Many political groups and speakers are hitting pause as they reassess how to make appearances at universities and elsewhere following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
William Donahue, former head of College Republicans of America, believes that debates like the outdoor event at Utah Valley University on Sept. where Kirk was killed on Sept. 10, will have to be set aside for now.
“The tabling, ‘change my mind’ events are going to have to stop until this political climate settles down,” he said, referring to Kirk’s style of setting up a table at a campus and welcoming anyone to step up, engage on a political topic and “prove me wrong.”
“I have a responsibility to ensure our students are safe,” Donahue said. “I can’t put them in danger.”
Five student members of the College Republicans of America were volunteers at Kirk’s event on Sept. 10. Donahue noted that the group does not have enough funding to provide its own increased security measures, and said it will have to rely on institutions to take on a greater role.
“We hope the universities are going to protect us,” he said. “We’re going to have to have conversations with universities about what speaking events are going to be like.”
California College Democrats, condemning the “heinous act of violence” that took place at Utah Valley University, said it “underscores the urgent need to reject violence within political discourse.”
The organization will continue to work on organizing goals, tabling, hosting programs and engaging in civil discourse, and has no plans to stop “campus-level organizing and mobilizing Democrats on campus,” said Joe Anastacio, 20, the executive director of California College Democrats and co-president of the group’s UC Riverside chapter.
But some organizers are approaching their work with a heightened focus on safety as political rhetoric has become more violent, he said.
“As to individual campus levels, we have had students communicate to us that there are feelings of anxiety, fear,” he said. “They don’t want a target placed on them if they’re trying to organize and be outspoken on political issues.
“Our students want to see campus administrators intervene to protect the space that our Democratic chapters have built for themselves … What we want, with university administrators, is making sure that they’re prioritizing student well-being and safety on campus,” he said. “That doesn’t just confine itself within the space of physical safety, but community mental health; Well-being encompasses making sure that bad faith actors aren’t manipulating spaces.”
The Orange Young Democrats also said it will reassess safety measures by working more closely with venues and creating contingency plans as needed, but stressed that the group will continue its efforts.
“The response to this tragedy cannot be retreat or restriction,” the organization said in a statement, “but rather stronger protections for free and safe expression.”
Assessing threats
Southern California universities contacted for this story did not discuss any specific changes that may be underway to avoid violence at political events on campus.
At Cal State Fullerton, events are vetted in advance with the city police department, campus police Det. Sgt. Christopher Brown said. He declined to cite specific security measures, saying the department “speaks with all the stakeholders involved to take all precautions.”
Chapman University spokesman Bob Hitchcock gave a similar response, saying only that the university regularly reviews its practices and procedures.
At UC Riverside, “The UCPD conducts thorough safety assessments and staffs events accordingly, a protocol that was followed on May 9, 2025 when Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA held an event at UCR,” John Warren, interim associate vice chancellor of university relations, said. “The police department does not discuss specific details of its event planning or threat assessment protocol.”
UCLA is confident in its staffing and law enforcement relationships, and will continue to “remain steadfastly committed to welcoming all who wish to express themselves at UCLA,” said Steve Lurie, associate vice chancellor and chief safety officer of the university.
“There will not be any daily changes. We are always monitoring the threat environment and make security decisions based on any data we believe affects our campus or community,” he said.
“Before any speaker appears on campus, we – along with our local, state, and federal partners – do a complete threat assessment and design a security plan based on that assessment,” Lurie said.
There were around 3,000 people at the Utah Valley University event where Kirk was shot in the neck, but only six police officers were present, according to Utah Valley University’s chief of police, Jeff Long, The New York Times reported. Kirk also had a private security team.
“You try to get your bases covered, and unfortunately, today, we didn’t,” Long said at a news conference the day of the fatal shooting. “Because of that, we have this tragic incident.”
Some speakers are undeterred.
