Point USA. Kirk was killed by a sniper perched on a rooftop more than 400 feet away while he debated students in an outdoor courtyard surrounded by tall buildings with several thousand people in attendance.

According to the report, a Turning Point representative insisted at an August 2025 planning meeting that Kirk speak at the courtyard because he had been there previously and the organization was familiar with the location. Some university officials expressed reservations about holding the event in an outdoor space with tall buildings around, but ultimately allowed the event to proceed. The report described those decisions as consequential. The outdoor location created significant protective operations considerations, but the planning process failed to include a documented line of sight assessment, a pre event briefing, or a walk through with security stakeholders. There was also no clear coordination with the speaker's private security team and external law enforcement partners.

The report also identified security shortfalls with the event's ticketing. The university allowed Turning Point to manage the event's ticketing process for the outdoor courtyard location. The selected location presented greater open access, crowd management, high ground vulnerabilities, and line of sight challenges than a more controlled venue, the report said. Allowing the outside organizer to retain control over ticketing limited UVU's ability to obtain reliable attendance projections, monitor crowd growth expectations, and align staffing and security resources with anticipated attendance.

Campus police staffing was far below recommended levels for a school of that size. There were no bag checks or metal detectors. The campus did not fly a drone to monitor rooftops or coordinate with local law enforcement to secure the event attended by about 3,000 people. The university's live cameras and video footage were used more effectively as a post incident investigative resource than as a real time situational awareness tool.

The report largely defends UVU for its efforts to work with Turning Point USA and try to provide sufficient policing with the limited information it had. It is the opinion of the project team, based on our review of all available information, that at no time during the events leading up to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, or in its aftermath, did any employee or agent of UVU act in bad faith or in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others, the review states.

But it does not completely absolve the school. It suggests UVU could have done more and should not have ceded its authority to Turning Point USA. It also states that while the university had policies in place for controversial events, implementation was significantly inconsistent and led to confusion after the shooting about who was leading emergency responses.

The report identified a timeline of key decision points between August 25 and the day of Kirk's murder. On August 25, the outdoor courtyard location remained the event venue despite concerns from UVU officials about their ability to control it. Two days later, the event was approved without a documented security assessment plan in place. Campus police and TPUSA security had their first direct security coordination on September 3, a week before the event. On September 8, TPUSA organizers raised their concerns about rooftop access in the area above where Kirk would be speaking. The report states that UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long sent TPUSA's security supervisor Dan Flood a text stating We got you covered, but the review claims that the text was in reference to the Hall of Flags outdoor pedestrian walkway. Flood arrived in person on campus on September 10 with the TPUSA security team. The Hall of Flags walkway was closed for the event, but TPUSA security never met with university police face to face, according to the review.

The report also noted that while universities have established systems to identify and thwart internal threats since the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, those measures were not applicable in the Kirk case because the accused assassin, Tyler Robinson, had no connection to the school.

‍

What the Kirk Family Is Saying

The Kirk family has been preparing to sue Utah Valley University for weeks. On September 9, 2026, one day before the first anniversary of Kirk's death, the family filed a notice of claim with Utah's Office of the Attorney General, a required step under state law before a formal lawsuit can be filed. The notice names the State of Utah, Utah Valley University, the Utah Valley University Police Department, its chief Jeffrey Long, and former university president Astri Tuminez, who stepped down in January. It also names other state actors known or unknown at this time.

The claim alleges that the state, university officials, campus police and others' failures ultimately rendered Mr. Kirk helpless to the rooftop shooter in an assassination that could have been avoided had the UVU Parties only taken reasonable steps to plan and oversee a safe event, steps outlined below that have been standard practice for other universities hosting controversial speakers. Tragically, the UVU parties failed to rise to the occasion.

The notice identified six concrete examples of failings and negligence. It states that the parties named did not conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the outdoor location for the event, citing no pre event security briefing or written security plan, which it alleges left risks, such as unsecured campus rooftops, unnoticed and not communicated properly with Chief Long. It also faults authorities for allowing the event to take place outdoors in the first place without devoting sufficient security resources to ensure venue safety. Placing a politically controversial figure like Charlie Kirk in an outdoor event in the quad surrounded by tall buildings and other elevated observation platforms is accurately described as him walking into a fishbowl, the claim notes. The UVU parties approved the event to be held at an outdoor venue dramatically increasing security risks but did not dedicate resources necessary to address the enhanced risk this approval created.

