Erika Kirk Files Wrongful-Death Claim Against Utah Valley

“I got you covered.”

That was the reply Jeffrey Long, chief of police at Utah Valley University, allegedly sent by text Charlie Kirk’s outdoor appearance on the Orem campus. A Turning Point USA official had written him first. Chapter members were uneasy about the roofs that looked down on the quad. The official asked for controlled access or, if possible, for one of their own people to stand watch as well. Long’s answer, according to the notice of claim later filed by Kirk’s family, left the group believing the university had the high ground secured.

Around 12:00 p.m. on September 10, 2025, Kirk sat under a pop-up tent on a foldable chair, microphone in hand, debating students before a crowd of approximately three thousand. A shot came from the Losee Student Success Center. University accounts placed the distance at roughly 350 feet; other reporting put it at more than 400 feet. The bullet struck Kirk in the neck. He was rushed to Timpanogos Regional Hospital and pronounced dead that afternoon.

On September 9, 2026, nearly a year to the day, Erika Kirk and the family sent a notice of claim to the Utah Attorney General’s office. The document prepared the ground for a wrongful-death lawsuit against Utah Valley University, the State of Utah, the university police department, Chief Long, former president Astrid Tuminez, and other state actors still unnamed. No dollar amount appeared. The filing described the potential damages only as “substantial.” Under Utah Code Ann. §63G-7-401, a spouse, child, or parent must give notice within one year of a death caused by alleged government negligence and must file any lawsuit within two years. Prospective plaintiffs listed in the notice include Erika Kirk, the couple’s minor children identified as G.K. and M.K., and possibly Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk.

Brett Parkinson, speaking for the firm handling the claim, put the core allegation in plain terms: “His murder was entirely preventable and, in fact, would not have happened had the State of Utah and UVU followed through on their stated security promises, which included protecting the rooftops surrounding the quad where Charlie was speaking.”

The notice itself is more expansive. “Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie,” it states. “Those decisions 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.” Among the concrete charges: UVU police never produced a written security plan for the event. They assigned only six officers—about 25 percent of the department—to an outdoor gathering of thousands. On information and belief, Long asked Tuminez for more officers and was turned down. The department did not call neighboring agencies for mutual aid. Officers were not posted on the roofs, live camera feeds of the roof were not monitored, and drones were not used. Students later attested that easy roof access had long been common knowledge on campus.

The same notice recounts the text exchange that preceded the day. It also records Long’s own words on the afternoon of the shooting: “You try to get your bases covered and unfortunately today we didn’t.”

A university spokesperson answered the filing with a brief statement: “We are aware of the notice of claim. UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes. Our focus remains on supporting our campus community.”

Kirk had spoken openly about the risks that came with his work. At a May 2025 event called Freedom Night in America he said, “you should not have to walk around with security for your entire family and for myself just because you support a politician or political candidate or certain values.” He added that death threats were real and that people wanted to murder him. Those remarks were public long before the Orem stop on the American Comeback Tour.

The notice argues that the university never grasped the scale of the visit or the climate of political violence surrounding it. It notes the recent rooftop attempt on a presidential candidate and other high-profile attacks, then faults UVU for approving an open quad surrounded by tall buildings and elevated platforms without matching security to the risk. The claim describes the choice as walking Kirk into a fishbowl. Only the university police, the filing emphasizes, held the authority to close parts of campus and create a secure perimeter.

Turning Point USA returned to the same campus on the anniversary of the shooting for a memorial. Law enforcement agencies from across Utah County, including SWAT teams and K-9 units, patrolled the grounds and occupied the rooftops.

The notice of claim does not yet constitute a lawsuit. It simply preserves the family’s right to file one. The document sits now with the Attorney General’s office, the clock on the two-year window still running, and the six officers who were present that September noon remaining the number the record gives for the force that stood between Charlie Kirk and the roof.