Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has publicly accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation of misleading the public about the online activity of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally on July 13, 2024. Carlson claimed that the FBI told the public Crooks had “no online footprint” and then presented what he described as extensive online evidence — including multiple social media accounts, emails, and archived digital files — that he asserts contradicts that assertion. In response, the FBI’s Rapid Response account on X (formerly Twitter) flatly rejected Carlson’s claim, stating, “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.” The agency insists Carlson’s interpretation misrepresents both its official statements and investigative findings, emphasizing that the statement attributed to the bureau was never formally issued by its current leadership.

On July 13, 2024, at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Crooks ascended a rooftop outside the event and fired at least eight shots from an AR-15-style rifle toward the crowd, killing one attendee, injuring multiple others, and grazing Trump’s ear before a Secret Service sniper neutralized and killed him at the scene. The FBI quickly identified Crooks as the suspected shooter and seized his digital devices, including cellphones, laptops, and flash drives, for analysis. Investigators unlocked and reviewed many electronic records, uncovering various online searches related to political figures, rallies, and other topics, yet they have not released a comprehensive public inventory of all online activity tied to Crooks — a situation that has fueled debate and speculation.

According to independent fact-checking and official reports, the FBI’s forensic teams did gain access to Crooks’ phone shortly after the shooting and have been analyzing his digital history. Officials found he conducted searches about political leaders, mass shootings, and the rally site itself, and also attempted to access encrypted platforms that posed challenges for investigators. While Crooks’ online footprint was not initially well-understood, the bureau has never publicly asserted he lacked all internet activity; rather, authorities noted portions of his online history were sparse or difficult to access, especially encrypted content. Much of what has been widely shared on social media about Crooks — including claims he left no footprint at all — has been contested or corrected by fact-checkers.

In mid-November 2025, Carlson released a roughly 35-minute video on X claiming it included material the FBI “has worked hard to make sure you haven’t seen.” He said this video showed Crooks’ Google Drive footage of him dry-firing a weapon and pointed to numerous accounts he claims are tied to Crooks across platforms including Gmail, Snapchat, Venmo, PayPal, Zelle, Discord, and YouTube. Carlson presented these as evidence of a “robust online presence” that he argues contradicts the bureau’s purported narrative of little or no digital footprint. He contended the FBI’s alleged failure to disclose these digital activities reflects broader institutional opacity.

The FBI’s Rapid Response account underscored that Carlson’s claims mischaracterized the bureau’s statements and that at no point did the current FBI formally assert Crooks had no online footprint. The account also drew attention to the fact that the Rapid Response social media presence was created after the 2024 shooting and is focused specifically on countering misinformation. Some online users shared screenshots indicating a Community Note once referenced a July 2024 comment from a former FBI deputy director, but it was later removed and — even if accurate — would not refute the FBI’s contention regarding official statements. Carlson dismissed questions about authenticity checks on the alleged accounts, calling the bureau’s question about verification “confusing.”

This dispute highlights broader tensions in the aftermath of one of the most consequential political violence incidents in recent U.S. history. Critics of federal institutions see Carlson’s reporting as a corrective to opaque disclosures and a sign that agencies might selectively release information. Supporters of the FBI argue that Carlson’s interpretation conflates speculation with official statements, and that imprecise language coupled with social media amplification can distort public understanding and erode trust. While the FBI continues to analyze Crooks’ devices and pursue investigative leads — including motive, online behavior, and encrypted content — the public debate over transparency, institutional accountability, and media narratives persists. Independent reporting, legislative inquiries, and further declassification efforts may continue shaping the record and influence how the public ultimately understands both the attack and the official response to it.