Worrying new questions are emerging over how much information authorities possessed regarding Thomas Crooks, the gunman who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. The shocking event, which left the nation reeling, nearly altered the trajectory of U.S. politics and has continued to spark scrutiny over how the attack could have been prevented.
At just 20 years old, Crooks allegedly fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle from the rooftop of a nearby building, fatally wounding two people in the crowd — an audience member and a fireman — while Trump, then the presumptive Republican nominee, sustained a gunshot wound to his upper right ear. In the immediate aftermath, the FBI maintained that little was known about Crooks prior to the attack, framing the incident as unpredictable.
However, new revelations have raised questions about that narrative. Representative Pat Fallon, a Texas Republican who chaired the congressional task force assigned to review the assassination attempt, told The National News Desk that critical information may have been withheld from investigators.
“We definitely got stonewalled,” Fallon said. “When we finally got answers that we thought were fully forthright, now it seems like they weren’t.” According to Fallon, the task force ultimately concluded that the attack could have been preventable, a finding that has intensified scrutiny over what federal authorities knew — and when.
In a 2024 briefing, former FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate disclosed that investigators had identified more than 700 online comments believed to have been authored by Crooks between 2019 and 2020, many of which contained antisemitic and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Fallon contends that this information was never shared with the congressional task force, leaving key questions unanswered about potential warning signs and the ability of law enforcement to intervene before the tragedy occurred.
The controversy over what federal investigators knew, and what they failed to communicate, underscores a broader debate about accountability, threat assessment, and transparency in protecting public officials. As the nation continues to reflect on the attack, these emerging questions highlight the pressing need for clarity on how critical intelligence is handled — and whether lapses in sharing that intelligence may have contributed to one of the most alarming political assaults in recent U.S. history.
“They didn’t share any of the information with us,” Representative Pat Fallon told CBS Austin, adding pointedly, “It was either deliberate or incompetence.” Fallon also indicated that he plans to speak with House Oversight Chairman James Comer about potentially recalling former FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate to testify.
The discussion over potential intelligence gaps has drawn national attention, with political commentator Tucker Carlson asserting last week that government officials may be attempting to cover up what they knew about Crooks. Carlson, writing on social media platform X, claimed he can “prove” that the FBI misled the public based on Crooks’ online activity. Criticizing FBI Director Kash Patel along with former FBI officials Christopher Wray and Dan Bongino, Carlson highlighted the suspect’s digital footprint and questioned how Trump’s would-be assassin could have remained undetected.
In response, Patel defended the FBI’s handling of the investigation, pointing to the agency’s extensive efforts: more than 1,000 interviews, roughly 2,000 public tips, 13 seized devices, nearly 500,000 digital files, hundreds of hours of video, 10 financial accounts, and data collected from 25 online profiles.
Yet questions remain. Former FBI Special Agent in Charge Jody Weis told The National News Desk that, in his view, the bureau should have been able to identify Crooks as a threat prior to the July 13 shooting.
“For them to say we just didn’t see much there, that we couldn’t identify a motive — I can’t understand why,” Weis said, underlining the ongoing debate over intelligence, oversight, and accountability in the wake of the assassination attempt.
