Charlie Kirk assassination: Security failure alleged by his family, explained | Today’s news
The family of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has accused Utah Valley University (UVU) and Utah officials of failing to take basic safety precautions before Kirk was fatally shot at a campus event on September 10, 2025.
In a notice of claim filed ahead of a potential wrongful-death lawsuit, the family’s attorneys described a series of alleged “reckless decisions” they say left Kirk exposed to gunfire. The notice highlights concerns regarding roof access, police personnel, surveillance, screening, perimeter and emergency medical response.
UVU confirmed receipt of the notification but did not accept the family’s allegations. The university says it will handle the matter through its established legal processes.
Here’s what’s known about security measures, what Kirk’s family says, and what remains in dispute.
What security measures have been put in place?
Kirk spoke to an audience of about 3,000 people at UVU’s outdoor courtyard in Orem, Utah.
The event was surrounded by university buildings, including the student center. Kirk was shot from a rooftop more than 400 feet away, according to a family statement.
Campus police were present, with then-Chief Jeffrey Long saying six officers manned the event. They coordinated with Kirk’s eight-member private security team, according to Long’s post-shooting account.
The university later said it was expanding its police force.
No roof security
The most significant issue raised by the family concerns access to rooftops overlooking the event.
Turning Point USA, which hosted Kirk’s performance, warned university police about the security risks posed by nearby rooftops, according to the announcement.
The announcement says Police Chief Jeffrey Long responded to a Turning Point USA employee in a text message:
The family claims that despite warnings, university police failed to control access to the roof from which Kirk was eventually shot.
No drone tracking
The event did not use a drone to monitor rooftops and other areas around the rally, the AP review said.
The family says watching high ground may have helped identify a potential threat before the shooting.
No bag checks or metal detectors
There were also no bag checks or metal detectors at the event, according to AP’s assessment.
The family cites the lack of screening as another sign that officials did not take adequate precautions for the high-profile event attended by thousands of people.
No safe circuit
The family’s statement alleges that officials failed to create a secure perimeter around the event.
That meant people could move around areas around the gathering, including places that provided an elevated view of the courtyard, according to the family’s release.
Questions about police staffing
The family also questions whether enough law enforcement officers were assigned to protect the event.
Long said six campus police officers are present and working with Kirk’s private security service.
However, the family’s statement says the number of staff was below the recommended level for an event of this size.
The exact adequacy of staffing—including what level of police presence was required and what responsibilities were assigned to campus versus private security—remains an issue that could be explored in any litigation.
Why is the roof charge important?
The family says the possibility of a rooftop attack should have been given special consideration because of the July 2024 assassination attempt on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Trump, a close political ally and friend of Kirk, was wounded when a gunman fired from the roof of a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Kirk’s attorney, D. Loren Washburn, cited that earlier attack in the notice, arguing that the risk of a rooftop shooter should have been particularly apparent when planning Kirk’s action.
The family therefore frames the roof issue as more than a general safety issue: They say officials received specific warnings about buildings overlooking the event and had recent precedent for rooftop attacks.
What did the university say?
UVU has publicly disagreed with the family characterization of security measures.
A spokesperson for the university said the school was aware of the notification of the claim and would deal with it according to its established procedures.
“Our focus remains on supporting our campus community,” UVU spokeswoman Sharon Turner said.
The Utah Attorney General’s Office said it does not comment on potential litigation.
UVU also said after the shooting that it was expanding its police force.
What about emergency response?
The family’s accusations extend beyond shooting safety.
The release says no first responders were immediately available after Kirk was shot and says he was taken to a nearby hospital by private vehicle, not an ambulance.
The family says emergency medical planning should have been part of the preparation for the event.
Was UVU legally negligent?
Notifying the family is an accusation and a harbinger of a possible lawsuit. That alone does not prove that UVU or Utah officials were legally negligent.
Ultimately, the court would have to consider whether officials had a legal duty to take the measures identified by the family, whether that duty was breached and whether any breach contributed to Kirk’s death.
Would additional security have prevented the shooting?
The family says better roof security and other precautions could have prevented the attack.
That is a key question of causation that would have to be supported by evidence if the case were to proceed.
Read also | Trump adviser Sacks says AI fear driven by fear-mongering manual
