More than a year after a gunman’s bullets pierced a Pennsylvania campaign rally, grazing former President Donald J. Trump and killing a spectator, a new public clash has erupted over what the assailant left behind online. The conflict, between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and one of the country’s most influential conservative commentators, underscores the enduring tensions over institutional transparency, narrative control, and public trust in the wake of one of modern America’s most consequential episodes of political violence.
The shooting in Butler, Pa., on July 13, 2024, by 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks was over in seconds, but its repercussions have unfolded for months. Crooks, positioned on a rooftop, fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle into the crowd before being killed by a Secret Service sniper. The attack exposed profound security failures, leading to the resignation of the agency’s director and a scathing independent review calling for “fundamental reform.”
Yet, significant gaps persist in the public understanding of Crooks himself. Authorities confirmed his identity, weapon, and location, but details about his motivation, planning, and digital behavior have been released sparingly by investigators. This vacuum has fueled competing narratives and speculation.
The Core Dispute
The quiet investigation roared back into public discourse this week when commentator Tucker Carlson posted a 35-minute video on the social platform X. He claimed it contained material the FBI “has worked hard to make sure you haven’t seen,” including footage he said originated from Crooks’ Google Drive showing the gunman dry-firing a weapon in a room with paper targets.
Mr. Carlson’s broader allegation was that the FBI had misled the public by creating an impression that Crooks had “no online footprint.” He said a source, using Crooks’ phone number, had identified a Gmail address, two other email accounts, and profiles on numerous platforms including Snapchat, Venmo, Discord, and YouTube. This, he argued, represented a “robust online presence” that contradicted official portrayals.
The FBI responded swiftly and categorically. Using its official “FBI Rapid Response” account on X, the bureau stated: “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.” The response emphasized that the agency’s current leadership is distinct from that of the Biden administration era when the attack occurred, a pointed distinction in the current political climate.
The bureau’s rebuttal was narrow, focusing on the specific claim of having made a “no footprint” statement. It did not address the authenticity of the material Mr. Carlson presented nor comment on the full extent of Crooks’ digital history. Mr. Carlson, for his part, dismissed questions about verification, calling the FBI’s inquiry “confusing” and asserting the material’s authenticity was “self-evident.”
A Clash Over Narrative and Evidence
The exchange highlights a fragile post-crisis landscape where federal authorities, media figures, and the public grapple over information control. For critics of institutions like the FBI, the episode reinforces concerns that agencies manage disclosures to shape public understanding. For the bureau’s defenders, it illustrates how complex investigations can be distorted by imprecise language and the amplifying nature of social media.
The FBI’s “Rapid Response” X account, created in late 2025 and followed by Director Kash Patel and numerous national reporters, represents a newer, more direct channel for the bureau to engage in such public disputes. The brief appearance and removal of a community note on X referencing a 2024 comment by a former FBI deputy director only added to the online murkiness, demonstrating how quickly context can become contested.
The Unanswered Questions
What remains undisputed is the gravity of the Butler attack. It was a lethal breach of security that resulted in the death of one attendee, Corey Comperatore, injuries to two others, and left a physical and psychological mark on a former president and the national electorate. The subsequent investigations have already driven overdue reforms within the Secret Service.
Yet, the debate over Crooks’ digital footprint is more than a rhetorical dispute. It speaks to core questions about how much the public should know about the backgrounds of individuals who commit acts of political violence, and who gets to control that narrative. In an era where official statements, independent reporting, and social media commentary collide in real time, establishing a consensus on facts has become increasingly difficult.
As the work to harden security protocols continues, so too will the debates over transparency and accountability. Whether the latest disclosures alter the public’s understanding of the 2024 attack or simply deepen existing political fissures, the episode is a potent reminder of how deeply the search for truth is complicated in the aftermath of national trauma.