The claim points out that just six campus police officers were assigned to secure the outdoor event with thousands of attendees, despite requests for additional officers. Lawyers for Kirk's family note that just 25 percent of the UVU police force was allocated for the event, and that requests by the university for assistance from outside agencies, like the Orem or Provo Police departments, did not come until after the assassination. The UVU parties' planning was so deficient that when Mr. Kirk was shot first responders were not available and Mr. Kirk was transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in a private vehicle, not an ambulance. The filing also said university officials could have created and maintained a secure perimeter around the event with physical barriers and cordoned off entrances and exits, deployed metal detectors, and taken other standard safety measures.

In a statement released after the report was published, Brett Parkinson, counsel for the Kirk family, said: This report reaffirms 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. 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.

Erika Kirk, Charlie's widow and the current CEO of Turning Point USA, has not yet issued a detailed public statement about the report itself. But she has already signaled her intention to sue. The notice of claim names her and the couple's two minor children, identified in the filing as Minor G.K. and Minor M.K., as prospective plaintiffs, along with Charlie Kirk's parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk.

What Candace Owens Is Saying

Candace Owens has spent months promoting conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's assassination. She has dedicated a significant portion of her show each night to her investigation. She has gained roughly a million subscribers on YouTube since focusing on Kirk investigations, bringing her total to over six million. She has suggested that Israel, Egypt, and even the Turning Point USA leadership were involved, all without providing any proof. She has released footage she claims shows a never before seen angle of the assassination and suggested that Tyler Robinson may be innocent.

After the report was released, Owens made fresh claims about Erika Kirk and the lawsuit. Taking to X, she wrote: Since there is nothing that TPUSA won't try to grift off of, I feel it's important to state something that is true: The wrongful death lawsuit was pushed by Charlie Kirk's parents. Owens added that it was Charlie Kirk's parents who wanted to get justice for their son's killing. They were the ones that wanted this justice for Charlie and they approached and convinced Erika to get behind it. This is a fact. She tried to convey that it was Charlie Kirk's family that had convinced Erika to get behind the wrongful death notice and that TPUSA did not have any part to play in it. In a separate post, she wrote: Turning Point USA is apparently trying to get ahead of an independent review that is coming out. They are blaming UVU for failures that were actually specifically requested by their security team.

Owens has also been locked in a legal battle with Kirk's head of security. In May 2026, Brian Harpole, the head of Kirk's contracted security team, filed a defamation lawsuit against Owens, alleging she falsely accused him of conspiring to assassinate Kirk.

What UVU Is Saying

UVU President Jon Anderson released a statement on Friday, September 25, addressing the report. September 10 will always be part of UVU's history, but it will not define our future, he said. Our responsibility is to care for our community, learn from the findings of this review, and follow through on its recommendations. This requires humility, an honest examination of our policies and practices, and a commitment to act on what we learn. While we've made meaningful progress in strengthening campus safety over the past year, this review provides additional recommendations that will continue to guide our work as we move forward with care, civility, and resilience.

The university has said it is expanding its police force after the shooting. It has also said it will review the report's recommendations and implement changes where necessary.

Where the Criminal Case Stands

Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk, has pleaded not guilty to all seven charges he faces, including aggravated murder. A Utah judge ruled on September 1, 2026, that there is enough evidence to prosecute Robinson and that an aggravating factor exists, making a conviction on aggravated murder a death penalty offense. The state's evidence of identity is substantial, Judge Tony Graf Jr. said.

Prosecutors say video evidence shows Robinson on the university campus the day someone fired the fatal shot. There is also genetic evidence, as Robinson's DNA is found on what authorities call the murder weapon. Robinson admitted to his roommate and lover, as well as to friends on the online platform Discord, that he was the shooter. Shell casings with etchings on them like Hey, fascist, catch were found, and similar ammunition was found at Robinson's home. Robinson, 23, a left wing college dropout, turned himself in to authorities a day after the shooting. Prosecutors say he told his romantic partner that he had enough of Kirk's hatred. A date for the trial has not yet been set.

What This All Means

The UVU report is the most comprehensive account of the security failures that led to Charlie Kirk's death. It confirms that the university did not conduct a formal security assessment, did not create a written event action plan, and deferred critical decision making to Turning Point USA. It confirms that the outdoor location created significant risks that were not adequately addressed. It confirms that campus police staffing was far below recommended levels and that standard safety measures like metal detectors and drone surveillance were not used.

But the report also places significant responsibility on Kirk's own organization. Turning Point USA insisted on the outdoor location despite warnings. The organization controlled ticketing, which limited the university's ability to plan security. The organization's security team never met face to face with university police before the event.

The family says the report proves their case. Candace Owens says it is a cover up. UVU says it is a path forward. And the man accused of the killing is waiting for trial.

What happens next will depend on the courts, on the family's lawsuit, and on whether the recommendations in the report are actually implemented. But one thing is clear. Charlie Kirk is dead. His family is grieving. And the questions about how this happened, and who is responsible, are not going away.

‍