The Federal Bureau of Investigation has forcefully rejected claims made by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that the bureau misled the public about the online activity of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in 2024. Carlson alleged that the FBI falsely stated Crooks had “no online footprint” and accused the agency of deliberately withholding evidence from the public. In response, the FBI’s Rapid Response account on X issued a categorical denial, stating, “This FBI has never said Thomas Crooks had no online footprint. Ever.” The dispute has reignited scrutiny of how information surrounding one of the most consequential political violence cases in modern U.S. history has been communicated, raising questions about institutional transparency, public trust, and the evolving relationship between federal agencies and influential media figures. While Carlson has framed his reporting as a corrective to what he describes as official deception, the FBI maintains that his claims misrepresent both its statements and its conduct.

More than a year after the July 13, 2024, shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, significant gaps remain in the publicly available record concerning Crooks, the 20-year-old gunman who opened fire on Trump during a campaign rally. Positioned on a rooftop near the event, Crooks fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle into the crowd, killing one attendee and wounding two others before a bullet grazed Trump’s ear. Within seconds, a member of the U.S. Secret Service Counter Sniper Team neutralized Crooks, killing him at the scene. The speed with which the incident unfolded left little opportunity for immediate clarity, and much of the subsequent investigation occurred behind closed doors. While authorities confirmed Crooks’ identity, weapon, and location, details about his motives, planning, and digital behavior were released sparingly, fueling speculation and competing narratives across political and media landscapes.

The attack exposed profound security failures that reverberated throughout federal law enforcement. In the weeks following the shooting, scrutiny intensified around how a shooter was able to access a rooftop within range of a former president at a public rally. The fallout ultimately led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, marking one of the most serious leadership consequences for the agency in decades. An independent review panel later concluded that the Secret Service required “fundamental reform,” citing breakdowns in coordination, threat assessment, and perimeter control. These findings underscored the gravity of the incident not only as an act of political violence but as a systemic failure. Against this backdrop, the limited release of information about Crooks’ background—particularly his digital footprint—became a focal point for critics who argued that transparency was essential to understanding how the attack occurred and how similar incidents could be prevented.

That tension escalated on a Friday morning when Carlson released a 35-minute video on X at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, claiming it contained material the FBI “has worked hard to make sure you haven’t seen.” The video included footage Carlson said originated from Crooks’ Google Drive, allegedly showing the gunman dry-firing a weapon inside a room with paper targets taped to the wall. Carlson argued that this footage, along with what he described as extensive online activity, contradicted earlier impressions that Crooks left little digital trace. According to Carlson, a source used Crooks’ phone number to identify a Gmail address, two additional email accounts, and accounts on platforms including Snapchat, Venmo, PayPal, Zelle, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com, Quora, and YouTube. Carlson asserted that this collection of accounts demonstrated a “robust online presence,” which he said undermined the FBI’s credibility and suggested deliberate omission.

The FBI’s response focused narrowly but firmly on Carlson’s central accusation. Through its Rapid Response account, the bureau emphasized that it had never claimed Crooks lacked an online footprint, arguing that Carlson’s framing conflated assumptions with official statements. The account also noted that the FBI’s current leadership differs from that of the Biden administration, an important distinction in the agency’s view. Created in November 2025, the Rapid Response account is relatively new but appears official, with roughly 22,500 followers including FBI Director Kash Patel and multiple national reporters. Online, users circulated screenshots suggesting a Community Note had briefly appeared referencing a July 2024 comment by former FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate. That note was later removed, and even if accurate, it would not directly contradict the bureau’s assertion that “this” FBI never made the claim Carlson attributes to it. Carlson, for his part, dismissed questions about verification of the alleged accounts, calling the FBI’s inquiry “confusing” and asserting that “the authenticity is self-evident.”

The dispute reflects broader tensions over narrative authority in the aftermath of high-profile violence. For critics of federal institutions, Carlson’s reporting reinforces longstanding concerns that agencies selectively disclose information to shape public understanding. For defenders of the FBI, the controversy illustrates how imprecise language and online amplification can distort official positions and erode trust. What remains undisputed is that Crooks’ actions exposed vulnerabilities in security protocols and left lasting political and psychological consequences. As investigations into the attack continue to inform reforms within the Secret Service and related agencies, debates over transparency, accountability, and the handling of digital evidence are likely to persist. Whether Carlson’s disclosures ultimately alter public understanding of Crooks or simply deepen polarization, the episode underscores how deeply contested truth has become in an era where official statements, independent reporting, and social media narratives collide in real time.