FBI Pushes Back Against Claims About Thomas Crooks’ Online Activity
Questions have lingered about what authorities knew regarding Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump in 2024. Recently, allegations resurfaced from conservative commentator Tucker Carlson,
who claimed the FBI deliberately misled the public about Crooks’ digital presence. Was it an oversight, miscommunication, or something more deliberate? The timing, selective release of information, and specifics of the case have reignited debate over what truly transpired behind the scenes.
Carlson alleged that the FBI had stated Crooks had “no online footprint” and promised to release evidence to challenge that assertion, according to Newsweek. In response, the FBI’s Rapid Response account on X (formerly Twitter) directly rejected the claim, tweeting: “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.”
More than a year after the July 13, 2024, shooting, only limited information about Crooks has been released publicly. During the attack at a Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Crooks fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle from a nearby rooftop, killing one attendee and injuring two others before grazing Trump’s ear.
A Secret Service counter-sniper returned fire, killing Crooks within seconds. The incident exposed serious security gaps, leading to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. An independent panel later concluded the agency required “fundamental reform.”
Tucker Carlson’s bombshell reporting confirms what everyone has been suspecting for years: Federal officials knew who Thomas Crooks was prior to Butler and that he harbored a deep hatred for Trump with the intent to take him out.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 14, 2025
Was Thomas Crooks groomed by dark MKUltra-level… pic.twitter.com/jyd7VxoLh9
On November 14, 2025, Carlson posted a 35-minute video on X claiming to reveal material the FBI “has worked hard to make sure you haven’t seen.” The footage included a clip from Crooks’ Google Drive showing him dry-firing a rifle at paper targets in a private room.
Carlson also presented what he described as evidence of Crooks’ online activity, citing accounts across YouTube, Gmail, Snapchat, Venmo, PayPal, Zelle, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com, and Quora. According to Carlson, a source used Crooks’ phone number to link these accounts. He argued this demonstrated a “robust online presence,” directly contradicting the FBI’s alleged statements.
The claims spread quickly online, with some commentators suggesting federal officials had prior knowledge of Crooks’ intentions. Carlson noted that the FBI asked whether he had verified the accounts, which he found confusing because he believed the authenticity of the digital activity was clear.
The FBI’s Rapid Response account clarified that the bureau’s leadership has changed since the Biden administration. Launched in November 2025, the account has roughly 22,500 followers, including FBI Director Kash Patel and multiple national reporters. While official, it remains relatively new.
Screenshots circulated showing what appeared to be a Community Note referencing a July 2024 statement by former Deputy Director Paul Abbate. However, the note was later removed and did not contradict the Rapid Response account’s statement.
Carlson had previously posted on X: “The FBI told us Thomas Crooks tried to kill Donald Trump last summer but somehow had no online footprint. The FBI lied, and we can prove it because we have his posts.
The question is why? Story tomorrow.” The FBI responded the next day: “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.”
Conclusion
The dispute between Tucker Carlson and the FBI highlights ongoing tensions over transparency, information control, and media interpretation in high-profile national security cases. While questions about Crooks’ online activity persist, the bureau maintains it has not misled the public. The episode underscores the delicate balance between public curiosity, media reporting, and the responsibilities of federal agencies handling sensitive investigations.