{"id":82646,"date":"2026-10-04T08:05:41","date_gmt":"2026-10-04T12:05:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=82646"},"modified":"2026-10-04T08:17:58","modified_gmt":"2026-10-04T12:17:58","slug":"uvu-official-report-confirms-tpusa-played-integral-role-in-charlie-kirk-assassination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=82646","title":{"rendered":"

UVU Official Report Confirms<\/span>: TPUSA played integral role in Charlie Kirk assassination<\/span><\/b><\/h2>"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

SOTN Editor’s Note: All of which means that the Zionist State of Israel assassinated Charlie Kirk because the Netanyahu junta and his many American Zionist billionaires completely controlled TPUSA … … … with the exception of Charlie at the end of his life.<\/h3>\n

KEY POINTS: <\/strong>First of all\u2014Cui bono?: Of all the usual suspects behind Charlie\u2019s assassination, both Israel and the Trump administration had the most to gain.\u00a0 Charlie had recently left the Zionist reservation\u2014FOREVER\u2014and had been publicly questioning the Gaza Genocide; and the treasonously inverted MIGA over MAGA.\u00a0 Not only were various Zionist billionaires in the USA withdrawing their financial contributions to TPUSA, but Netanyahu himself was unsuccessfully attempting to keep Charlie in the fold.\u00a0 Clearly, the hit was a Mossad-executed black operation fully supported by the US Intel Community which will be completely covered up by the Trump regime.\u00a0 Charlie\u2019s voice and reach were simply to powerful and pervasive, especially throughout University & College America respectively, for him not to be taken out by the Zionist state of Israel (hence, the blue headline).
\n(Source: Here\u2019s why they just killed Charlie Kirk\u2026\u2026..<\/strong><\/a>)
\n*This article was posted just hours after the assassination by Mossad\/IDF<\/em><\/h3>\n
\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Jonas E. Alexis
\nThe Unz Review<\/p>\n

Utah Valley University has recently released an independent report that wrecks the narrative TPUSA has promoted for a little more than a year regarding the death of Charlie Kirk. If you are an investigative journalist and have the time to work your way through the 158-page document, it is well worth reading. I have included the link here<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is the summary: UVU staff and departments made several attempts to contact TPUSA officials, including Dan Flood, about the event where Kirk was later gunned down. UVU also warned TPUSA about the risks of holding the event outdoors in the university\u2019s Fountain Courtyard. According to the report, TPUSA staff did not respond to numerous messages regarding the event. UVU staff warned that the outdoor location would make the event more difficult to control and proposed an alternative venue that would have provided better crowd management, including greater ability to monitor who entered and left the area and to maintain a clearer understanding of what was happening at the event.<\/span><\/p>\n

But there is more. TPUSA chose the outdoor Fountain Courtyard as the location for the event. UVU Police Chief Jeff Long also reached out to TPUSA staff, particularly Dan Flood, Kirk\u2019s private security adviser, and asked to meet to work out the event\u2019s logistics. According to the report, however, no one responded to his calls.<\/span><\/p>\n

UVU also asked TPUSA to provide an estimated attendance figure for the event. Because TPUSA controlled the ticketing, the university expected the organization to provide that information, but TPUSA failed to do so. Interestingly, much of the social-media coverage of the report has focused on the recommendations it makes to the university for future events while largely overlooking several key findings. Among them is the university\u2019s repeated warning that holding the event in the outdoor Fountain Courtyard would make crowd management more difficult. TPUSA nevertheless chose that location.<\/span><\/p>\n

