• Conservative commentator alleges Trump-appointed FBI leadership is obscuring truth about attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania
• Carlson challenges accounts from FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino about Thomas Crooks rooftop shooting
• Video argues shooter’s digital footprint reveals right-wing grievance spiral contradicting FBI’s narrative of unclear political motivation

WASHINGTON (TDR) — Tucker Carlson released an explosive video Friday directly accusing President Donald Trump‘s own FBI leadership of concealing critical details about the attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania. The conservative commentator’s allegations target not just the Biden-era investigation but Trump’s current security apparatus, including newly installed FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino.

Preemptive FBI response precedes release

Hours before Carlson’s video dropped, the FBI issued a preemptive statement insisting there was “no evidence of advance warnings” and urging the public to “avoid speculation.” The unprecedented timing—responding to Carlson before he made his case public—highlighted the former Fox host’s continued influence within conservative circles despite his departure from mainstream media.

Carlson’s central allegation is stark: federal law enforcement leadership now serving in Trump’s second term is actively obscuring what happened on the rooftop where Thomas Crooks nearly killed a former president. “This isn’t just challenging federal law enforcement,” Carlson states in the video. “This is accusing Trump’s own handpicked security leadership of helping shield the truth.”

Challenging Crooks’ political profile

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Before addressing the shooting timeline, Carlson spent several minutes reframing Crooks’ identity. Drawing from online comments, saved posts, and archived forum activity, he argues the 20-year-old wasn’t a covert leftist but “a deeply alienated young man steeped in hard-right conspiratorial culture.”

Carlson points to Crooks’ repeated praise for fringe-right influencers, his fixation on “Deep State traitors,” and posts describing Trump as “the only one fighting for us”—a pattern contradicting early media framing that Crooks was politically “unclear.” He acknowledges evidence suggests Crooks eventually turned against Trump for unknown reasons.

“Whatever else remains murky about the rooftop in Butler, Crooks’ digital footprint shows a classic right-wing grievance spiral, not a partisan mystery,” Carlson states. “And that only makes the FBI’s rush to downplay motive more suspicious.”

Three pillars of suspicion

Carlson builds his case chronologically through three main allegations. First, he focuses on missed rooftop warnings, noting multiple rallygoers reported seeing a young man on a nearby building with a backpack and rangefinder minutes before Trump took the stage. “People saw him. They told authorities. And nothing happened,” Carlson says.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Second, he highlights shifting FBI descriptions of Crooks’ motives. Initial statements suggested no political motivation; later ones acknowledged searches for both Trump and Biden. Carlson frames these shifts as evidence the FBI is “reverse-engineering a narrative rather than disclosing one.”

Third, he attacks the FBI’s timeline for omitting witnesses who reported Crooks before the shooting. “Why does the FBI timeline pretend these witnesses don’t exist?” he asks, deploying questions as accusations while maintaining plausible deniability.

Trump appointees in crosshairs

What elevates this beyond Carlson’s familiar institutional suspicion is his direct targeting of Trump’s own handpicked security leadership. Both Patel and Bongino have publicly defended the Secret Service and FBI’s handling—Patel saying agencies “followed proper protocol,” Bongino arguing the rooftop “may not have been a legitimate threat at the time.”

Their defenses carry political weight as conservative media fixtures seen as institutional truth-tellers precisely because they served under Trump. “If the narrative is flawed, then Trump’s own team helped build it,” Carlson implies.

Five unanswered questions

Carlson closes with his signature rhetorical device, posing five pointed questions framed as neutral inquiries but functioning as clear accusations:

Why were Secret Service advance warnings about a suspicious individual ignored? Why does the FBI timeline omit multiple witnesses who saw Crooks beforehand? Why were local law enforcement concerns overridden, and by whom? Why has the FBI’s account changed repeatedly if they’re confident in it? And most provocatively: “Who benefited from the security failure that nearly killed a former president?”

The allegations represent an unusual turn for Carlson, suggesting the institutional rot he perceives didn’t begin in 2021 and didn’t end when Trump left office. In Carlson’s telling, no administration can be trusted—not even Trump’s—raising questions about whether this represents ideological consistency or simply another mechanism to maintain his audience’s permanent distrust of government institutions.

Should conservative media figures challenge their own political allies when questioning official narratives, or does it undermine necessary institutional support?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10