The controversy surrounding the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in 2024 has recently intensified due to claims made by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. Carlson alleged that the FBI deliberately misrepresented key facts about Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old gunman who opened fire at a Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. Specifically, Carlson claimed the bureau falsely stated that Crooks had “no online footprint,” suggesting that federal authorities withheld crucial information about the suspect’s digital presence. In response, the FBI issued a public rebuttal through its Rapid Response account on X, stating unequivocally that the bureau “has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.” This back-and-forth highlights ongoing tensions between media narratives and federal agencies, particularly when sensitive details about high-profile security incidents remain closely guarded.

The original shooting, which occurred more than a year ago, remains a focal point of public scrutiny due to the significant security failures it exposed. Crooks fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle while positioned on a nearby rooftop, injuring former President Trump by grazing his ear and killing one audience member while wounding two others. The attack was rapidly neutralized by a member of the U.S. Secret Service Counter Sniper Team, who killed Crooks within seconds. Despite the swift response, the incident prompted the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle and led an independent panel to conclude that the agency required “fundamental reform.” These developments underscored vulnerabilities in protective operations at high-profile events, raising public and political concern about the adequacy of existing protocols for safeguarding national leaders.

In November 2025, Carlson released a 35-minute video on X, claiming it contained material the FBI “has worked hard to make sure you haven’t seen.” Among the footage was a clip purportedly sourced from Crooks’ Google Drive, showing him dry-firing a weapon in a room with paper targets taped to the wall. Carlson suggested that this footage, along with other online activity he documented, contradicted what he perceived as prior FBI statements about Crooks’ digital footprint. He detailed multiple accounts allegedly linked to Crooks, including Gmail, Snapchat, Venmo, PayPal, Zelle, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com, and Quora. Additionally, Carlson referenced YouTube comments and other forms of online engagement, characterizing this collection of digital accounts as evidence of a “robust online presence.”

Carlson explained that his information relied on a source who connected Crooks’ phone number to various email addresses and accounts. He argued that the authenticity of these accounts was self-evident and criticized the FBI’s purported request for verification as “confusing.” According to Carlson, the collection of online data undermined claims that Crooks had no internet activity, suggesting that the bureau either overlooked or misrepresented this aspect of the investigation. His statements reignited debate over transparency, accountability, and the public’s ability to access accurate information in the aftermath of politically sensitive security incidents. Carlson framed his reporting as an effort to shed light on material that he claimed authorities had obscured or minimized.

The FBI’s response, however, emphasized the distinction between the current bureau leadership and statements made by officials during previous administrations. The Rapid Response account clarified that “this FBI”—established in November 2025 and maintaining roughly 22,500 followers, including Director Kash Patel—had never claimed Crooks lacked an online presence. While screenshots circulated online suggested a Community Note referencing a July 2024 comment by former Deputy Director Paul Abbate, the bureau stressed that this did not contradict its claim. The public rebuttal reflects a broader effort by the agency to maintain credibility and clarify misinformation in a highly politicized environment, where statements about national security and criminal investigations are frequently amplified by media figures and social platforms.

Overall, the ongoing dispute between Carlson and the FBI highlights several intersecting issues: the management of information surrounding high-profile security events, the role of media commentary in shaping public perception, and the challenges faced by federal agencies in maintaining transparency while protecting sensitive investigative details. Carlson’s claims and video release exemplify how private reporting and digital documentation can challenge official narratives, while the FBI’s rebuttal demonstrates the bureau’s commitment to defending its public record. The situation underscores the importance of careful verification, contextual understanding, and clear communication when reporting on incidents that carry both political and national-security implications. As the story continues to evolve, the public debate over Crooks’ online footprint, Carlson’s reporting, and the bureau’s credibility remains a focal point in discussions about accountability, media influence, and the handling of sensitive law enforcement information.