The report also indicates that when TPUSA representatives, including Dan Flood, finally responded, they did so only \u201ca few days before and the morning of the event.\u201d The report states: \u201cNeither Flood nor [Maycee] Crofts responded to phone calls or voicemail messages. In Flood\u2019s case, the Project Team also sent a certified letter.\u201d And there is more:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe Project Team reached out to Brian Harpole, who was identified as the leader of the Integrity Solutions security team working with TPUSA to provide executive protection for TPUSA CEO Charlie Kirk. The Project Team attempted to reach Harpole by telephone and certified letter. The certified letter explained the purpose of the outreach and provided the Project Team\u2019s contact information. The Project Team did not receive a response.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Project Team further contacted senior-level staff members at TPUSA in Phoenix seeking assistance in connecting with Dan Flood and Maycee Crofts. The Project Team did not receive a response to those email and telephone outreach efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Project Team also reached out to the then-head of the UVU TPUSA Club, who invited Charlie Kirk to speak at UVU. The Project Team sought his insights and perspectives regarding planning for the September 10 TPUSA event. He did not respond to the Project Team\u2019s various outreach efforts, which included a certified letter seeking his cooperation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cA Utah risk management official had communications with an executive of TPUSA and urged that the above-named individuals who were associated with TPUSA on September 10, 2025 cooperate with this assessment by being interviewed by the Project Team. There was no response.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There are also specific messages from the TPUSA UVU club president to the UVU Club Department asking about the Courtyard. The club president himself appeared confused because the directive was quite vague. It states: \u201cMy field representative for Turning Point USA has asked me to reach out to the UVU Club Department to ask about availability on hosting an event on the Courtyard on September 10 from 9am-4pm. She [sic] being quite vague on what this event is, so unfortunately this is all the information I have in regards to it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Whether social media commentators like it or not, these facts raise serious questions about what can reasonably be described as deliberate negligence<\/i>. The university made repeated efforts to contact TPUSA, sought to address security concerns, requested logistical information, and even attempted to arrange meetings with TPUSA representatives. Yet, according to the report, those efforts repeatedly went unanswered. That is not a minor detail.<\/span><\/p>\n

The findings also decimates a central point Andrew Wilson made during his debate with Candace Owens: that if anyone had reached out to TPUSA in good faith, the organization would have responded. The report documents multiple attempts by UVU officials to establish communication with TPUSA before the event. Nothing was more important than Charlie Kirk\u2019s safety on the day of the event. And if anyone had a direct institutional interest in ensuring that Kirk was safe while he was on university property, it was Utah Valley University.<\/span><\/p>\n

Wilson\u2019s argument was already on life support, but the release of the report appears to have dealt it a potentially fatal blow. If UVU staff and the university\u2019s police chief were unable to obtain timely responses from TPUSA representatives despite repeated attempts to establish communication, what basis is there for assuming that TPUSA would readily answer serious questions about Charlie Kirk\u2019s death to Andrew Wilson or any serious investigator or reporter?<\/span><\/p>\n

More importantly, how did Andrew Wilson, who was not publicly involved in the university\u2019s months-long efforts to obtain answers, arrive at the conclusion that TPUSA would have responded if approached in good faith? Should Wilson\u2019s assertion be treated as more authoritative than the findings of the independent UVU report, which independently interviewed more than 70 people, including university leadership, faculty, staff, students, UVU Police Department personnel, and external public-safety partners with knowledge of the event and its related operations? Is the report lying, or is it simply mistaken about these matters? And if Andrew Wilson believes the report is wrong, is he\u2014the man who spends much of his time behind a computer, smoking and drinking while debating so-called \u201cleftists\u201d and OnlyFans personalities\u2014really claiming that he possesses the definitive truth? And if he believes he somehow has access to a truth that others lack because of their so-called \u201cconspiracy theories,\u201d how did he obtain that information? What are the parameters by which he determines what constitutes truth and what he dismisses as conspiracy? Or does he mean to argue that TPUSA\u2019s account should be preferred over the findings of an independent report?<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, Andrew Wilson must know that TPUSA requires its employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.[1]<\/a> So, to what extent can an organization claim to be acting in good faith while requiring its employees to accept contractual restrictions on what they may disclose publicly? Obviously, Andrew Wilson is out of his depth as a polemicist, and his handling of the matter is not aging well.<\/span><\/p>\n

