What are the ‘key findings’ in UVU’s independent review of the Charlie Kirk slaying?

Just two weeks after the first anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Utah Valley University released Friday an independent external review of the events surrounding the Orem campus shooting that still claims headlines across the nation.

Commissioned by UVU, the 158-page “After-Action Report” was compiled by an independent team consisting of experts from the fields of law, law enforcement, campus safety, crisis communications and security technology.

The report’s purpose is straightforward: Establish a “clear, factual and evidence-based understanding” of the events surrounding Kirk’s fatal shooting.

The assessment offers an exhaustive analysis of the circumstances and operations at the tragic Turning Point USA-sponsored event by evaluating security and response protocols, identifying vulnerabilities — and articulating several recommendations moving forward.

The assessment team conducted more than 70 interviews with UVU leadership and others connected to the event — while examining thousands of pages of university policies, training materials and operational records.

The team also scrutinized event planning and security operations, while developing detailed timelines of significant events, operational actions and critical decisions.

The review concludes that UVU had a solid foundation of safety policies in place on the day of the shooting — but identifies gaps in implementing such policies.

Several recommendations are also included in the after-action report — many of which are already underway at UVU.

“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,” asserted the review.

But hindsight, the report added, allowed the project team to identify several “actions, omissions, circumstances, and institutional practices” that should prompt attention as UVU considers “how to strengthen the safety and security of campus events in the future.”

UVU officials were not made available Friday following the report’s release. But the report prompted a swift response from attorney Brett Parkinson, who represents Charlie Kirk’s family:

“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.”

Earlier this month, the Kirk family filed a notice of claim against the state of Utah — preparing the way for a wrongful death lawsuit against UVU in the next year.

‘After-Action Report’: Key findings

The after-action report examining the Charlie Kirk assassination is highlighted by 10 “Key Findings”:

1. UVU has a strong foundation of policies and procedures — but implementation was “significantly inconsistent” before and during the Sept. 10, 2025, TPUSA event.

The university had established a solid foundation of policies, plans, emergency procedures and public safety resources relevant to a major event — but the events of Sept. 10 demonstrated “frameworks were not always implemented” effectively, according to the report.

The “primary gap” involved the translation of existing policies, structures and capabilities into an adequate practice for a “controversial speaker and high-profile event” that involved elevated security.

“These issues do not reflect the absence of planning or commitment by UVU personnel,” added the report. “Rather, they demonstrate the need to strengthen implementation, documentation, role clarity and operational integration so established policies and plans function effectively during major events and critical incidents.”

2. High-profile event planning requires a more formal and integrated event security framework.

The Charlie Kirk-TPUSA event, the report noted, included several “characteristics” that demanded a more strategic planning framework — including a high-profile speaker, anticipated protests and an open outdoor venue.

Coordination did occur among UVU police and event officials and TPUSA representatives, but the event was not supported by a comprehensive security assessment/event action plan which would have identified security aspects such as staffing assignments, post duties and emergency response procedures.

3. Protective operations and line-of-sight planning were not sufficiently formalized for the outdoor venue.

The outdoor venue insisted upon by TPUSA for the Sept. 10 UVU event, according to the report, created “significant operations considerations.”

The outdoor speaking area was located in an open area on the UVU campus surrounded by buildings, elevated areas and multiple vantage points. Such conditions made line-of-sight assessments a key consideration.

A face-to-face pre-event briefing and walk-through with the UVU police department and the TPUSA security details should have occurred on campus in the hours prior to the Kirk event, the report added.

“Such a meeting would have provided another opportunity to review roles, confirm post assignments, address concerns, identify changes in conditions, and ensure that both groups had a shared understanding of the security posture.”

4. Incident Command, Emergency Operations Center Operations, and Emergency Communications need greater standardization and exercise-based validation.

The immediate response to the shooting presented immediate communications challenges. UVU personnel responded quickly, making substantial efforts under extremely difficult conditions.

However, the report noted, “the response also exposed challenges involving role clarity, EOC leadership, succession and delegation of authority, law enforcement representation in the EOC, message approval, emergency terminology and situational awareness.”

5. Security technology and situational awareness capabilities should be more effectively integrated into real-time operations.

The report found that UVU’s technology on the day of the Kirk shooting was used effectively as a post-incident investigative tool, but not as a real-time situation awareness tool.

“Security camera footage was valuable after the shooting, but no individual had been specifically assigned to monitor relevant camera feeds in real time for event security purposes,” the report said.

UVU’s future planning, it added, should include technology to detect human activity on rooftops or in restricted areas.

6. Protective intelligence, open-source intelligence and subject-focused investigative capabilities are not yet fully developed.

UVU had several useful intelligence and monitoring resources which proved valuable visibility into media coverage, social media activity, criminal justice information and threat-related intelligence.

But such resources are not substitutes for dedicated subject-focused protective intelligence capability.

“When a specific individual, group, communication, or behavior of concern requires a deeper review, UVU needs a formalized process, dedicated capability, or specialized platform for conducting comprehensive open-source investigations or access to an external partner,” according to the report.

7. Interagency coordination was a response strength — but “mutual aid” and statewide campus safety coordination should be formalized.

UVU’s public safety partners — including Orem Police Department, Utah County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI — responded quickly to the Kirk shooting.

“However, the event also demonstrated the need to formalize mutual aid, resource-request thresholds, specialized capability planning, and interagency integration before major events and critical incidents occur,” according to the report.

The analysis added that post-incident efforts to strengthen interagency coordination “are promising.”

8. Organizational alignment, staffing and training should be evaluated against UVU’s size and risk environment.

UVU is a large university with the state’s largest student enrollment. It’s a “complex risk environment” that includes major events, open campus spaces and student activities such as athletics.

Such conditions, according to the report, require public safety functions that are appropriately staffed, trained and integrated.

The report also recommended UVU create a senior campus leadership position with responsibility for all public safety operations, including emergency management.

9. UVU made meaningful post-incident efforts, but first responder support and continuous improvements need additional attention.

Following Sept. 10, the university took several key steps to support students, improve campus safety awareness and update emergency preparedness materials. Such steps reflect a “serious commitment” to campus recovery.

“At the same time, post-incident support for responding police personnel and other first responders appeared less structured and less visible than support provided to students and the broader campus community,” according to the report.

10. Utah is expanding public safety and intelligence and collaboration efforts — and UVU should proactively engage in those efforts.

Utah’s public safety and higher education ladders have initiated several campus-safety initiatives. Such efforts provide UVU with opportunities to better leverage intelligence, public safety resources, training and collaborative planning.

“More active participation in statewide information-sharing and campus safety initiatives would help UVU keep university-centered public safety concerns at the forefront when planning for high-profile events, evaluating threats, conducting security assessments and developing Event Action Plans,” the report advised.

Strengthening UVU’s coordination and accountability

Later this year, UVU expects to fill a chief public safety officer position to coordinate campus police, emergency management, fire safety, and campus and event security.

The new safety official will also be tasked with overseeing implementation of many of the recommendations from Friday’s report.

Other UVU efforts reportedly underway on campus include required safety training, strengthened event security planning and ticketing procedures and closer coordination with outside law enforcement.

“September 10 will always be part of UVU’s history, but it will not define our future,” said UVU President Jon Anderson in a school release.

“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.”

Anderson added it was “reassuring” to see that several recommendations from Friday’s report align with changes already completed or underway at UVU.