Charlie Kirk’s Family Signals Intent to Sue Utah Valley University Over Assassination Failures
- The family of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has filed a notice of claim against Utah Valley University, alleging that a series of failures and reckless decisions led to...
- According to the notice of claim, Utah Valley University failed to conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the outdoor venue and assigned only six campus police officers...
- "When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of the concern and asked 'if this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow...
The family of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has filed a notice of claim against Utah Valley University, alleging that a series of failures and reckless decisions led to his on-campus assassination on Sept. 10, 2025, according to documents obtained by ABC News.
Kirk, co-founder of the student organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot while speaking outdoors before a crowd of roughly 3,000 people during the first stop of the group’s nationwide American Comeback Tour in Orem, Utah. The gunman fired from the roof of the campus Losee Center for Student Success, approximately 415 feet away from the podium, according to prosecutors in the criminal case against suspected shooter Tyler Robinson.
Dated Sept. 9 and addressed to the Utah Office of the Attorney General, the notice of wrongful death and survivor claims was submitted by the Kirk family’s counsel to preserve their statute of limitations for a potential lawsuit. The filing argues that the university ignored known security risks and failed to implement standard safety protocols.
“Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie,” the notice states, as reported by ABC News. The document claims the decisions left Kirk helpless against a rooftop sniper during an event that could have been made safe through standard security planning.
Alleged Security Lapses and Ignored Warnings
According to the notice of claim, Utah Valley University failed to conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the outdoor venue and assigned only six campus police officers to monitor the high-profile gathering. The filing points to recent instances of political violence—such as the 2024 rooftop sniper assassination attempt on President Donald Trump, the 2025 murder of a Minnesota state legislator and her husband, and the 2022 attack on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband—as context that should have made rooftop security a top priority.
The legal notice further alleges that Turning Point USA explicitly warned campus officials about vulnerabilities regarding rooftop access ahead of the event. A student group representative reportedly texted Utah Valley University Campus Police Chief Jeffrey Long to note that student roof access existed near where Kirk was scheduled to set up at the Sorensen Student Center.


“When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of the concern and asked ‘if this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well. If Possible.’ Chief Long responded by saying, ‘I got you covered,'”
ABC News
The notice argues that this response led Turning Point USA to reasonably assume the university had implemented a plan to secure nearby rooftops without requiring intervention from the student organization.
Real-Time Surveillance and Prosecution Evidence
The family’s legal filing also points to evidence surfaced during the criminal prosecution of Tyler Robinson. Surveillance footage played at a preliminary hearing showed an individual running across the roof of the Losee Center to a location a police officer described during testimony as a “sniper’s pad.”
“If such footage had been monitored in real-time, Kirk’s tragic death could have been avoided,” the notice claims, arguing that the university lacked adequate oversight during the live event.
The notice of claim serves as a formal legal prerequisite before filing a wrongful death lawsuit against a public entity. State authorities and university representatives have not yet filed formal responses in court to the specific allegations outlined in the preliminary notice.