What, then, is the conclusion of this entire episode? At the very least, the documented failures surrounding the event warrant a serious investigation into TPUSA\u2019s role and whether its actions or omissions constituted deliberate negligence<\/i>. This is not an argument for a conspiracy theory, nor is it an attempt to portray TPUSA as the sole party responsible for the security failures surrounding Charlie Kirk\u2019s death. There is no way any person with an ounce of common sense can simply dismiss the report, even as TPUSA continues to bury its head in the sand by attempting to sue UVU for negligence.[2]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The appropriate response here is not to declare TPUSA guilty of murder. It is to insist that every relevant party\u2019s actions and omissions be thoroughly investigated, including whether any individual or organization bears legal responsibility for preventable security failures. That is how the legal system should work, but somehow TPUSA staff\u2014and Erica Kirk in particular\u2014continue to be sheltered under the label of \u201cthe grieving widow.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

As part of the investigation, I would also subpoena people such as Frank Turek, who attended a meeting with Israeli officials, along with others, the night before Kirk\u2019s death. Turek has said that Kirk was not actually moving away from the Israeli narrative but was simply asking questions about how to respond to critics of Israel. Frankly, it is difficult to believe that Turek was unaware of the broader context. Long before that meeting, Kirk had publicly questioned the Israeli government\u2019s influence on U.S. foreign policy. The issue appeared important enough to Kirk that he reportedly went to the White House and urged Trump not to involve the United States in a war with Iran, arguing that Israel was pushing America toward an unnecessary conflict.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kirk later made similar points in his conversation with Megyn Kelly. Then came the meeting at the Hampton, where Jewish billionaires such as Bill Ackman confronted Kirk over his changing position on Israel. Given this history, Turek\u2019s claim that Kirk was not moving away from the Israeli narrative deserves serious scrutiny. Turek is not that stupid. His presence at the meeting the night before Kirk was killed makes his account particularly relevant to any independent investigation. That does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing, but it does justify questioning Turek about what he knew, what was discussed at the meeting, and what he understood about Kirk\u2019s changing position on Israel. Turek, after all, is a Christian Zionist who has denied that a genocide is taking place\u2014or has taken place\u2014in Gaza.<\/span><\/p>\n

