The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, by Thomas Matthew Crooks raises numerous alarming questions about federal oversight of public safety. The events reveal a failure of security protocols and underscore a troubling narrative of radicalized individuals slipping under the radar of intelligence agencies. Crooks, just 20, embarked on his violent mission armed with an AR-15-style rifle, causing immediate devastation at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The direct impact of the attack was immediate—Trump was struck in the ear, and Corey Comperatore lost his life. The chaotic scene resulted in serious injuries to two other attendees. Crooks was shot and killed by a Secret Service sniper, but the aftermath of this violent event extends well beyond the rally’s chaos. Investigations into Crooks’ background reveal a history steeped in extremist ideologies, violent rhetoric, and obsession with fringe subcultures.
Critics note that federal agencies, including the FBI and Secret Service, have been slow to confront uncomfortable truths about Crooks’ radicalization. In today’s age, where online activity can serve both as an early warning sign and a breeding ground for violence, Crooks’ digital footprint raises serious questions about how such threatening behavior went unnoticed. His pronoun choice of “they/them” and fixation on the furry community add layers to his identity that some suggest the agencies would hesitate to address openly.
Content unearthed from Crooks’ numerous digital accounts paints a disturbing picture of a young man who transitioned from expressing support for Trump to espousing violent fantasies, including calls for terrorism. One comment he wrote in August 2020 exemplified this shift: “IMO the only way to fight the gov is with terrorism style attacks.” Such declarations could have provided a clear path for intelligence agencies to act, yet they failed to do so.
Even more unsettling is the revelation reported by conservative journalist Breanna Morello that Crooks’ online profiles showcased graphic images aligned with violent themes. Accounts on platforms like DeviantArt and GAB further highlight a trend of radicalization linked to a blend of identity politics and violent discourse. Crooks’ expressions of violence and obsession with terror have been described as “unambiguously violent” by GAB’s CEO, reinforcing the notion that Crooks was an individual in deep distress—or actively seeking to inflict harm.
Now, as lawmakers seek answers, cracks begin to show within the federal response. Initially, FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed there was no identifiable motive. However, Deputy Director Paul Abbate later pointed to Crooks’ extremist content. This contradiction suggests an internal struggle within federal agencies as they grapple with both the necessity of intervention and the potential fallout of politically charged conversations surrounding identity policies.
Senator Ron Johnson’s allegations about the FBI and Secret Service withholding information stem from broader concerns regarding agency transparency and accountability. His comments highlight a pressing need for insight into the nature of Crooks’ radicalization and the indicators that went unnoticed. As Johnson aptly stated, “We can’t understand how this attack happened—or prevent the next one—without transparency.”
The parallels with previous cases, such as that of Tyler Robinson, who had violent fantasies linked to the furry community, suggest a growing pattern. While it is vital to refrain from labeling entire subcultures as dangerous, these connections prompt questions about how radicalization manifests and how varying ideologies may be linked to acts of violence.
As the narrative unfolds, it becomes evident that the attempt on Trump’s life was not an isolated incident but rather indicative of larger systemic issues. Here stands Thomas Crooks—an individual whose intentions were public and whose radicalization should have easily raised alarms. Yet, the silence from federal agencies speaks volumes, casting doubt on their ability to ensure public safety.
Ultimately, the consequences of July 13 extend beyond the physical threat to individuals. They reveal a deep institutional failure that intertwines political discomfort with national security. The American people deserve answers and action to prevent future tragedies—no matter how uncomfortable the truths may be.
"*" indicates required fields
