By The Editor’s Desk – November 28, 2025
In the weeks following the devastating loss of conservative icon Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University (UVU), the public has been desperate for answers. How could such a catastrophic security failure happen in an era of advanced surveillance and high-threat awareness? The narrative put forth by the security team, specifically during a recent high-profile appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show, was simple: their hands were tied by bureaucratic red tape.
Brian Harpole, the head of Integrity Security, looked the audience in the eye and claimed that university policy strictly prohibited the use of drones—a tool that would have provided a crucial bird’s-eye view of the rooftops and arguably prevented the tragedy. It was a defense that elicited sympathy and shifted the rage toward the institution.
But there is one major problem with that story. It appears to be completely untrue.
The “No Drone” Lie Unraveled
Independent investigations into the specific policies of Utah Valley University have unearthed documents that directly contradict the security team’s claims. According to the university’s own safety and risk management procedures, the operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), or drones, is not banned. In fact, it is explicitly permitted provided that the operators follow a standard authorization process.
The policy states clearly that “authorized visitors and contractors” can operate drones if they consult with the safety coordinator and possess a remote pilot certificate. In the world of high-level private security, obtaining such authorization is a standard operating procedure, not an insurmountable obstacle.
“There is no way that anyone who had properly read the UVU policies could have walked away with the idea that you were not allowed to use drones,” notes an investigative analyst familiar with the case. “It’s not even partially true. It’s an outright fabrication.”
The implications of this revelation are chilling. If the policy allowed for drones, why did the security team claim otherwise? The answer, many fear, points to a cover-up of incompetence.
Complacency: The Real Enemy
The role of a security detail is singular: to ensure the principal gets home safe. When that mission fails—resulting in the fatal loss of the protectee—the security team essentially receives a failing grade. In the aftermath of such a tragedy, the instinct for self-preservation kicks in. Admitting that “we didn’t think we needed a drone” or “we forgot to file the paperwork” is an admission of professional negligence. Claiming “the university stopped us” exonerates the team and places the blame on a faceless bureaucracy.
However, the facts suggest that the security detail grew complacent. Having managed countless events without incident, the team may have underestimated the specific threat level at the outdoor amphitheater. The ability to observe the rooftops—where the threat eventually materialized—would have been a game-changer. A simple drone feed could have spotted a prone individual with a weapon, allowing the team to evacuate the principal before a single shot was fired.
“They have done a million of these things, and all of them went fine,” the analyst continued. “Complacency is why this tragedy occurred. To say they didn’t have the ability to fly a drone is just noise. It’s an excuse to hide the failure.”
A Global Climate of Hostility
This deception comes at a time when the political climate has become dangerously volatile, not just in the United States, but globally. The vitriol directed toward conservative figures has escalated from shouted disagreements to physical assaults and, tragically, fatal violence.
Just days ago, reports surfaced from the United Kingdom involving a 17-year-old activist known as “Young Bob.” While promoting the very message Charlie Kirk championed, this teenager was subjected to a vile attack where masked agitators threw urine and glue on him. These incidents are not isolated; they are part of a growing trend where political disagreement is met with dehumanization and physical aggression.
The shutdown of a Broadway show simply because an actor expressed a positive opinion of Kirk further illustrates the depth of this divide. We have reached a point where merely associating with certain ideas renders one a “global enemy” in the eyes of the opposition.
The Danger of “Wrong Speak”
The tragedy at UVU and the subsequent cover-up attempts are symptoms of a society losing its moral compass. When security professionals feel the need to lie to the public to save their reputations, and when teenagers are assaulted in the streets for their views, we are treading on dangerous ground.
The “lie” about the drones is more than just a discrepancy in paperwork; it is a betrayal of trust. The public deserves to know the truth about what happened that day. They deserve to know that the tools to prevent this loss were available, but they were left in the box.
Demanding Accountability
As we move forward, the focus must remain on accountability. We cannot allow false narratives to become historical fact. The security team’s failure was tragic enough; the attempt to deceive the public adds insult to injury.
The investigation must continue, not just into the perpetrator who pulled the trigger, but into the decisions made by those who were sworn to protect. The memory of the fallen demands nothing less than the absolute, unvarnished truth. The “Drone Lie” has been exposed, and with it, the facade of competence has crumbled. It is time for real answers.
Leave a Reply