Charlie Kirk\u2019s Transformation<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Again, Kirk deserves considerable credit for challenging a political establishment that has exercised enormous influence over American politics for decades. It is important to remember that Kirk was raised within an evangelical Zionist environment, a movement whose historical roots can be traced to the Protestant Reformation and whose supporters have generally expressed strong support for Israel. I will explore this subject in greater detail in a separate article, but it is worth noting at the outset that Christian Zionism has roots within the Protestant movement dating back to the era of Martin Luther.[3]<\/i><\/i><\/a> In his 1523 tract That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew<\/i>, Luther essentially challenged the Catholic Church\u2019s traditional position on the Jews. However, after becoming disillusioned with his efforts to convert Jews to his new form of Christianity, Luther published the deeply hostile and violent 1543 treatise On the Jews and Their Lies<\/i>. Luther was unequivocal in his condemnation of the Jews and their property, writing explicitly:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFirst, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them\u2026 Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed\u2026 Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them\u2026 Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb\u2026 Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews\u2026 Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping\u2026 Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.\u201d[4]<\/i><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The first and second recommendations are unquestionably violent in nature. Since the publication of the treatise, Protestant scholars have repeatedly sought forgiveness from Jewish communities and, in some cases, attempted to argue that Luther was not literally advocating the destruction of synagogues.[5]<\/i><\/i><\/a> Interestingly, Luther\u2019s sixth recommendation\u2014that Jews be prohibited from practicing usury\u2014echoes a longstanding position of the Catholic Church, the very institution he fiercely condemned, at times referring to it in terms such as the Whore of Babylon, the Antichrist, and the viper of all vipers. In any event, in the 18th and 19th centuries, J. N. Darby and C. I. Scofield took the issue to the next level, placing the Jews above just about everything else, which culminated in Dispensational Theology and End Times Rapture.[6]<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/a> Darby did not invent an entirely new system, although he sometimes gave that impression. Rather, he systematized an existing stream of Protestant eschatological ideologies that had been developing since the time of Martin Luther. The modern state of Israel quickly capitalized, weaponized, and even financed these movements, as in the case of John Hagee and TPUSA.[7]<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/a> Moreover, intelligence agencies have a long history of infiltrating religious organizations and movements through financial resources and other incentives to advance their interests, including Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim groups.[8]<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/i><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Rob McCoy, who has been described as a supporter of Israel, was Charlie Kirk\u2019s pastor. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kirk received substantial support from evangelical churches and was invited to speak at a number of them, particularly when other venues were unavailable because of pandemic restrictions. Kirk and McCoy were almost inseparable: \u201cThe two of them started Turning Point Faith together in 2021, holding events in church, working to organize pastors and mobilize conservative Christians.\u201d[9]<\/i><\/a> Those churches therefore provided Kirk with important platforms at a time when opportunities to speak publicly were limited. Those churches also benefited from Kirk\u2019s charismatic presence and communication skills, as their membership grew during the same period. In that sense, the relationship was mutually beneficial.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kirk was also closely connected to evangelical institutions such as Liberty University. Kirk and Jerry Falwell Jr., the university\u2019s former president, who later left the position amid a sex scandal,[10]<\/i><\/a> \u201cco-founded a think tank called the Falkirk Center.\u201d[11]<\/a> Moreover, one of the earliest significant financial contributions Kirk received while launching TPUSA came from Foster Friess, who reportedly sent Kirk a $10,000 check when Kirk was still a teenager trying to establish himself as a political debater.[12]
\n<\/span><\/a> Friess was a prominent supporter of Israel, making his early financial support an important part of the story of TPUSA\u2019s beginnings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet Kirk\u2019s willingness to appear in those churches did not necessarily prevent him from later questioning or distancing himself from the pro-Israel political machine. That transformation or evolution is an important part of understanding his political and religious trajectory.<\/span><\/p>\n

Concluding Thought<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Charlie Kirk\u2019s death deserves more than partisan defenses. It deserves a complete accounting of what happened, who knew what, what warnings were given, what actions were taken or not taken, and whether any of those failures contributed to the conditions that allowed the assassination to occur. The independent review by UVU is an important part of that record, but it should not stop there. History should not have to wait 25 years for documents to emerge before the public can determine whether warnings were ignored and whether people or organizations should have been held accountable.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second issue that needs to be pointed out is that the narrative TPUSA\u2014and possibly the Israeli government\u2014has presented to the public may not age well. Moreover, the people who have represented TPUSA, and even the state, such as Andrew Wilson, may find that their political prospects are not as bright as they had hoped. My personal and speculative view is that Wilson may have been hired or paid by TPUSA to counter critics such as Candace Owens. If Wilson had succeeded in the debate, rather than suffering what I viewed as a humiliating performance, TPUSA might have brought him on for future projects. He could even have been promoted as a speaker on college campuses to debate so-called \u201cleftists,\u201d relying on rhetorical arguments rather than serious investigation. These are not wild claims. Spiro Floropoulos, a former insider at Andrew Wilson\u2019s Crucible who supported and worked with Wilson for years, has publicly stated that Wilson was not acting in good faith.[13]
\n<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The third issue that needs to be addressed, as Max Blumenthal has already pointed out in his article about the organization, is this: How is it that Charlie Kirk, during the final months and weeks of his life, had serious disagreements with Jewish donors and the Israeli government, to the point of receiving threats, yet shortly after Kirk\u2019s assassination, TPUSA has become closely aligned with Israeli interests and received substantial financial support from the very entity Kirk had questioned? And how can people continue to portray her simply as \u201ca grieving widow\u201d when, within days of Kirk\u2019s assassination, she had become the public face of TPUSA, delivered major speeches, assumed a leadership role, and appeared at subsequent events?<\/span><\/p>\n