
Strengthening campus safety.
At Utah Valley University, fostering a safe and supportive learning environment is one of our highest priorities. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, UVU commissioned an independent external review to examine the university’s planning, preparedness, response, and recovery and identify opportunities to enhance campus safety.
We are sharing the report so our community can understand what the reviewers found, where improvements are needed, and how UVU is moving forward.
Read the full independent review“September 10 will always be part of UVU’s history, but it will not define our future. 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.”
— UVU President Jon Anderson
The independent external review identified a foundation of campus safety policies, personnel, and resources, along with inconsistencies in how those capabilities were put into practice before and during the September 10 event. It also recognized the strength of the response by public safety partners and meaningful steps UVU has taken since the tragedy.
The review also documented the planning and coordination leading up to September 10, including the following:
The event originated with a July 2025 request from UVU’s TPUSA student chapter for Charlie Kirk to speak in the fountain courtyard. In an August 21 questionnaire response, TPUSA projected approximately 600 attendees and reported no security concerns. At an August 25 planning meeting, UVU participants raised concerns about the outdoor location, anticipated attendance, protest activity, crowd management, and access control, and suggested alternative venues. TPUSA requested that the event remain in the courtyard and preferred to manage its own ticketing. The university’s committee allowed those arrangements. During subsequent security coordination, ticket totals were not available, and thus UVU’s police chief was unable to obtain crowd estimates through TPUSA’s ticketing process.
The report’s timeline also documents communication between UVUPD and TPUSA began on September 3. Then on September 8, TPUSA’s security team raised a concern about access to the elevated Hall of Flags outdoor pedestrian walkway above the area where Kirk would speak and requested access controls. On the morning of September 10, TPUSA’s security team again raised concerns about people on the walkway. Chief Long responded that officers would arrive by 11:00 a.m. to address the request. UVUPD officers cleared the area by directing people away from the area directly above the speaking location and blocked it off with police tape. The UVUPD Chief of Police proposed meeting with TPUSA’s security at 11:00 a.m. on the walkway above the canopy where Charlie Kirk would speak, but this meeting did not occur. A detailed timeline and verbatim text exchanges are included in the full report.
Beyond documenting the sequence of events, the review examined UVU’s planning, preparedness, response, and recovery and identified key findings.
“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.”
— After-Action Report for Utah Valley University
The summaries below introduce 10 key findings, while the full report provides the supporting analysis and recommendations.
Formalize security planning for high-profile events
While a UVU committee and a TPUSA field representative engaged in a planning meeting,
the September 10 event lacked a comprehensive written security assessment or event
action plan.
The review recommends a more structured planning framework that addresses venue selection, attendance, staffing, access, communications, and emergency response before key event decisions are finalized.
Strengthen protective planning and coordination for outdoor venues
Planning for the event did not formalize assessments of elevated vantage points, building
access, and other site-specific security concerns. The review calls for documented
assessments and earlier, more structured coordination with private security teams
and law enforcement partners for major events.
Both TPUSA security and UVUPD failed to ensure a joint pre-event briefing and security walk-through occurred. Reviewers found this was a critical missed opportunity to identify security concerns, clarify responsibilities, and coordinate protective measures.
Since September 10, 2025, UVU has taken proactive steps to learn from events surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The reviewers recognized meaningful progress in community support, crisis communication planning, emergency preparedness, notification practices, and coordination with public safety partners.
“UVU’s post-incident efforts reflect meaningful progress in several areas.”
— After-Action Report for Utah Valley University
The reviewers examined not only the planning and response leading up to and on September 10, but also UVU’s broader event planning, safety, and security processes. As a result, some recommendations in the review reflect practices that UVU had already implemented before September 10 or had already begun enhancing. These recommendations were included to reinforce the importance of continuing those efforts and maintaining strong event planning and security practices.
UVU has already implemented, is currently implementing, or is actively working toward many of the review’s recommendations. The following recommendations are areas in which UVU had already taken action, has since taken action, or is in the process of taking action:
Action Items Completed or Underway for Organizational Alignment, Staffing, Training and Professional Standards
Action Items Completed or Underway for Event Planning, Response, and Interagency Coordination
Action Items Completed or Underway for Event Security Planning and Security Assessment
Action Items Completed or Underway for Event Security Operations
Action Items Completed or Underway for Access Control, Screening and Credentialing
Action Items Completed or Underway for Communications and Mass Notification
Action Items Completed or Underway for Implementation of the Emergency Operations Plan and Active Assailant Protocols
Action Items Completed or Underway for EOC Activation, Situational Awareness and Decision Support
Action Items Completed or Underway for Interagency Coordination and Mutual Aid Implementation
Action Items Completed or Underway for Application of ICS and Event Action Planning
Action Items Completed or Underway for Information Sharing and Protective Intelligence
Action Items Completed or Underway for Behavioral Threat Assessment and Threat Management
Action Items Completed or Underway for Post-Incident Recovery, Corrective Actions and Preparedness Enhancements
Action Items Completed or Underway for Legal Considerations
Our commitment does not end with the release of this report. We will continue to communicate progress as recommendations are evaluated and implemented and use training and exercises to assess how these changes work in practice.
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 and communication records.
The project team combined legal, operational, and investigative expertise in law enforcement, campus safety, physical security, executive protection, emergency preparedness, threat assessment, and crisis communications. The findings and recommendations are those of the independent project team.
Read the full independent review