Brilyn Hollyhand, a 19-year-old Alabama-based political commentator, author and chair of the Republican National Committee’s Youth Advisory Council, said she remains committed to speaking at campuses following Kirk’s assassination.
“I’ll be speaking on more campuses than ever. My phone has rung off the hook all day with colleges calling and I’ve said yes to every single one, Hollyhand said in an email. ‘We can’t cower in a corner. The assassin that killed my friend tried to shut us up. Instead, he woke us up.”
Chloe Cole is a 21-year-old Central Valley native and outspoken opponent to gender-affirming care. On the afternoon of the shooting, Cole shared a similar sentiment on X.
“I will continue having conversations on college campuses,” Cole wrote. “I am afraid, I will not lie about that. Nonetheless, it is our calling.”
No one solution
Glen Kucera, president of enhanced security protection services at Allied Universal, said the security firm has received inquiries about enhancing security from many universities following Kirk’s assassination, including multiple schools in California.
Kirk’s shooting comes after two other attacks, the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Dec. 2024 and the Midtown Manhattan mass shooting in July 2025, where a high-profile individual and companies were targeted. All three have prompted an increase in security inquiries and interest in fortifying existing security, Kucera said, starting with executive clients and now from universities.
As many universities have open areas where speeches and presentations are held, campuses want to make sure they are not vulnerable to threats, he said.
“There was little to no security at Utah Valley. They had six campus security guards; they didn’t screen anybody that was coming in, so anybody could have come in,” Kucera said. “But the threat didn’t come from that immediate crowd. It came from the sniper 150 yards away, right?
“So always, when what we offer and what we suggest for everybody is let us do a threat vulnerability assessment. If you’re gonna have somebody coming in that could be controversial, then let us look at the area, where are they speaking from,” he said. “And we’ll look at everything and we’ll make recommendations.
“Don’t let people in without screening the bags and anything they have, or don’t let them bring the bags in,” he added.
Kucera emphasized the importance of having a physical security presence monitoring potential threats, in addition to security cameras, and monitoring social media, including the dark web.
From a security expert’s standpoint, there is not one solution to fortify campus security. Some campuses may choose to move events indoors or check each attendee, while others may keep things outside and increase security.
“If there are areas of opportunity for a sniper on a roof, have somebody there, have surveillance, have a presence there, make sure nobody can actually get on the campus, or funnel everybody that’s coming from the outside through a small area so you can check all of them before they actually arrive on the campus,” Kucera said.
Katherine Schweit, an active shooter expert and security consultant, noted that as campus size and layouts vary, and with the desire for open dialogue, sweeping security measures are an unlikely reaction to Kirk’s shooting.
“Mr. Kirk wanted this kind of open engagement and that was reflected in the way that this event was secured,” she said. “Where an event is held is driven by space, practicalities and the speaker themselves.”
But what happened in Utah could prompt some schools and other venues to move those types of events indoors to better manage access.
“You may notice that after the assassination attempt on then-candidate Trump, he did very little open-space speaking for a while, Schweit said. “It’s understandable that somebody who was shot at would be very hesitant to be out in open spaces. That may prompt other people to move their events indoors if there is a facility that is available and if there’s a reason for it.”
However, with the frequency that college campuses hold events all across the United States, Schweit is unsure that the Kirk assassination will have a large impact on campus security moving forward.
“I think every institute of higher education will certainly reevaluate the plans that they have for security on their campuses, inside and outside of buildings. That said, I don’t know that we are going to see any dramatic changes from a security standpoint after an incident like this, since it is very difficult to secure open space against snipers,” Schweit said.
Increased security measures such as installing magnetometers to detect guns at every campus are not realistic, she said.
Rather, the greatest chance of thwarting violence, she said, is people close to someone noticing behavior that might indicate they are planning violence, such as changing their clothes or persona, emulating other mass shooters – as copycat violence is a documented risk – purchasing guns or ammunition, or even giving belongings away.