What allegations have been made about Charlie Kirk's security team and when did they surface?

1. Immediate post-shooting criticism: security left vulnerable (first week, Sept. 11–16, 2025)

Within days of the assassination, reporters and security experts questioned whether event planning and on-site protection were adequate after video and on-the-ground accounts showed a small private security detail and an open courtyard surrounded by taller buildings; outlets noted the difficulty of securing such a venue and highlighted that Kirk had faced prior threats that should have been accounted for in threat assessments ^{[1] [5] [6]}. The Associated Press and other outlets reported that former Turning Point USA security director Greg Shaffer and others described “security failures” that left Kirk exposed at the outdoor UVU event ^[2].

2. The rooftop allegation and fight over jurisdiction (surfaced mid–late September 2025)

A central allegation emerged that no one secured the rooftops overlooking the courtyard from which the shooter fired, and that responsibility for those roofs was disputed—Turning Point USA’s spokesman said the private detail lacked authority to monitor rooftops while the head of Kirk’s team and others said campus police promised rooftop checks that did not materialize ^{[3] [7]}. Local reporting and the AP documented claims that event planners and security walked the site but that coordination broke down, leaving blind spots on nearby roofs ^{[5] [7]}.

3. Internal security planning and denied measures (reported through September–November 2025)

Additional allegations followed about decisions affecting the event layout and mitigation options: that Kirk’s team preferred an open courtyard, that requests to move indoors or to enforce checkpoints/bag checks were contested, and that planned countermeasures such as deploying drones were constrained by FAA and campus rules or denied authorization—claims chiefly voiced by Brian Harpole, who led the contracted security firm, and by former team members recounting what they saw in pre-event texts or calls ^{[4] [8] [7] [9]}.

4. Viral “hand signal” conspiracy and the rebuttal (surfaced days after the event, rebutted in November 2025)

Within days of the killing, social media circulated video snippets and theories that guards were making covert hand signals immediately before the shot; those claims persisted until formal rebuttals from Charlie Kirk’s head of security and others who said no deliberate coded gestures were used and called such theories false and dishonoring—Harpole publicly denied hand-signal coordination weeks later, and allies of Kirk likewise denounced the accusations ^{[4] [10]}.

5. What independent reporting and sources agree, disagree, and cannot determine (ongoing through fall 2025)

Mainstream reporting converges on several verifiable points: the shooter fired from a rooftop, the venue was an open campus courtyard, and private and campus security roles were both involved in planning ^{[1] [5]}. Where sources diverge is intent, authority and follow-through: Turning Point USA and its contracted security stress jurisdictional limits and the impossibility of policing adjacent roofs, while Harpole and former TPUSA security personnel say promised rooftop checks and other mitigations were not executed or authorized—claims supported in part by released text exchanges and interviews but not yet (in the provided reporting) fully corroborated by a completed independent review ^{[3] [7] [9] [4]}. Reporting limitations in the available sources mean definitive assignment of culpability for the specific failures awaits a public, independent after-action review; several outlets note such a review was being pursued ^[4].